Remember when Herman Cain ( oh, wait, aren't we supposed to call him Herm or Herb now? ) said he would get no less than a third of the black vote?
Let's all watch as that vote magically disappears right before your eyes.
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.
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.
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".
I bet Cain's foot tastes like Godfather's Deep Dish Pepperoni.
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNN. Show all posts
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Friday, February 4, 2011
Faith Based Attacks
In which the Obama is a scary, black, Muslim meme continues:
And while the Wikipedia entry references Obama Sr.'s father as a Muslim, it clearly states that Barack Obama's father was an "atheist". A man who was born into a mixed Christian/Muslim family, mind you.
But the dishonest nature of the reactionary Right doesn't end their, as it seems that simply because you are born into a family that practices a particular religion that you are somehow magically imbued with those same set of beliefs.
Having grown up in a Christian family ( Methodist/Southern Baptist ) I never fully agreed with those Biblical teachings - as they are rarely, if ever, put into practice - and to this day do not consider myself a Christian. Acceptance of a particular theology is a "choice", not something that is thrust upon you at birth.
The full transcript of Obama's address to the Prayer Breakfast can be found here.
The modern American Right seem to be tilting more and more towards a desire for Theocratic Rule rather than a Democracy that accepts all religious beliefs and does not deny anyone the free practice thereof. And regardless of when and where Obama goes to church, where and what and why he prays, the reactionary Right in America are going to find a way to claim their own religious superiority to him. I find a rather delicious irony in all of this actually, considering how those that allegedly practice the teaching of Holy text are more than willing to "judge" another person.
Is there anything this man won’t do to pander for votes?
Barack Obama today lied at the National Prayer Breakfast and covered up his father’s Muslim faith.
CNN posted the transcript:This may come as a surprise, for as some of you know, I did not come from a particularly religious family. My father, who I barely knew – I only met once for a month in my entire life – was said to be a non-believer throughout his life.
Of course, this is not true.
Obama’s father Barack Obama, Sr. was a Muslim and it even lists him as a Muslim on his Wikepedia page.
And while the Wikipedia entry references Obama Sr.'s father as a Muslim, it clearly states that Barack Obama's father was an "atheist". A man who was born into a mixed Christian/Muslim family, mind you.
But the dishonest nature of the reactionary Right doesn't end their, as it seems that simply because you are born into a family that practices a particular religion that you are somehow magically imbued with those same set of beliefs.
Having grown up in a Christian family ( Methodist/Southern Baptist ) I never fully agreed with those Biblical teachings - as they are rarely, if ever, put into practice - and to this day do not consider myself a Christian. Acceptance of a particular theology is a "choice", not something that is thrust upon you at birth.
The full transcript of Obama's address to the Prayer Breakfast can be found here.
The modern American Right seem to be tilting more and more towards a desire for Theocratic Rule rather than a Democracy that accepts all religious beliefs and does not deny anyone the free practice thereof. And regardless of when and where Obama goes to church, where and what and why he prays, the reactionary Right in America are going to find a way to claim their own religious superiority to him. I find a rather delicious irony in all of this actually, considering how those that allegedly practice the teaching of Holy text are more than willing to "judge" another person.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Conservative Minor League
Looks like John Roberts is getting "called up" from CNN to join Fox"News".
No, really....
While Roberts had the ability to be a straight news reporter and leave his bias behind on virtually every occasion, one has to wonder why Fox would consider him for a "senior correspondent" position, as Fox's desire for ratings trumps their need for accuracy and honesty since Roberts' show "American Morning" had a massive decline in viewership over the last year.
What's the angle being played here? You know there has to be one.
One has but to look at CNN's recent history and you'll notice that they are giving a complete pass to conservative's hyperbolic rhetoric and generally ignoring any opportunity to hold those same people accountable.
Hell, they hired right-wing reactionary hack Erick Erickson for fuck sake.
Is Roberts going to be used as a pawn in the "people are fleeing liberal media outlets" meme that will surely be bolstered from this? More than likely, yes.
There is most certainly a bizarre logic behind this job placement that will ultimately only benefit those that write the talking points memos for Fox on-air personalities and the top executives - as there will likely be enough John King supporters out there that will tune in to see his first "field reports" to see how he differs from his CNN persona.
And that ultimately begs the question, doesn't it - is John King going to be a new man of his own desire once within the confines of Fox"News" payroll or his he going to be told that he has to be one?
No, really....
Former CNN “American Morning” anchor John Roberts is expected to join FOX News Channel as a senior national correspondent, based in Atlanta.
He will be reporting on major domestic and international stories for the network.
In December, CNN announced that Roberts would be departing “American Morning,” and would instead be moving to the network’s Atlanta headquarters to be closer to his fiancee, CNN dayside anchor Kyra Phillips.
While Roberts will be in Atlanta, he will not be with CNN.
While Roberts had the ability to be a straight news reporter and leave his bias behind on virtually every occasion, one has to wonder why Fox would consider him for a "senior correspondent" position, as Fox's desire for ratings trumps their need for accuracy and honesty since Roberts' show "American Morning" had a massive decline in viewership over the last year.
What's the angle being played here? You know there has to be one.
One has but to look at CNN's recent history and you'll notice that they are giving a complete pass to conservative's hyperbolic rhetoric and generally ignoring any opportunity to hold those same people accountable.
Hell, they hired right-wing reactionary hack Erick Erickson for fuck sake.
Is Roberts going to be used as a pawn in the "people are fleeing liberal media outlets" meme that will surely be bolstered from this? More than likely, yes.
