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.Iran Strangely Cheered By US Secdef Nomination 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 past comes back to haunt you. 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.
Showing posts with label Crooks and Liars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crooks and Liars. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
What 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:
Iranian Regime Supports Hagel Nomiation For Sec. Of Defense
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Enjoy The Silence
In the continuing fight to stop H.R.#3, I'm wondering why the prominent female voices within the modern American Right are so silent.
We hear all this talk about "protecting our children" when it comes to taxes, but why is there complete and deafening silence in reference to the GOP/Tea Bagger representatives doing all they can to re-define rape and ultimately do much more?
The Queen Mother of the modern American Right, Sarah Palin, uses her children in every way she and her handlers can conceive. Her daughter is even out on the "no sex" circuit while someone is at home taking care of her toddler - and I'm guessing it's not Grandmama Grizzly, as she is too busy with her to-do list provided from her Fox"News" producers.
All that aside, why is Palin ignoring how this re-definition will harm women? The most likely reason is that it will not directly impact her, and more than likely just about all of the "top shelf" female voices of the modern American Right. Who it will harm are those that the Right refuses to acknowledge even exist, regardless of the legislation in question.
One can't but wonder what it's like to be a female who belongs to and champions a movement that has nothing but abject disdain for the choices of women regarding a variety of issues. No matter what a Republican voter will tell you, the last two groups of people whom are considered when votes are cast are women and minorities. And the sad reality is that there are far more women singing the praises of the modern American Right today than there were back when Bush was still occupying the White House.
Every woman who talks about the merits and "moral relevancy" of H.R. #3 should be challenged and questioned on why they would support such a draconian measure against a woman's very safety. Sadly, these questions will not come from the Right, as the constant chant is "tow the line, no matter who falters".
We hear all this talk about "protecting our children" when it comes to taxes, but why is there complete and deafening silence in reference to the GOP/Tea Bagger representatives doing all they can to re-define rape and ultimately do much more?
The Queen Mother of the modern American Right, Sarah Palin, uses her children in every way she and her handlers can conceive. Her daughter is even out on the "no sex" circuit while someone is at home taking care of her toddler - and I'm guessing it's not Grandmama Grizzly, as she is too busy with her to-do list provided from her Fox"News" producers.
All that aside, why is Palin ignoring how this re-definition will harm women? The most likely reason is that it will not directly impact her, and more than likely just about all of the "top shelf" female voices of the modern American Right. Who it will harm are those that the Right refuses to acknowledge even exist, regardless of the legislation in question.
One can't but wonder what it's like to be a female who belongs to and champions a movement that has nothing but abject disdain for the choices of women regarding a variety of issues. No matter what a Republican voter will tell you, the last two groups of people whom are considered when votes are cast are women and minorities. And the sad reality is that there are far more women singing the praises of the modern American Right today than there were back when Bush was still occupying the White House.
Every woman who talks about the merits and "moral relevancy" of H.R. #3 should be challenged and questioned on why they would support such a draconian measure against a woman's very safety. Sadly, these questions will not come from the Right, as the constant chant is "tow the line, no matter who falters".
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
The SCOTUS And The SOTU
With word having already been spread since last Fall that Justice Samuel Alito will opt out of attending tonight's State Of The Union, considering his clear violation of protocol and decorum expected from a sitting Supreme Court Justice as well as his childish actions in clear response to Obama's election, it's no surprise that the Right are once again going to bat for Alito as well as making a none to convincing case that a sitting President shouldn't question/warn of the far reaching implications of the "highest court in the land", especially in light of Scalia's own, and more recent, ethical infractions.
Here's the problem with this sort of logic - thinking that the Supreme Court is "non-partisan" and "non-political".
I'm not so naive to think that there are at least 3 liberal-leaning members on the SCOTUS, and the modern American Right would be wise to admit that the "activism" they so often decry has been more present in the SCOTUS over recent years, most widely recognized by the disastrous Citizen's United decision - which the above mentioned author tried none-to convincingly to minimize:
True, corporations have always been allowed to donate a "maximum" amount to political campaigns within a pre-determined time-frame, but that also disappeared with McCain/Feingold. Obama was right to question the decision - which fell clearly across partisan lines - but that only provided ammunition to further the specious and poorly structured claims of the Right that "The Fairness Doctrine" would be reinstated or that the Obama Administration intends on censoring "conservative speech". The only thing that Obama, the Left, and more than a handful of "centrist" and "independents" called for was "disclosure" - the ultimate victim of the Citizen's United case.
And here's where the continuation of the "Right Wing as perpetual victim" meme comes full circle. The only problem is that Alito was not called out by name, as Obama warned against what were the systemic risks of such a decision to allow undisclosed donors and unchecked amounts to be donated to ANY political figure - it was a clearly non-partisan statement that should have given the Right as much pause at it did the Left. And while there were the equivalency arguments put forth by members of the Right - that labor unions ( read: evil, far-left, mafia types ) were granted unlimited donation status because of this decision - the money and power is clearly more tilted to corporations with an unhinged Right Wing directive.
The question is ultimately if the SCOTUS should be present during a State of the Union speech. Naturally, and what should be clear to anyone within the modern American Right, is that it has always been about presenting the prime directives, initiatives, and successes of the administration in power, so having what should be a "non-partisan"/"non-political" judicial body present makes no sense at all, regardless of who occupies the White House. To me, it has always seemed like a contest of who can be the most stone-faced during the speech. Alito failed in that venture last year and was the sole person responsible for injecting himself into the debate over Citizen's United - NOT Barack Obama.
In the best of all possible worlds, the Supreme Court would decide as a group whether to attend or not and then unanimously follow through on that decision. Obviously, we don’t see a lot of unanimous decisions on the law from the court, but this question deserves some thought not just for this presidency but as a tradition. Roberts is right that the State of the Union has long since become a political pep rally, something that started long before Obama, and as the one ostensibly non-political and non-partisan branch of government, the captive presence of the Supreme Court among the partisan cheers is quite unseemly.