There is most certainly a bizarre logic behind this job placement that will ultimately only benefit those that write the talking points memos for Fox on-air personalities and the top executives - as there will likely be enough John King supporters out there that will tune in to see his first "field reports" to see how he differs from his CNN persona.
And that ultimately begs the question, doesn't it - is John King going to be a new man of his own desire once within the confines of Fox"News" payroll or his he going to be told that he has to be one?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Palin Is Like Reagan?
Well.......
You'll notice that McCain, immediately after comparing the two, isn't so eager to say "yes" but is more than willing to call her a "force". So "mavericky" of him, isn't it.
But look for more people in the modern conservative movement to equate the person who can't hardly finish a task her constituency has charged her to with the man who is essentially the conservative version of Jesus. Although, Reagan did offer amnesty to illegal immigrants, tuck tail and run from a terrorist attack on American troops, engage in "back room deals" with terrorists, fund both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, have less than honest dealings with releasing the Iran hostages, have almost literally nothing to do with the emerging AIDS crisis in America until it was literally too late, preside over a massive increase in poverty and homelessness, and see the national debt almost literally explode into massive purport ions.
Is that whom Sarah Palin wants to be equated with?
You'll notice that McCain, immediately after comparing the two, isn't so eager to say "yes" but is more than willing to call her a "force". So "mavericky" of him, isn't it.
But look for more people in the modern conservative movement to equate the person who can't hardly finish a task her constituency has charged her to with the man who is essentially the conservative version of Jesus. Although, Reagan did offer amnesty to illegal immigrants, tuck tail and run from a terrorist attack on American troops, engage in "back room deals" with terrorists, fund both sides of the Iraq/Iran war, have less than honest dealings with releasing the Iran hostages, have almost literally nothing to do with the emerging AIDS crisis in America until it was literally too late, preside over a massive increase in poverty and homelessness, and see the national debt almost literally explode into massive purport ions.
Is that whom Sarah Palin wants to be equated with?
Monday, November 22, 2010
The Wrench In The Works
While the modern conservative movement is more than happy to indulge in conspiracy theories regarding Obama's birth, his upbringing, his religion, his family, where and what he studied in school, as well as his behavior as president, it appears that conservatives are more than willing to mock a theory that is more grounded in reality than they might be willing to accept.
And even though I can almost come to somewhat of a moderate understanding with the skepticism from the modern conservative movement in regards to this theorem, one has to but look at the economic realities in our country, coupled with how the "anti-business" rhetoric from the Right doesn't quite mesh with the numbers conservatives claim to hold dear.
- Corporate profits increase in 2010
- The Dow surges upward in 2010
- Despite conservative claims, the Economic Stimulus was a success according to the CBO.
Those three things alone - for me at least - show that the conservative narrative and the reality of our current economic realm simply do not mesh.
the paranoia meter swung fully into the red when Steve Benen teamed up with Matt Yglesias to explain one current phenomenon to a public thirsty for answers. You see, Republicans are currently working on further trashing the United States economy and driving us into a depression so that Barack Obama won’t win reelection in 2012.
And even though I can almost come to somewhat of a moderate understanding with the skepticism from the modern conservative movement in regards to this theorem, one has to but look at the economic realities in our country, coupled with how the "anti-business" rhetoric from the Right doesn't quite mesh with the numbers conservatives claim to hold dear.
- Corporate profits increase in 2010
- The Dow surges upward in 2010
- Despite conservative claims, the Economic Stimulus was a success according to the CBO.
Those three things alone - for me at least - show that the conservative narrative and the reality of our current economic realm simply do not mesh.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Defense Mechanisms
With the Angle/Reid and O'Donnell/Coons debates complete, isn't it great fun watching the entire modern conservative movement literally falling over themselves to find just one aspect of how these completely off-the-rails amateurs bested their opponents?
Allahpundit at Hot Air references the single line from Gloria Borger that virtually every conservative in the country was repeating the following day regarding Coon's apparent demeanor:
And while followers of the overly peddled "body language" metric are taking this completely at face value, I would argue that Coons showed more disinterest in O'Donnell's presentation of her "argument" rather than revealing to the audience his contempt of her as a person.
But that line just isn't going to drive up your audience share on your next program on Fox"News", is it?
Where Coons fell short - actually REALLY short - was his explanation of the "bearded-Marxist" line, which conservatives continue to fall back on like it's actually a credible piece of evidence against his candidacy.
Rather than explaining how this satirical approach to his political leanings was used in his writings, he relied on the "ah, I was only kidding" defense, which really isn't much of one.
That aside, I'm quite certain that O'Donnell - like most within the Tea Bagger movement - don't really know what a Marxist is, only that it sounds scary and creates the illusion that you have more validity to your side of any particular issue. Kind of like conservatives screaming about the "Constitutionality" of just about everything Democrats have doing and will do. Rather reminds me of a Micheal Bay film - all special effects and no plot at all.
And then there was Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.
Quite literally the only aspect of Angle's performance - or lack thereof - that conservatives are using for her defense is nothing more than childish taunting. But then again, that is their stock-in-trade.
Malkin's Monday morning quarter-backing of Angle's performance is truly something to marvel at:
One could almost sense the collective "face-palm" of High School debate coaches shivering at the thought of the back and forth at competitions resorting to nothing more than "you man up!", "no, YOU man up!"
This is what the Tea Baggers have done to the intellectual process of debate - reduced it to nothing more than a "you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny" blabber-fest. Then again, conservatives are embracing the idea that you don't need higher education or experience to make your country a better place.