Here's the problem with this sort of logic - thinking that the Supreme Court is "non-partisan" and "non-political".
I'm not so naive to think that there are at least 3 liberal-leaning members on the SCOTUS, and the modern American Right would be wise to admit that the "activism" they so often decry has been more present in the SCOTUS over recent years, most widely recognized by the disastrous Citizen's United decision - which the above mentioned author tried none-to convincingly to minimize:
Last year, President Obama publicly upbraided the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech for its Citizens United decision, claiming — incorrectly — that it reversed “a century of law.” In fact, it reversed the McCain-Feingold law that barred corporations from spending money on political advertising within a certain period of time before an election, not the “century of law” that barred corporations from donating to political candidates, which is still very much in place. Justice Samuel Alito knew the difference, which is why he shook his head and mouthed the words “not true,” which so offended Obama that the White House continued its ignorant attack on the Supreme Court for another few days rather than picking up the decision and reading it.
True, corporations have always been allowed to donate a "maximum" amount to political campaigns within a pre-determined time-frame, but that also disappeared with McCain/Feingold. Obama was right to question the decision - which fell clearly across partisan lines - but that only provided ammunition to further the specious and poorly structured claims of the Right that "The Fairness Doctrine" would be reinstated or that the Obama Administration intends on censoring "conservative speech". The only thing that Obama, the Left, and more than a handful of "centrist" and "independents" called for was "disclosure" - the ultimate victim of the Citizen's United case.
If Roberts can’t get unanimity, though, the members of the court who are in town at the appointed time of the SOTU should make an appearance. Having just the liberal judges show for Obama and then presumably just the conservative justices show for a Republican President would be even more unseemly. Having been the target of the White House political team after last year’s SOTU, Alito can certainly be excused. And perhaps the members of the court can at least agree that an explicit attack on one of their decisions by a President in a State of the Union speech in the future will result in the entire court walking out on the rest of the speech, in what would be the only rebuke that the court’s members can deliver in that setting.
And here's where the continuation of the "Right Wing as perpetual victim" meme comes full circle. The only problem is that Alito was not called out by name, as Obama warned against what were the systemic risks of such a decision to allow undisclosed donors and unchecked amounts to be donated to ANY political figure - it was a clearly non-partisan statement that should have given the Right as much pause at it did the Left. And while there were the equivalency arguments put forth by members of the Right - that labor unions ( read: evil, far-left, mafia types ) were granted unlimited donation status because of this decision - the money and power is clearly more tilted to corporations with an unhinged Right Wing directive.
The question is ultimately if the SCOTUS should be present during a State of the Union speech. Naturally, and what should be clear to anyone within the modern American Right, is that it has always been about presenting the prime directives, initiatives, and successes of the administration in power, so having what should be a "non-partisan"/"non-political" judicial body present makes no sense at all, regardless of who occupies the White House. To me, it has always seemed like a contest of who can be the most stone-faced during the speech. Alito failed in that venture last year and was the sole person responsible for injecting himself into the debate over Citizen's United - NOT Barack Obama.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Because He Knows
Pay close attention to this clip, because Beck lets us all know that he is finally becoming "aware", but then jumps right in and does what he's paid to do.
Yeah, who is "using" Giffords, Glenn?
His first reaction - "send someone to protect the kids". If nothing else, this shows that Glenn immediately knew that someone that disagreed with him was going to come after him because of what he is paid to do - create mistrust, fear, confusion, and distort accurately recorded history in order to push conservative narratives. He wasn't concerned with who was shot, if they were alive, dead, if there were more victims - he first thought that this would ultimately be about him. Thinking about the safety of others and to "pray" always comes second to someone like Glenn.
But it didn't stop there, as that's when his "professional" ( read: how can I use this on my show to blame the Left ) instincts kicked in and he thought "let's wait and see what everyone else does so we can use this against them, to make us look reasoned. Let everyone else report on/react to the story and once the dust starts to settle we will talk about how not reacting to/not reporting on the story is what makes us superior from a moral/journalistic/patriotic perspective.
This is nothing more than conservatives wanting others to do the heavy lifting, to jump through the hurdles that one faces during a quickly evolving story such as this. It's the perils of reporting to make quick decisions and make corrections on the fly when necessary.
And what the hell does Van Jones and Francis Piven and Communism have to do with what happened in Tuscon? Nothing. But that's how Beck's show works, to create connections between persons/actions that completely alter reality in order to create a new story designed to disorient and redirect attention - to cause fear and mistrust.
In classic form, Beck attempts - without any shred of evidence which he claims the Left lacked also - to have his viewership believe that Bill Sparkman, Joseph Stack, and Clay Duke are all characters of the Left. Of course, he is disregarding that it was an insurance company that claimed Sparkman committed suicide while disregarding evidence. Stack's own manifesto was anti-government agencies/anti-tax. Duke hated both political parties and referred at the mainstream media as "government sponsored". Do these sound like Leftists to you?
And what of Palin's map? If it really isn't the problem, why was is almost immediately scrubbed from the SarahPAC site, and why were her handlers claiming that those were actually "surveyor symbols" and not gun sights?
But credit where it's due - though I only think that Beck does this to cover his own widely documented instances of eliminationist rhetoric - Beck does state that Loughner didn't specifically mention Fox, MSNBC, Palin, himself, or anyone in particular as a person that he identified with even in a tangentical sense; at least not yet.
One can't but get the sense that Beck knows that he should admit that his words can/have/and will continue to inflame the rage within people - and words like those most likely had a part in what pushed Loughner close to his ultimate goal. One can't but realize that Beck will do one of two things once a few weeks or months have passed - that Loughner will become yet another example of "left wing offenders" that he can equate with Sparkman, Stack, and Duke in order to distort, confuse, and redirect his audience that are looking to be spoon fed a new set of talking points or that he will never speak of this story again, as it comes just a little too close to looking like a pure manifestation of his own anti-government rhetoric.