I will say this of Reid, he was - and is, really - too stiff and didn't really take it to Angle like he should have. Perhaps his confidence that he's going to win is showing just a little too much. But if he had been tougher on her, I'm sure the conservative narrative would have shifted from Angle being more effective in her responses to her being bullied. And I'm sure the sexist meme wouldn't have been too far behind.
Both debates were predictable and just a little more than disappointing to watch at times. I'm sure that both sides of the political aisle can agree on that aspect. But from a realistic standpoint, Coons was the clear winner on his night and Reid seemed to just be treading water. The later, to me at least, didn't have a clear winner and that fault falls directly at Reids feet.
What I will say is this - if Delaware elects O'Donnell and Nevada elects Angle, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Anyone recall the last time you heard a conservative shout from the mountaintops about the incredible, patriotic, pro-American job Scott Brown is doing?
Allahpundit at Hot Air references the single line from Gloria Borger that virtually every conservative in the country was repeating the following day regarding Coon's apparent demeanor:
Coons can can barely contain his disdain for his opponent.
And while followers of the overly peddled "body language" metric are taking this completely at face value, I would argue that Coons showed more disinterest in O'Donnell's presentation of her "argument" rather than revealing to the audience his contempt of her as a person.
But that line just isn't going to drive up your audience share on your next program on Fox"News", is it?
Where Coons fell short - actually REALLY short - was his explanation of the "bearded-Marxist" line, which conservatives continue to fall back on like it's actually a credible piece of evidence against his candidacy.
Rather than explaining how this satirical approach to his political leanings was used in his writings, he relied on the "ah, I was only kidding" defense, which really isn't much of one.
That aside, I'm quite certain that O'Donnell - like most within the Tea Bagger movement - don't really know what a Marxist is, only that it sounds scary and creates the illusion that you have more validity to your side of any particular issue. Kind of like conservatives screaming about the "Constitutionality" of just about everything Democrats have doing and will do. Rather reminds me of a Micheal Bay film - all special effects and no plot at all.
And then there was Sharron Angle and Harry Reid.
Quite literally the only aspect of Angle's performance - or lack thereof - that conservatives are using for her defense is nothing more than childish taunting. But then again, that is their stock-in-trade.
Malkin's Monday morning quarter-backing of Angle's performance is truly something to marvel at:
In style and substance, Lady in Red Sharron Angle trounced the four-term Democrat Senate incumbent and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at tonight’s Las Vegas debate.
And in the quotable quote of the night, Angle pricked Reid’s delusions about the teetering Social Security system with two terse words:
“Man up.”
Angle smiled, channeling Reagan’s warrior optimism, and asked for Nevadans’ votes to restore prosperity and freedom and American exceptionalism. Without notes.
One could almost sense the collective "face-palm" of High School debate coaches shivering at the thought of the back and forth at competitions resorting to nothing more than "you man up!", "no, YOU man up!"
This is what the Tea Baggers have done to the intellectual process of debate - reduced it to nothing more than a "you're ugly and your momma dresses you funny" blabber-fest. Then again, conservatives are embracing the idea that you don't need higher education or experience to make your country a better place.
I will say this of Reid, he was - and is, really - too stiff and didn't really take it to Angle like he should have. Perhaps his confidence that he's going to win is showing just a little too much. But if he had been tougher on her, I'm sure the conservative narrative would have shifted from Angle being more effective in her responses to her being bullied. And I'm sure the sexist meme wouldn't have been too far behind.
Both debates were predictable and just a little more than disappointing to watch at times. I'm sure that both sides of the political aisle can agree on that aspect. But from a realistic standpoint, Coons was the clear winner on his night and Reid seemed to just be treading water. The later, to me at least, didn't have a clear winner and that fault falls directly at Reids feet.
What I will say is this - if Delaware elects O'Donnell and Nevada elects Angle, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Anyone recall the last time you heard a conservative shout from the mountaintops about the incredible, patriotic, pro-American job Scott Brown is doing?
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Pregame Jitters?
In which Angle claims she will be a "mainstream" Senator, immediately after she claimed she "doesn't know what that means" when asked if she'd be a "Tea Party" Senator.
And while the reporting on Angle's continued positions is - both controversial and downright idiotic - there is one thing that is missing from it all.
Sharon Angle, and all those that identify with her ideology, have somehow become a more extreme and mutated version of those they once decried as "unhinged" or suffering from some "derangement syndrome". This is their new mainstream; a gathering of people that skirt the very limits of sanity. Their new mainstream is openly attempting to rewrite history, to "re-educate" the easily lead masses into a mindset that the government has suddenly turned on it's own people.
But what if Angle is finally becoming aware of the fact that she is so far in that she has to keep up the facade until she gets into office. Then she will all bust disappear from the national conversation after he first few votes are not seen in line with the group that swept her into office. You know, like Scott Brown did.
And while the reporting on Angle's continued positions is - both controversial and downright idiotic - there is one thing that is missing from it all.
Sharon Angle, and all those that identify with her ideology, have somehow become a more extreme and mutated version of those they once decried as "unhinged" or suffering from some "derangement syndrome". This is their new mainstream; a gathering of people that skirt the very limits of sanity. Their new mainstream is openly attempting to rewrite history, to "re-educate" the easily lead masses into a mindset that the government has suddenly turned on it's own people.