Yeah, who is "using" Giffords, Glenn?
His first reaction - "send someone to protect the kids". If nothing else, this shows that Glenn immediately knew that someone that disagreed with him was going to come after him because of what he is paid to do - create mistrust, fear, confusion, and distort accurately recorded history in order to push conservative narratives. He wasn't concerned with who was shot, if they were alive, dead, if there were more victims - he first thought that this would ultimately be about him. Thinking about the safety of others and to "pray" always comes second to someone like Glenn.
But it didn't stop there, as that's when his "professional" ( read: how can I use this on my show to blame the Left ) instincts kicked in and he thought "let's wait and see what everyone else does so we can use this against them, to make us look reasoned. Let everyone else report on/react to the story and once the dust starts to settle we will talk about how not reacting to/not reporting on the story is what makes us superior from a moral/journalistic/patriotic perspective.
This is nothing more than conservatives wanting others to do the heavy lifting, to jump through the hurdles that one faces during a quickly evolving story such as this. It's the perils of reporting to make quick decisions and make corrections on the fly when necessary.
And what the hell does Van Jones and Francis Piven and Communism have to do with what happened in Tuscon? Nothing. But that's how Beck's show works, to create connections between persons/actions that completely alter reality in order to create a new story designed to disorient and redirect attention - to cause fear and mistrust.
In classic form, Beck attempts - without any shred of evidence which he claims the Left lacked also - to have his viewership believe that Bill Sparkman, Joseph Stack, and Clay Duke are all characters of the Left. Of course, he is disregarding that it was an insurance company that claimed Sparkman committed suicide while disregarding evidence. Stack's own manifesto was anti-government agencies/anti-tax. Duke hated both political parties and referred at the mainstream media as "government sponsored". Do these sound like Leftists to you?
And what of Palin's map? If it really isn't the problem, why was is almost immediately scrubbed from the SarahPAC site, and why were her handlers claiming that those were actually "surveyor symbols" and not gun sights?
But credit where it's due - though I only think that Beck does this to cover his own widely documented instances of eliminationist rhetoric - Beck does state that Loughner didn't specifically mention Fox, MSNBC, Palin, himself, or anyone in particular as a person that he identified with even in a tangentical sense; at least not yet.
One can't but get the sense that Beck knows that he should admit that his words can/have/and will continue to inflame the rage within people - and words like those most likely had a part in what pushed Loughner close to his ultimate goal. One can't but realize that Beck will do one of two things once a few weeks or months have passed - that Loughner will become yet another example of "left wing offenders" that he can equate with Sparkman, Stack, and Duke in order to distort, confuse, and redirect his audience that are looking to be spoon fed a new set of talking points or that he will never speak of this story again, as it comes just a little too close to looking like a pure manifestation of his own anti-government rhetoric.
Friday, November 19, 2010
A Thesis Drafted From Ignorance
Tony Perkins continues to amaze. How can one man who never served in country in uniform be so certain on the issues of openly gay men and women in the military?
There's a small part of me that actually believes that there will be those who currently serve in the American military that would opt not to re-enlist, or even go AWOL, if DADT is repealed. How would conservative media outlets and people like Perkins and the FRC receive them? Would it be seen as a new form of "patriotism". Considering how the modern conservative movement defines the word, I'm guessing that I'm not too far off the mark in postulating that.
David at Crooks and Liars has more.
And speaking of "patriotism", do people like Perkins - and whomever this blitheringly ignorant clown he's speaking to is - think that only straight men and women are capable of having such a deep connection with their country that they would be willing to lay down their lives for it? My guess is yes.
There's a small part of me that actually believes that there will be those who currently serve in the American military that would opt not to re-enlist, or even go AWOL, if DADT is repealed. How would conservative media outlets and people like Perkins and the FRC receive them? Would it be seen as a new form of "patriotism". Considering how the modern conservative movement defines the word, I'm guessing that I'm not too far off the mark in postulating that.
David at Crooks and Liars has more.
And speaking of "patriotism", do people like Perkins - and whomever this blitheringly ignorant clown he's speaking to is - think that only straight men and women are capable of having such a deep connection with their country that they would be willing to lay down their lives for it? My guess is yes.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Profits, Prophecy, And Preposterous Notions
Here's a heaping helping of Glenn Beck doing his best impersonation of Jack Van Impe, complete with "Soros Doomsday Clock".
Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.
I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn't grounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.
Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.
The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.
But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.
Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:
This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.
And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".
Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.
The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.
Despite the fact that all Americans benefit from "socialism", Beck feels that Lawrence O'Donnell's admission that he is a "socialist" while debating "Glennzilla" Greenwald on Morning Joe was clearly a a send-up of conservative fear of the word, those same conservatives - including Beck - have latched onto this like this is the missing puzzle piece in a grander puzzle that is going to rend the fabric of space/time in two.
I will, however, have to pause a moment and say that Beck's concern that Mark Penn saying Obama "needs another Oaklahoma City" incident is actually grounded in reality. But using this as a jump-off point to claim that liberals/progressives actually embrace this idea isn't grounded in anything at all, as liberals/progressives have clearly expressed their outrage at such a suggestion.
Beck is quite adept at taking completely disparate moments in time and connecting them in his chalkboard style to create a deceptive web of intruige. And adding George Soros to the mix isn't exactly a new tactic - he just goes a lot further than O'Reilly has ever done.
The part that really gave me a great laugh is Beck's claim that people on Facebook or Twitter who point out the ignorance of those citing him as a credible source are all too often paid operatives of Soros. And while it would actually be nice to get paid for doing this blog, I have yet to receive a check from George Soros.
But while Beck completely brushes off the very real aspects of what he does and how it has affected certain viewers of his program, I think we are beginning to see the culmination of what Beck wants - a conservative, preemptive strike against a foe that really isn't there.
Likely, Beck will also talk about this segment from the Dylan Ratigan program on MSNBC:
This is already something that conservatives are already claiming that Ratigan, his guest, and the entire network are advocating violence. The trouble with that, is that these people obviously didn't pay attention to the interview and will likely not read the book.
And this guy is clearly not a fan of Obama - just in case Michelle Malkin decides she's going to cyber-stalk this guy and find out who is "really is".
Beck does make one claim that is so off the charts that I think I should end with it, as it is something the entire Fox"Network" loves to tout without fulling realizing it's complete irrelevance.
The fact that a large number of people watch his show has no correlation to it being even remotely accurate. It's a lot like saying that since more people went to see Avatar in theatres instead of The Hurt Locker, that James Cameron's film is more factually accurate than Kathering Bigelow's film. The next time some conservative points to Fox's and Beck's ratings as a signifier of accuracy, hit them with that movie reference and see what happens.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Governing From Where?
Saw this over at Crooks And Liars and I am wondering exactly how this clown could even be considered to manage a McDonalds, much less an entire state.
The shear hubris that Kasich is exhibiting is beyond the pale. For him to even hint at the fact that his detractors should apologize to him would be completely laughable. But for him to say that he expects teachers unions to spend money to provide him supplication makes even Bill O'Reilly's ego look like a miniature figurine ( Kasich has helped out O'Reilly as a guest host on his Fox"News" show for several years ) and then claim that transportation improvements are more important for goods rather than workers is simply incredible to behold.
Karoli sums this up quite well.
Seems that Kasich is angling to be one of the Tea-Baggiest of the Tea Bagger winners in the hopes that he would garner face-time on Fox"News" that he would have gotten anyway, regardless of a win or not.
This little threat from the governor-elect has caused me to postulate this - are we seeing the begining of the Tea Bagger ultimatum that will soon spread across the US? If that's the case, these people might well want to re-examine that strategy, as they are going after those same workers, that tax-payer bracket they allegedly champion.
The shear hubris that Kasich is exhibiting is beyond the pale. For him to even hint at the fact that his detractors should apologize to him would be completely laughable. But for him to say that he expects teachers unions to spend money to provide him supplication makes even Bill O'Reilly's ego look like a miniature figurine ( Kasich has helped out O'Reilly as a guest host on his Fox"News" show for several years ) and then claim that transportation improvements are more important for goods rather than workers is simply incredible to behold.
Karoli sums this up quite well.
I see. Expand rails to move goods, not passengers, so people who make things couldn't really get to work to make things?
Alrighty then.
Seems that Kasich is angling to be one of the Tea-Baggiest of the Tea Bagger winners in the hopes that he would garner face-time on Fox"News" that he would have gotten anyway, regardless of a win or not.
This little threat from the governor-elect has caused me to postulate this - are we seeing the begining of the Tea Bagger ultimatum that will soon spread across the US? If that's the case, these people might well want to re-examine that strategy, as they are going after those same workers, that tax-payer bracket they allegedly champion.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Does "T" Stand For "Tantrum"?
During the Conway/Paul debate at the University of Louisville, Rand ended his portion of the debate by announcing that he would not shake Jack Conway's hand and why.
Rand just can't seem to come to grips with the fact that his entire life - even what happened 30 years ago - is going to be scrutinized. This was a very open and unblushing tactic that conservatives used ( and still use ) against Obama. Does Rand think he is above being examined? Apparently so, considering how he stormed off the stage like a child that was denied a cookie before bedtime.
Here's the ad he was referencing:
As the Daily Kos points out, Rand injected religion - his in specific - into this campaign to begin with.
From an article in May of this year by Sarah Posner of Religious Dispatches, she highlights how Paul spoke not only of his faith - in an interview on CBN's The Brody File - but that if all of America were Christians then we wouldn't need any laws.
Posner goes on to show how Paul's version of Christianity is more like Christian Reconstructionism:
This proclamation by Paul that his "faith" - and by logical extension his "values" - are strictly off limits. After all, it's perfectly fine for Paul Tea Bagger fan base to question someone's faith if they are a black man with a funny sounding name.
I'm from a very conservative part of Kentucky. I would actually posit that it's one of the reddest counties in the state. Republican voters here have more than just policy in mind when they make their selections on election day. I would actually argue that many of them vote for a particular candidate simply because they say they are "Christian" and support "family values", regardless of that candidates policy agenda.
As an aside, about 90% of the Rand Paul campaign signs I'm seeing around my community are on "public" land. For some reason that seems a little odd to me, if only because Paul just might be a little to "extreme" for even this town. Then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
Rand just can't seem to come to grips with the fact that his entire life - even what happened 30 years ago - is going to be scrutinized. This was a very open and unblushing tactic that conservatives used ( and still use ) against Obama. Does Rand think he is above being examined? Apparently so, considering how he stormed off the stage like a child that was denied a cookie before bedtime.
Here's the ad he was referencing:
As the Daily Kos points out, Rand injected religion - his in specific - into this campaign to begin with.
From an article in May of this year by Sarah Posner of Religious Dispatches, she highlights how Paul spoke not only of his faith - in an interview on CBN's The Brody File - but that if all of America were Christians then we wouldn't need any laws.
I'm a Christian. We go to the Presbyterian Church. My wife’s a Deacon there and we’ve gone there ever since we came to town. I see that Christianity and values is the basis of our society. . . . 98% of us won’t murder people, won’t steal, won’t break the law and it helps a society to have that religious underpinning. You still need to have the laws but I think it helps to have a people who believe in law and order and who have a moral compass or a moral basis for their day to day life.