But what if Angle is finally becoming aware of the fact that she is so far in that she has to keep up the facade until she gets into office. Then she will all bust disappear from the national conversation after he first few votes are not seen in line with the group that swept her into office. You know, like Scott Brown did.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Past Is Off Limits For Some
Anyone recall how often conservatives speculated, fabricated, and postulated about Barack Obama's past? Of course you do. But guess what happens when a widely recognized publication reports on Rand Paul's alleged college escapades?...............
FOX"NEWS" TO THE RESCUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
But it's not just Fox"News" that is attempting to push this story aside. It's their affiliate website and HotAir ( and I'm going to address the video at the end of HotAir's post tomorrow ).
These two voices alone will frame the conservative media narrative for days on end. These two places alone can forcefully push a storyline that is not only specious, but completely preposterous. But this storyline is going to ultimately backfire on them, as they were more than willing to claim questionable and/or false allegations around Barack Obama were fact. Was this reported on? Yes, it was.
Let's take a look here, here, here, here, here, and many more places.
Most of these were claims that Obama was initially supported by domestic terrorists. This was the meme that was carried by Fox"News" and their water-carrying, knuckle-dragging, constituency for months and months and is still being perpetuated. I could go on with this portion of my post for some time, but it's been discussed enough.
The bottom line is that while Rand Paul likely engaged in some crazy escapades in college - like many people do - the very fact that the claims against him ( as of now ) are equally as specious as Obama "palling around with terrorists", the defense that a fucking eye doctor is getting that the goddamned President of the United States ISN"T GETTING should say something about the state of the conservative movement.
FOX"NEWS" TO THE RESCUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
But it's not just Fox"News" that is attempting to push this story aside. It's their affiliate website and HotAir ( and I'm going to address the video at the end of HotAir's post tomorrow ).
These two voices alone will frame the conservative media narrative for days on end. These two places alone can forcefully push a storyline that is not only specious, but completely preposterous. But this storyline is going to ultimately backfire on them, as they were more than willing to claim questionable and/or false allegations around Barack Obama were fact. Was this reported on? Yes, it was.
Let's take a look here, here, here, here, here, and many more places.
Most of these were claims that Obama was initially supported by domestic terrorists. This was the meme that was carried by Fox"News" and their water-carrying, knuckle-dragging, constituency for months and months and is still being perpetuated. I could go on with this portion of my post for some time, but it's been discussed enough.
The bottom line is that while Rand Paul likely engaged in some crazy escapades in college - like many people do - the very fact that the claims against him ( as of now ) are equally as specious as Obama "palling around with terrorists", the defense that a fucking eye doctor is getting that the goddamned President of the United States ISN"T GETTING should say something about the state of the conservative movement.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Paging Andrew Breitbart
I'm really trying to hold myself back from saying "pwned", but it sure seems that way.
The rebuttal from Breitbart should be interesting, if he even has the sand to do so.
UPDATE
And Rick Sanchez interviews the couple.
The accusations of racism "don't make sense"
The rebuttal from Breitbart should be interesting, if he even has the sand to do so.
UPDATE
And Rick Sanchez interviews the couple.
The accusations of racism "don't make sense"
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Laura Comes Out
.....in favor of gay rights? Really?
This is just plain odd to me. Here is the woman that is married to the former President that was hell bent on amending the Constitution in order to deny American's their civil rights simply because they "aren't like most people". Why couldn't she have mentioned this back in 2004? Likely that she was muzzled by her husband and her handlers. If she had "come out" with her beliefs back then it would likely have spelled trouble for Bush's re-election bid. I'm not going to say he wouldn't have been, but this would have really angered the religious zealots that helped get him a second term in office.
So what angle is she playing with this now?
This is just plain odd to me. Here is the woman that is married to the former President that was hell bent on amending the Constitution in order to deny American's their civil rights simply because they "aren't like most people". Why couldn't she have mentioned this back in 2004? Likely that she was muzzled by her husband and her handlers. If she had "come out" with her beliefs back then it would likely have spelled trouble for Bush's re-election bid. I'm not going to say he wouldn't have been, but this would have really angered the religious zealots that helped get him a second term in office.
So what angle is she playing with this now?
Friday, May 7, 2010
Endorsing The Opposition
Remember Tea Baggers, she said you have to pick a side.
That's right, she's not endorsing the Tea Bagger candidate. You're shocked, I'm sure. But her support isn't without it's detractors.
Ultimately, Palin can do no wrong with a majority of conservatives. It's their lemming nature to blindly follow a person like her. Again, the "pretty popular girl" image translates into unflinching adoration within the Tea Bagger movement. The Tea Baggers will never admit this, but it is the establishment Republicans that they will ultimately end up voting for - this whole "we hate both parties" meme is just a poorly constructed distraction.
I’d like to tell you about a Commonsense Conservative running for office in California this year. She grew up in a modest home with a school teacher dad, worked her way through several colleges, and then entered an arena where few women had tread. Through a combination of hard work, perseverance, and common sense, she proved the naysayers wrong to reach the top of her field, where she led with distinction – facing hard truths, making tough decisions, and showing real leadership through a rocky transition period. Where others had failed, her company had weathered the storm and settled on a stronger new foundation.
Her name is Carly Fiorina, and I’m proud to endorse her for U.S. Senate.
That's right, she's not endorsing the Tea Bagger candidate. You're shocked, I'm sure. But her support isn't without it's detractors.
After Palin announced the endorsement on her Facebook page, a number of her followers questioned why she would side with Fiorina instead of the more conservative candidate in the race, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.