Posner goes on to show how Paul's version of Christianity is more like Christian Reconstructionism:
Reconstructionists share the worldview of the John Birch Society, which as Adele Stan reported, has enthusiastically praised Paul's victory over Republican Trey Grayson. (In 1963 -- the year Rand Paul was born and, he claimed on Rachel Maddow's show, he would have marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. -- the John Birch Society insisted that proposed civil rights laws were "in flagrant violation of the 10th amendment," and threatened individual freedom.) On the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act, in 2004, the elder Paul stated on the floor of the House, "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society."
Many Christian Reconstructionists believe certain forms of slavery are biblical. As I wrote in a post last month, the resurgence of the JBS (it was a co-sponsor of this year's Conservative Political Action Conference) alongside Christian Reconstructionism signals a resurgence of the sort of mish-mash of states' rights and individual liberty arguments made by libertarians and tea partiers -- in Paul's case, federal civil rights laws are portrayed as some sort of government invasion of liberty -- in which civil rights protections are flipped on their head and portrayed as antithetical to (white people's) freedom
Paul seems to think that good Christians don't need civil laws (or civil rights laws, for that matter) for them to do the right thing. But it's crucial to acertain what that "right thing" really is.
This proclamation by Paul that his "faith" - and by logical extension his "values" - are strictly off limits. After all, it's perfectly fine for Paul Tea Bagger fan base to question someone's faith if they are a black man with a funny sounding name.
I'm from a very conservative part of Kentucky. I would actually posit that it's one of the reddest counties in the state. Republican voters here have more than just policy in mind when they make their selections on election day. I would actually argue that many of them vote for a particular candidate simply because they say they are "Christian" and support "family values", regardless of that candidates policy agenda.
As an aside, about 90% of the Rand Paul campaign signs I'm seeing around my community are on "public" land. For some reason that seems a little odd to me, if only because Paul just might be a little to "extreme" for even this town. Then again, maybe I'm just reading too much into it.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Upon hearing the news that Sen. Robert Byrd had died early this morning, I began to wonder exactly how long it would take conservatives to politicize his passing. Considering the upcoming vote on Financial Reform in the Senate, as well President Obama's desire to have a vote by the end of the week, I'm looking for conservatives and their media masters at Fox"News" to be going full throttle on this one.
- Elena Kagan is to start her Supreme Court confirmation hearings today, after opening remarks from Senators, and it's likely to be a much bumpier ride than Justice Sonya Sotomayor got. With all the falsehoods being perpetuated by conservatives - and even some normally reliable media like NPR - this confirmation process is likely to take some of the spotlight away from the Gulf oil disaster. Perhaps someone like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity will find a way to bundle the two together.
- I heard Geraldo's initial offering of this comments regarding Rolling Stone writer Micheal Hastings when he was debating the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal with The Howard Stern Show's Robin Quivers - herself a military vet. You can usually tell when a person - be they conservative or not - has reached the bottom of the barrel when the comparisons to terrorists come out as the keystone to your argument.
- It usually the loudest within the conservative movement, be they hardcore Tea Bagging screamers or not, that decry the government are going to be some of the first with their hands out when they see the opportunity to gain from it. In a regarding manufacturing, 74% of self-described Tea Baggers support a nationalized manufacturing strategy. This is in stark contrast to the "message" that they are attempting to bring with them. Not only that, but such a pro-worker stance does tend to smack of hypocrisy, considering their utter disdain for an organized workforce.
- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer continues to milk her 15 minutes of political fame with a misleading ad that continues the false narrative that the Obama administration has surrendered American soil to Mexico. And while this has been completely discredited, the shear gimmick factor for conservatives is just too juicy to give up.
- Elena Kagan is to start her Supreme Court confirmation hearings today, after opening remarks from Senators, and it's likely to be a much bumpier ride than Justice Sonya Sotomayor got. With all the falsehoods being perpetuated by conservatives - and even some normally reliable media like NPR - this confirmation process is likely to take some of the spotlight away from the Gulf oil disaster. Perhaps someone like Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity will find a way to bundle the two together.
- I heard Geraldo's initial offering of this comments regarding Rolling Stone writer Micheal Hastings when he was debating the firing of Gen. Stanley McCrystal with The Howard Stern Show's Robin Quivers - herself a military vet. You can usually tell when a person - be they conservative or not - has reached the bottom of the barrel when the comparisons to terrorists come out as the keystone to your argument.
- It usually the loudest within the conservative movement, be they hardcore Tea Bagging screamers or not, that decry the government are going to be some of the first with their hands out when they see the opportunity to gain from it. In a regarding manufacturing, 74% of self-described Tea Baggers support a nationalized manufacturing strategy. This is in stark contrast to the "message" that they are attempting to bring with them. Not only that, but such a pro-worker stance does tend to smack of hypocrisy, considering their utter disdain for an organized workforce.
- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer continues to milk her 15 minutes of political fame with a misleading ad that continues the false narrative that the Obama administration has surrendered American soil to Mexico. And while this has been completely discredited, the shear gimmick factor for conservatives is just too juicy to give up.
Monday, June 7, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Seems that there has been another major oil rig disaster - this time in Northwestern Pennsylvania being operated by EOG Resources. A blogger over at Micheal Morrill over at Daily Kos tried to get video footage of the rig and the unfolding scene and was told that if he didn't leave the property that he may be shot and was hauled away by, whom he would only assume, were employees. I'm thinking that we aren't going to hear a great deal about this rig as the company likely did some pre-damage control for "just in case" purposes and has already got their narrative together. Wait a second, did Palin just say that inland drilling was uber-safe or something?
- Apparently knowing the little-known lyrics of the National Anthem mean that you far more patriotic than anyone else on the planet. Kind of like the same rationale that if you have a bigger flag that you are more patriotic. Wonder if this guy knows that last verse of the Beverly Hillbillies theme though.
- On most days this year, the Democrats are really good at doing the job of being a Republican. I think this has a lot to do with Obama's polling numbers at this point. But again, we have to remember that a great deal of this has to do with perception versus perspective. I'm fully aware that a large cross-section of the American media is more than willing to sit on their collective asses and virtually kowtow to conservative tactics, but there's also the reality that a fair portion of what Democrats are doing is literally in the same vein. I for one think that the government should, like Robert Reich correctly pointed out, put BP-North America into receivership in order to take more steadfast control over the Gulf oil spill. Likely that CEO will be removed from his position, but this should have been done weeks ago.
-
- Apparently knowing the little-known lyrics of the National Anthem mean that you far more patriotic than anyone else on the planet. Kind of like the same rationale that if you have a bigger flag that you are more patriotic. Wonder if this guy knows that last verse of the Beverly Hillbillies theme though.
- On most days this year, the Democrats are really good at doing the job of being a Republican. I think this has a lot to do with Obama's polling numbers at this point. But again, we have to remember that a great deal of this has to do with perception versus perspective. I'm fully aware that a large cross-section of the American media is more than willing to sit on their collective asses and virtually kowtow to conservative tactics, but there's also the reality that a fair portion of what Democrats are doing is literally in the same vein. I for one think that the government should, like Robert Reich correctly pointed out, put BP-North America into receivership in order to take more steadfast control over the Gulf oil spill. Likely that CEO will be removed from his position, but this should have been done weeks ago.
-
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Evening
- Sharon Angle is positioning herself to be probably the biggest Tea Bagger on the planet. She favors everything from abolishing income tax to shutting down the Dept. of Education. Considering she has the backing of The Tea Party Express and Club For Growth, there's going to be a lot of money behind this woman. The next step will likely be a debut on Fox"News" where her ability to memorize the more fringe talking points will be tested. Let the background checking begin.
- Conservatives hate when they are in a position where they have to answer for the administration(s) they championed as "saviors for America" are actually culpable in tragedies for this country. They hate it so much that they refuse to answer such valid claims. This is no different when it comes to the well recorded history of impropriety of the Bush era MMS. Accountability - conservatives love to preach it but rarely ( if ever ) practice it.
- It will never cease to be funny - conservatives shouting that they demand action from the Obama administration and when there is action they engage in a collective whine that would make even the most grizzled of daycare workers scream in blood curdling horror. So, when Obama laid out some serious action regarding deep water drilling rigs, guess what happened?
- You would think that in the mostly advanced world that we live in today that Democrats would have evolved along with many of us in the liberal/progressive movement. This, however, simply isn't true, and the upcoming vote on the repeal of DADT is going to prove this. It appears that some House Democrats simply don't want to talk about repealing DADT. Far too many Dems are really good at talking a big game and not following through. They are almost as much trouble as the Republicans we have to deal with.
- Indoctrination and the modern conservative movement are quite comfortable bedfellows. Well, when it comes to indoctrination people into the "Christian lifestyle". Michelle Bachman, a very vocal opponent of Obama speaking to school kids via a video, is all in favor of military chaplains preaching at non-religious events.
- Conservatives hate when they are in a position where they have to answer for the administration(s) they championed as "saviors for America" are actually culpable in tragedies for this country. They hate it so much that they refuse to answer such valid claims. This is no different when it comes to the well recorded history of impropriety of the Bush era MMS. Accountability - conservatives love to preach it but rarely ( if ever ) practice it.
- It will never cease to be funny - conservatives shouting that they demand action from the Obama administration and when there is action they engage in a collective whine that would make even the most grizzled of daycare workers scream in blood curdling horror. So, when Obama laid out some serious action regarding deep water drilling rigs, guess what happened?
- You would think that in the mostly advanced world that we live in today that Democrats would have evolved along with many of us in the liberal/progressive movement. This, however, simply isn't true, and the upcoming vote on the repeal of DADT is going to prove this. It appears that some House Democrats simply don't want to talk about repealing DADT. Far too many Dems are really good at talking a big game and not following through. They are almost as much trouble as the Republicans we have to deal with.
- Indoctrination and the modern conservative movement are quite comfortable bedfellows. Well, when it comes to indoctrination people into the "Christian lifestyle". Michelle Bachman, a very vocal opponent of Obama speaking to school kids via a video, is all in favor of military chaplains preaching at non-religious events.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Evening
- Conservatives are still ignoring the realities of the DHS report on the escalation of Right Wing Extremism. Seems that they must think that Jerry Kane isn't worth looking at as yet another perfect example of how modern conservative ideology is radicalizing people.
- Now that Obama has promised to deploy as many as 1200 troops to the US/Mexico border as well as requesting hundreds of millions in funding, conservatives still think that this is all just theatrics. What does Obama have to do, build a fence along the entire boarder himself and pick up every illegal himself within the span of a weekend?
- Now that conservatives have suddenly become worried about budget deficits since Jan. 20th 2009, the predictably flaccid rhetoric from the GOP ( as well as their complete inaction on this issue ) has lead to this. When looking through the list of ways that the Republicans could allegedly save 1.3 trillion over 10 years seems more than just a shade disingenuous. And when one looks at this plan, you start to hear echoes of conservatives doubt of jobs that were "saved". Where the guarantee that this money will be saved? Oh, that's right, forgot about who I was talking about.
- They are few and far between, but there actually are Republicans out there that will go after Fox"News". But when their feet are held to the fire, they usually shrivel up like a slug with salt on its back. And if this guy gets Rush Limbaugh after him, then that will be the true test of a Republicans mettle. I'm guessing the walk-back will start within the next 24hrs.
- It's becoming ever clearer that Sarah Palin is an absolute train wreck outside the comfortable environs of Fox"News" and the editing suite. She recently gave a keynote address to ICSC RECon Conference and it was a complete disaster. And this isn't the first time and most certainly won't be the last. I'm wondering when these conference organizers are going to start asking for their money back.