DeVore has the backing of several leading voices in the conservative movement, including Sen. Jim DeMint, RedState.com editor Erick Erickson and the Tea Party Express.
Though a handful of readers agreed with Palin's decision, most were upset.
Ultimately, Palin can do no wrong with a majority of conservatives. It's their lemming nature to blindly follow a person like her. Again, the "pretty popular girl" image translates into unflinching adoration within the Tea Bagger movement. The Tea Baggers will never admit this, but it is the establishment Republicans that they will ultimately end up voting for - this whole "we hate both parties" meme is just a poorly constructed distraction.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The Power Of Prayer
Here's why Christopher Hitchen's knows his stuff.
I'm not a particularly religious person, though I do still attend church on occasion just out of pure curiosity, so this topic really intrigued me.
Hitchens is unblushing in his beliefs ( or lack thereof ) while Perkins is a classic conservative Christian - loves only select parts of the Bible and shows abject ignorance to the Constitution and the very real and well documented history of the Founding Fathers. As a friend of mine once mentioned - can any conservative tell you where Thomas Jefferson went to church?
I do, however, have to offer this one caveat. No one is forced to pray, as it's completely voluntary. But it's easy to that this does step on religious freedoms enough to violate the Constitution. As Hitchens rightly pointed out, what about other days of religious prayer? This isn't a strictly "Christian" nation, it's a nation that was designed to be accepting of all religions.
I'm not a particularly religious person, though I do still attend church on occasion just out of pure curiosity, so this topic really intrigued me.
Hitchens is unblushing in his beliefs ( or lack thereof ) while Perkins is a classic conservative Christian - loves only select parts of the Bible and shows abject ignorance to the Constitution and the very real and well documented history of the Founding Fathers. As a friend of mine once mentioned - can any conservative tell you where Thomas Jefferson went to church?
I do, however, have to offer this one caveat. No one is forced to pray, as it's completely voluntary. But it's easy to that this does step on religious freedoms enough to violate the Constitution. As Hitchens rightly pointed out, what about other days of religious prayer? This isn't a strictly "Christian" nation, it's a nation that was designed to be accepting of all religions.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Conservative History
The whitewashing of American history continues.
This very idea that conservatives aren't willing to recognize the sum total of American history is nothing new. We've recently seen Thomas Jefferson quite literally removed from history books that are being re-written by the Texas Board Of Education, so it's rather logical ( if looking at this from a conservative perspective ) they they remove slavery from any historical celebration.
Now, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to "celebrate" the South's point of view during the Civil War, but I do think if you're going to have a month where their actions are recognized, you ought to recognize them all. That includes slavery.
This very idea that conservatives aren't willing to recognize the sum total of American history is nothing new. We've recently seen Thomas Jefferson quite literally removed from history books that are being re-written by the Texas Board Of Education, so it's rather logical ( if looking at this from a conservative perspective ) they they remove slavery from any historical celebration.
Now, I'm not entirely sure why anyone would want to "celebrate" the South's point of view during the Civil War, but I do think if you're going to have a month where their actions are recognized, you ought to recognize them all. That includes slavery.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Breitbarts Blubbery Rage : Part 7432
Is that the chick from China Beach in the lower right-hand corner? Who is that?
Well, nevermind her.
Let's take a look at a couple of things Breitbart is blubbering about.
First off, has anyone notice that Saul Alinsky was never a concern of the conservative movement until Obama pretty much had the election clinched in 2008? I can't recall one instance in the years prior hearing Fox"News" or conservative bloggers or beltway pundits talking about him. Seems there's a great deal of projection going on in that regard.
Secondly, justifying racial animus by claiming that it's not you but THEM that are propagating it does seem a bit typical and predictable. After all, having seen people like this and seeing signs like this, you do tend to be skeptical of the claim that there are no racist amongst the Tea Baggers.
This very idea that people like Breitbart are not admitting the obvious and not distancing themselves from this hate speech and racial divisiveness, that they think by not having a sense of accountability - something that conservatives continually preach but completely fail in on a daily basis, they can say whatever they want and get away with it. This isn't just about Fox"News" - the PR arm of the Tea Bagger movement - but the media at large ( save a few select members ) are not taking conservatives to task and demanding that conservatives explain why they are allowing racial hate speech to continue.
I guess it's ok to denounce "truthers" within the movement but not racists.
Well, nevermind her.
Let's take a look at a couple of things Breitbart is blubbering about.
First off, has anyone notice that Saul Alinsky was never a concern of the conservative movement until Obama pretty much had the election clinched in 2008? I can't recall one instance in the years prior hearing Fox"News" or conservative bloggers or beltway pundits talking about him. Seems there's a great deal of projection going on in that regard.
Secondly, justifying racial animus by claiming that it's not you but THEM that are propagating it does seem a bit typical and predictable. After all, having seen people like this and seeing signs like this, you do tend to be skeptical of the claim that there are no racist amongst the Tea Baggers.
This very idea that people like Breitbart are not admitting the obvious and not distancing themselves from this hate speech and racial divisiveness, that they think by not having a sense of accountability - something that conservatives continually preach but completely fail in on a daily basis, they can say whatever they want and get away with it. This isn't just about Fox"News" - the PR arm of the Tea Bagger movement - but the media at large ( save a few select members ) are not taking conservatives to task and demanding that conservatives explain why they are allowing racial hate speech to continue.
I guess it's ok to denounce "truthers" within the movement but not racists.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Pay Attention To Mother
Seems that Gregory Giusti's mother doesn't think Fox"News" has the best interest of America at heart.