- Now that Obama has promised to deploy as many as 1200 troops to the US/Mexico border as well as requesting hundreds of millions in funding, conservatives still think that this is all just theatrics. What does Obama have to do, build a fence along the entire boarder himself and pick up every illegal himself within the span of a weekend?
- Now that conservatives have suddenly become worried about budget deficits since Jan. 20th 2009, the predictably flaccid rhetoric from the GOP ( as well as their complete inaction on this issue ) has lead to this. When looking through the list of ways that the Republicans could allegedly save 1.3 trillion over 10 years seems more than just a shade disingenuous. And when one looks at this plan, you start to hear echoes of conservatives doubt of jobs that were "saved". Where the guarantee that this money will be saved? Oh, that's right, forgot about who I was talking about.
- They are few and far between, but there actually are Republicans out there that will go after Fox"News". But when their feet are held to the fire, they usually shrivel up like a slug with salt on its back. And if this guy gets Rush Limbaugh after him, then that will be the true test of a Republicans mettle. I'm guessing the walk-back will start within the next 24hrs.
- It's becoming ever clearer that Sarah Palin is an absolute train wreck outside the comfortable environs of Fox"News" and the editing suite. She recently gave a keynote address to ICSC RECon Conference and it was a complete disaster. And this isn't the first time and most certainly won't be the last. I'm wondering when these conference organizers are going to start asking for their money back.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Micheal Steele takes issue with Rand Paul's comments on discrimination by private businesses but can't openly condemn them. Steele doesn't seem to have a problem condemning the Obama administration on a multitude of policies but as a black man in America he can't distance himself from Paul's blatant racial animus? That's GOP "leadership" for you.
- Talk about a serious lack of "spine". I mean, if Rand Paul is afraid of facing David Gregory in Meet The Press, then you won't last one term as a Senator.
- And right on cue, Sarah Palin ran to Rand Paul's defense on Fox"News" claiming that Rachel Maddow was being unfair and playing "gotcha" by asking a completely legitimate question. The bulk of conservatives are following this same narrative line and showing that they are willing to accept racial divisiveness with open arms.
- With conservatives all up in arms regarding illegal immigration and deportation of illegals, one has to question why these same people aren't being honest about the fact that the US has deported more illegals in an upward trend since 2009.
- No matter what Obama does, conservatives are going to complain about him and his administration. Now, they are claiming that he is hiding because he hasn't held an official press conference since last summer. I have to say that there are far more important things that the president needs to be doing rather than taking questions from the press pool right now.
-
- Talk about a serious lack of "spine". I mean, if Rand Paul is afraid of facing David Gregory in Meet The Press, then you won't last one term as a Senator.
- And right on cue, Sarah Palin ran to Rand Paul's defense on Fox"News" claiming that Rachel Maddow was being unfair and playing "gotcha" by asking a completely legitimate question. The bulk of conservatives are following this same narrative line and showing that they are willing to accept racial divisiveness with open arms.
- With conservatives all up in arms regarding illegal immigration and deportation of illegals, one has to question why these same people aren't being honest about the fact that the US has deported more illegals in an upward trend since 2009.
- No matter what Obama does, conservatives are going to complain about him and his administration. Now, they are claiming that he is hiding because he hasn't held an official press conference since last summer. I have to say that there are far more important things that the president needs to be doing rather than taking questions from the press pool right now.
-
Friday, May 21, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Rand Paul's viewpoints on racism and discrimination really don't surprise me, so it was almost to be expected that he would have connection with a radical religious group that advocates a return to slavery and the stoning of homosexuals.
- Call it another instance of "buyer's remorse" now that conservatives are engaging in a collective whine now that Scott Brown has voted with Democrats to help pass financial regulation. Seems that the proverbial "Scott heard 'round the world" meme didn't really pan out for them. Kind of makes me wonder why they're so jazzed up about November.
- Glenn Beck's personal "war on the dollar" is slowly starting to look like a losing battle, thanks in part to Congressman Anthony Weiner. The scam that Beck is perpetrating on America is one that other conservatives are happy to take part in. People like domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy and Sean Hannity regularly pimp gold coins as investments as well.
- Rush Limbaugh ( in typical fashion, mind you ) claims that the second grade girl that mentioned her mother's illegal status to Michelle Obama was a plant. This is s rather common conservative tactic when they are lacking in ability to add any form of rational discourse to the national discussion. And while these allegations are always false, they do work on the easily lead, mouth agape, conservative voters that lack any form of bone marrow intelligence.
- Chalk this up to another example of assassination hungry conservatives behaving in ways that Republicans would scream over had this been done to them. They certainly think this sort of behavior is appropriate now.
- Ever since conservatives had their asses handed to them on a platter in November 2008, they have been all about the length of proposed legislation and who has and who hasn't read said legislation. In that regard it's quite puzzling that a prominent conservative blogger turned CNN pundit would highlight ( literally ) a segment of a Rand Paul statement about the Civil Rights Act where he quite clearly claims he hasn't read it all "because it was passed 40 years ago". Is there a statute of limitations on the readability of the English language in the conservative realm?
- Call it another instance of "buyer's remorse" now that conservatives are engaging in a collective whine now that Scott Brown has voted with Democrats to help pass financial regulation. Seems that the proverbial "Scott heard 'round the world" meme didn't really pan out for them. Kind of makes me wonder why they're so jazzed up about November.
- Glenn Beck's personal "war on the dollar" is slowly starting to look like a losing battle, thanks in part to Congressman Anthony Weiner. The scam that Beck is perpetrating on America is one that other conservatives are happy to take part in. People like domestic terrorist G. Gordon Liddy and Sean Hannity regularly pimp gold coins as investments as well.