The charges against Giusti will be revealed in court today, so this will likely be a big story across the internet. To the accusations that he was a Tea Bagger - those haven't been verified yet, but we'll see.
But the broader view of this story is that now since his mother has spoken out about Fox"News", we are likely to hear people like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh dive headlong into the shallow end of the pool in order to defame, denigrate, and smear this lady with every ounce of their being. Then again, they could ignore it, like they do when people rightly point out how their hatred and anger go too far.
The charges against Giusti will be revealed in court today, so this will likely be a big story across the internet. To the accusations that he was a Tea Bagger - those haven't been verified yet, but we'll see.
But the broader view of this story is that now since his mother has spoken out about Fox"News", we are likely to hear people like Beck, Hannity, and Limbaugh dive headlong into the shallow end of the pool in order to defame, denigrate, and smear this lady with every ounce of their being. Then again, they could ignore it, like they do when people rightly point out how their hatred and anger go too far.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Contextual Conservativism
How can this suddenly be misconstrued
That's precisely what Erickson's not so carefully planned spin is on this - the good old "context" argument.
I'll pass on the "advocating for the killing of the unborn" schtick, as that it hardly grounded in any form of reality.
Does anyone remember how O'Reilly used his "context" argument when trying to defend his racially ignorant prattling regarding Sylvia's restaurant? That didn't work out so well, did it?
Erickson's "you kidz get off muh propurtee" speech does tend to prove that he isn't quite ready for his job as a political pundit on one of the most well known news networks in the world. Does he seriously believe that advocating the use of weapons against a census worker has no consequences?
Is Erickson going to be doing his best Hannibal impersonation soon?
That's precisely what Erickson's not so carefully planned spin is on this - the good old "context" argument.
In response to criticism, CNN's Erick Erickson is claiming that liberals are "misconstruing" his remark about pulling out a shotgun if the government tries to arrest him for not filling out the American Community Survey. Erickson also lashed out at "people" who "linger on every word I say" by stating: "You people are nuts. Absolute nuts. Where do you get off misconstruing that I'm agitating for killing Census workers when you people are out there advocating for the killing of the unborn on a regular basis. You have no shame."
I'll pass on the "advocating for the killing of the unborn" schtick, as that it hardly grounded in any form of reality.
Does anyone remember how O'Reilly used his "context" argument when trying to defend his racially ignorant prattling regarding Sylvia's restaurant? That didn't work out so well, did it?
Erickson's "you kidz get off muh propurtee" speech does tend to prove that he isn't quite ready for his job as a political pundit on one of the most well known news networks in the world. Does he seriously believe that advocating the use of weapons against a census worker has no consequences?
Is Erickson going to be doing his best Hannibal impersonation soon?
Sunday, April 4, 2010
From The Book Of Beck
Having taken a few days off due to suffering through a rather painful chest infection, I'm ready to make a come-back and do my part for Blog Against Theocracy. I'm certainly pushing the deadline, but here we go anyway.
-------------------------
In many ways, Glenn Beck is the fringe Right's new theological scholar, their preacher, their "savior" - in more ways than one, mind you.
It's almost as if he is seen as the "second coming" to many within the Tea Bagger movement. Sure, it can be stated that they aren't an official religion, but consider this - many of them ascribe to the 9 Principles and 12 Values that Beck brought down from his Fox"News" constructed Mt. Sinai he stands atop every evening at 5pm EST. One is more likely to see and hear people at Tea Bagger gatherings laud his accomplishments and his ideals. In reality, these alleged conservatives are practically violating the religious Commandment that states "Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me".
But what does Beck really know of values, principles, or even religion itself?
Recently, Beck has been speaking on his program about how Rev. Jim Wallace of Sojourners has attacked him, called him names, berated him because he told people to leave their churches if they preached "social" or "economic justice".
Since Beck links himself directly to the Tea Baggers, and has quite literally fostered much of the ignorance, hatred, and vitriol we are seeing from within that group, he seems to embrace this mantel of "conservative savior" with bravado and a sense of megalomania that would make Bill O'Reilly blush.
But let's consider how conservatives like Beck have contorted the stories within the Bible about Jesus, about his teachings, his philosophies. Certainly, this is not a new tactic for the fringe Right, as they did their best to use a portion of one sermon from Jeremiah Wright in order to create this illusion that he was actually some demonic figure.
Then again, isn't that how religion works? The Southern Baptists castigate the Catholics for their style of worship and connection with Jesus. And all traditional Christians see the Mormons ( of which Beck is a member ) as being people that have molested religion in order to justify their down ideology. So then, should anyone be surprised that Beck and his Tea Bagger followers not once mention the teachings of Christ, of his charity and promotion of good will when they are railing against healthcare reform? Has anyone else noticed that - a glorious absence of "Christ-like behavior" in literally every anti-Obama rally?
This is the new religion of conservatives. This is the new gospel to which they ascribe. Glenn Beck is attempting to distort the Bible and all the teachings of Jesus ( as most of us who grew up in a religious home were taught to see them ) in order to prove what? What is he attempting to show? How is assisting your fellow man so wrong?
Think about the story of the crowd that Jesus fed with one boys lunch of a loaf of bread and two fishes. Is that not a perfect example of redistribution?
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do know when people use religion as a weapon against the greater good. Glenn Beck holds more power right now within conservative circles than the church - period. You are more likely to hear talk of his Alex Jones like theories regarding this country, our alleged values, and a blatantly revisionist portrayal of history than you are to how conservatives believe in how God and country are linked. This is a very dangerous concept.
Though they are not intrinsically linked, conservatives have literally began rewriting The Bible. Beck espouses the ideal that rewriting the history of a nation, of individuals, or religious scripture, is now a new pillar of conservative thought. He too is rewriting Biblical history. If one is to believe that teachings of Jesus Christ - of faith, hope, and charity - how can you call yourself conservatives and literally wave flags extolling your adoration for Glenn Beck.
This is the new theocracy within the conservative movement. Glenn Beck is their Jesus. Fox"News" is their Bible.
-------------------------
In many ways, Glenn Beck is the fringe Right's new theological scholar, their preacher, their "savior" - in more ways than one, mind you.
It's almost as if he is seen as the "second coming" to many within the Tea Bagger movement. Sure, it can be stated that they aren't an official religion, but consider this - many of them ascribe to the 9 Principles and 12 Values that Beck brought down from his Fox"News" constructed Mt. Sinai he stands atop every evening at 5pm EST. One is more likely to see and hear people at Tea Bagger gatherings laud his accomplishments and his ideals. In reality, these alleged conservatives are practically violating the religious Commandment that states "Thou Shalt Have No Gods Before Me".
But what does Beck really know of values, principles, or even religion itself?
Recently, Beck has been speaking on his program about how Rev. Jim Wallace of Sojourners has attacked him, called him names, berated him because he told people to leave their churches if they preached "social" or "economic justice".
Since Beck links himself directly to the Tea Baggers, and has quite literally fostered much of the ignorance, hatred, and vitriol we are seeing from within that group, he seems to embrace this mantel of "conservative savior" with bravado and a sense of megalomania that would make Bill O'Reilly blush.
But let's consider how conservatives like Beck have contorted the stories within the Bible about Jesus, about his teachings, his philosophies. Certainly, this is not a new tactic for the fringe Right, as they did their best to use a portion of one sermon from Jeremiah Wright in order to create this illusion that he was actually some demonic figure.
Then again, isn't that how religion works? The Southern Baptists castigate the Catholics for their style of worship and connection with Jesus. And all traditional Christians see the Mormons ( of which Beck is a member ) as being people that have molested religion in order to justify their down ideology. So then, should anyone be surprised that Beck and his Tea Bagger followers not once mention the teachings of Christ, of his charity and promotion of good will when they are railing against healthcare reform? Has anyone else noticed that - a glorious absence of "Christ-like behavior" in literally every anti-Obama rally?
This is the new religion of conservatives. This is the new gospel to which they ascribe. Glenn Beck is attempting to distort the Bible and all the teachings of Jesus ( as most of us who grew up in a religious home were taught to see them ) in order to prove what? What is he attempting to show? How is assisting your fellow man so wrong?
Think about the story of the crowd that Jesus fed with one boys lunch of a loaf of bread and two fishes. Is that not a perfect example of redistribution?
I'm not a particularly religious person, but I do know when people use religion as a weapon against the greater good. Glenn Beck holds more power right now within conservative circles than the church - period. You are more likely to hear talk of his Alex Jones like theories regarding this country, our alleged values, and a blatantly revisionist portrayal of history than you are to how conservatives believe in how God and country are linked. This is a very dangerous concept.
Though they are not intrinsically linked, conservatives have literally began rewriting The Bible. Beck espouses the ideal that rewriting the history of a nation, of individuals, or religious scripture, is now a new pillar of conservative thought. He too is rewriting Biblical history. If one is to believe that teachings of Jesus Christ - of faith, hope, and charity - how can you call yourself conservatives and literally wave flags extolling your adoration for Glenn Beck.
This is the new theocracy within the conservative movement. Glenn Beck is their Jesus. Fox"News" is their Bible.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Defending The Church
I knew it wouldn't take long for religious zealot and lunatic-fringe "Catholic" prattle-head Bill Donohue to respond to the recent revelation that The Pope is implicated in a cover-up of the sexual assault of deaf children.
I'm guessing Donohue must have been in a coma when females teachers are arrested for sexual assault on their students, as it was highly publicized and was a major topic of discussion within the conservative realm.
No. The church would have been seen as taking a very harsh, and moral, stance against the molestation and rape of children. From not only my perspective, but that of a plurality of people within both the religious and secular worlds, but the Catholic church has a rich and storied tradition of protecting those that have sexually assaulted children.
No one is foolish enough to believe that simply having a pedophile recline back on a couch and tell his life story to a psychiatrist is going to prevent this from ever happening again. So to essentially claim that it is the fault of the behavioral sciences field - in essence claiming you were duped into letting these priests to stick around - is further proof that the Catholic Church lacks that ability to take responsibility for their membership.
Donohue, more so in this piece than just about anything else he's ever written or spoke, is basically telling everyone that the Catholic Church should not be put under any type of scrutiny. He wants you to laud the accomplishments of the church, but when it comes to something like sexual abuse, then we aren't supposed to speak of it. But we do, because the church ( and not just Catholics ) set themselves up as institutions of purity and spirituality.
Why is this man defending the molestation and rape of children?
The rash of stories about priestly sexual abuse in Europe, especially in Ireland and Germany, has put many Catholics on the defensive. They should not be. While sexual molestation of any kind is always indefensible, the politics surrounding this story is also indefensible.
Employers from every walk of life, in both the U.S. and Europe, have long handled cases of alleged sex abuse by employees as an internal matter. Rarely have employers called the cops, and none was required to do so.
I'm guessing Donohue must have been in a coma when females teachers are arrested for sexual assault on their students, as it was highly publicized and was a major topic of discussion within the conservative realm.
Why, for example, are the psychologists and psychiatrists who pledged to "fix" abusers treated so lightly? After all, employers from the corporate world to the Catholic Church were told over and over again that therapy works and to give the offender a second chance.
Indeed, the zeitgeist of the day was that rehabilitation not only works, it is virtuous. That such advice was wildly oversold can now be agreed upon by almost everyone, and that is precisely why it smacks of politics to deny how strongly held the rehabilitative ideal was. Had the Catholic Church simply tossed the offenders out, it would have been branded as heartless.
No. The church would have been seen as taking a very harsh, and moral, stance against the molestation and rape of children. From not only my perspective, but that of a plurality of people within both the religious and secular worlds, but the Catholic church has a rich and storied tradition of protecting those that have sexually assaulted children.
No one is foolish enough to believe that simply having a pedophile recline back on a couch and tell his life story to a psychiatrist is going to prevent this from ever happening again. So to essentially claim that it is the fault of the behavioral sciences field - in essence claiming you were duped into letting these priests to stick around - is further proof that the Catholic Church lacks that ability to take responsibility for their membership.
The hyper-concentration on the Catholic Church is not by accident. The Church preaches an ethic of sexual restraint -- a profoundly countercultural idea -- so when a priest fails, it's tempting to highlight it. Human nature being what it is, that's understandable. But it's also immoral. Quite frankly, if sexual abuse is wrong, it should not matter what the identity of the abuser is. Selective justice is the highest form of injustice.
Donohue, more so in this piece than just about anything else he's ever written or spoke, is basically telling everyone that the Catholic Church should not be put under any type of scrutiny. He wants you to laud the accomplishments of the church, but when it comes to something like sexual abuse, then we aren't supposed to speak of it. But we do, because the church ( and not just Catholics ) set themselves up as institutions of purity and spirituality.
Why is this man defending the molestation and rape of children?
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Eating Their Own
Earlier in the week, I posted about the Tea Bagger/Reid challenger candidate John Scott Ashjian's tax problems and how there would likely be some serious spin on this later.
Turns out I was right. And it's fairly unique in it's presentation.
And while conservatives have long used the "plant" meme within the context of townhall debates and speeches that show that Democrats are a little more in touch with the realities of America than their liberal/progressive counterparts, I don't think I've ever seen this kind of defense used against a candidate.
But there's a little more intrigue to this than one might get at first blush.
Are the Tea Baggers more afraid of splitting the GOP vote or Ashjian's tax problems coming to light? Is it both? I'm leaning on the later. And the only way that these people can reconcile this within the context of socio-political debate is to accuse him of being a Democrat, a spy, if you will.
I'm not entirely sure if they actually believe it themselves. After all, if a Tea Bagger shouts loudly enough that Obama is going to ban bass fishing or that churches are being taken over by pinko, commie, progressive, Nazis, it won't take long until the entire collective actually believes it.
Turns out I was right. And it's fairly unique in it's presentation.
Some [Republicans] are accusing Jon Scott Ashjian, a new Tea Party candidate running for U.S. Senate, of being a fake. The allegation? He was put in the race by agents of Senate Majority leader Harry Reid to siphon votes from the GOP.
"No doubt about it", says Danny Tarkanian, one of the many Republican senate candidates hoping to challenge Reid in November. "Nobody in the Tea Party knows who he is. He didn't know any of the principles of the Tea Party," Tarkanian tells CNN. He even accuses "Harry Reid's staff, campaign, whatever" of picking Ashjian because he's Armenian, as is Tarkanian. He explains, "They know the Armenians are very close they'll vote for each other."
And while conservatives have long used the "plant" meme within the context of townhall debates and speeches that show that Democrats are a little more in touch with the realities of America than their liberal/progressive counterparts, I don't think I've ever seen this kind of defense used against a candidate.
But there's a little more intrigue to this than one might get at first blush.
Sue Lowden, the Republican front-runner in the Senate primary according to recent polls, is the former Nevada Republican Party chair and seems to be the Republicans' best hope of unseating Harry Reid in November. Or at least she did, until Ashjian got into the race. Lowden says she's been very active with Tea Party groups in Nevada. "I am a Tea Party voter, absolutely." Which is why she tells us she finds it "a little strange" that Ashjian is emerging now. "I don't know who this person is. He's never been involved with anything that I'm aware of in this state." She doesn't know if he's a spoiler. "We'll find out for sure," she promises, adding "I've never seen him at one of our tea parties, by the way."
Its clear why Lowden and Tarkanian would be concerned. A recent poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal indicates Lowden and Tarkanian each beating Reid in one-on-one hypothetical general election matchups. But add a Tea Party candidate on the ballot and that siphons off enough conservative votes to give Reid a narrow victory. According to the survey Reid would grab 36 percent of the vote, the Republican candidate 32 percent and the Tea Party candidate 18 percent in a possible three way showdown.
Are the Tea Baggers more afraid of splitting the GOP vote or Ashjian's tax problems coming to light? Is it both? I'm leaning on the later. And the only way that these people can reconcile this within the context of socio-political debate is to accuse him of being a Democrat, a spy, if you will.
I'm not entirely sure if they actually believe it themselves. After all, if a Tea Bagger shouts loudly enough that Obama is going to ban bass fishing or that churches are being taken over by pinko, commie, progressive, Nazis, it won't take long until the entire collective actually believes it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