- Rush Limbaugh ( in typical fashion, mind you ) claims that the second grade girl that mentioned her mother's illegal status to Michelle Obama was a plant. This is s rather common conservative tactic when they are lacking in ability to add any form of rational discourse to the national discussion. And while these allegations are always false, they do work on the easily lead, mouth agape, conservative voters that lack any form of bone marrow intelligence.
- Chalk this up to another example of assassination hungry conservatives behaving in ways that Republicans would scream over had this been done to them. They certainly think this sort of behavior is appropriate now.
- Ever since conservatives had their asses handed to them on a platter in November 2008, they have been all about the length of proposed legislation and who has and who hasn't read said legislation. In that regard it's quite puzzling that a prominent conservative blogger turned CNN pundit would highlight ( literally ) a segment of a Rand Paul statement about the Civil Rights Act where he quite clearly claims he hasn't read it all "because it was passed 40 years ago". Is there a statute of limitations on the readability of the English language in the conservative realm?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Apparently today is "Everyone Draw Mohammed" Day. It's a conservative idea in order to piss off "the terrorists" and see what they might do in return. It's also a petty and childish way to approach those that abuse the Islamic faith in order to justify radicalism and killing people. So I think those of us that see this as the pointless exercise that it is should do a "Everybody Draw Jesus" day where we can be just as offensive to "Christians". And while I don't have any empathy towards those that would kill anyone in the name of Islam, I find that conservatives acting in such a manner really don't do America an good by acting this way.
- Why is BP preventing journalists from viewing the damage that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is causing? I heard yesterday afternoon on NPR that initial estimates from BP on the amount of oil being pumped into the ocean are so radically off that one has to question whether or not this issue is going to be resolved within even this year.
- Does Fox"News" even know what an apology is? When a person is honest about their country and what is going on, does that really merit this type of misleading reportage? After all, there hasn't been one instance of Obama doing or saying anything that remotely sounds like an apology.
- For the longest time, I have asked myself why any black man or woman would actively be a Republican. And while many conservatives will say that it was a Republican that freed the slaves and that the GOP were huge backers of Civil Rights, to hear Micheal Steele flop around on the issue of who blacks should support makes me wonder is he even knows what country he is living in.
- Why is BP preventing journalists from viewing the damage that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is causing? I heard yesterday afternoon on NPR that initial estimates from BP on the amount of oil being pumped into the ocean are so radically off that one has to question whether or not this issue is going to be resolved within even this year.
- Does Fox"News" even know what an apology is? When a person is honest about their country and what is going on, does that really merit this type of misleading reportage? After all, there hasn't been one instance of Obama doing or saying anything that remotely sounds like an apology.
- For the longest time, I have asked myself why any black man or woman would actively be a Republican. And while many conservatives will say that it was a Republican that freed the slaves and that the GOP were huge backers of Civil Rights, to hear Micheal Steele flop around on the issue of who blacks should support makes me wonder is he even knows what country he is living in.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- Apparently the new conservative mantra is that "we are all Arizonians now". I certainly hope not. While there are already a report of violence against American citizens who are of Hispanic heritage, that lead to murder, I'm wondering why conservatives would even want to be seen in such a light. And while it's being continually pointed out by the loudest voices on the Right that 70% of residents of Arizona support the law, I'm quite curious as to if they have not only read the 10 pages and have thought about the languages far-reaching implications.
- Conservatives are already politicizing the Miss USA Pageant and the latest winner - Rima Fakih. There's all the smear material there for several Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity programs - she's apparently less than informed on what drugs are legal and illegal and ( gasp ) she's got an Arab name. As for me, these pageants don't represent America or a plurality of women within the country. By and large they are a popularity contest where the winner is decided by a panel of judges that wouldn't know poise, honesty, and originality if it hit them in their drooling cake holes.
- Isn't it times like this when members of the Obama administration ( or Obama himself ) are called "unhinged radicals"? I hardly see how Gov. Cristie "destroyed" the reporter asking the question, but conservatives need an ego boost every now and again - especially now. If I were that reporter, I would have seen just how "thin skinned" by asking him why he is cutting funds from the state that directly impact students and education.
- Beck must have thought that he was the second coming of Jesus Christ, as he gave the commencement address at Liberty University AND gave a speech at the NRA convention within hours of each other. But did I hear right, that Beck agreed with something Mao said!?!? I'm sure the voices in his head will have him create a show where he attempts to prove that sometimes it's ok to quote your adversaries - that is, if you're a conservative.
- Conservatives are already politicizing the Miss USA Pageant and the latest winner - Rima Fakih. There's all the smear material there for several Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity programs - she's apparently less than informed on what drugs are legal and illegal and ( gasp ) she's got an Arab name. As for me, these pageants don't represent America or a plurality of women within the country. By and large they are a popularity contest where the winner is decided by a panel of judges that wouldn't know poise, honesty, and originality if it hit them in their drooling cake holes.
- Isn't it times like this when members of the Obama administration ( or Obama himself ) are called "unhinged radicals"? I hardly see how Gov. Cristie "destroyed" the reporter asking the question, but conservatives need an ego boost every now and again - especially now. If I were that reporter, I would have seen just how "thin skinned" by asking him why he is cutting funds from the state that directly impact students and education.
- Beck must have thought that he was the second coming of Jesus Christ, as he gave the commencement address at Liberty University AND gave a speech at the NRA convention within hours of each other. But did I hear right, that Beck agreed with something Mao said!?!? I'm sure the voices in his head will have him create a show where he attempts to prove that sometimes it's ok to quote your adversaries - that is, if you're a conservative.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- It seems that Republicans are trying a new gimmick when it comes to cutting spending and bringing down the deficit. A new online project called YouCut is designed so that voting public can suggest what spending to cut from specific areas. Nevermind that the average American that would use such a social networking site has little to no idea what they are talking about ( most Tea Baggers want to do away with everything from the FDA to Department of Education ) but do you honestly think that Republicans are going actually act on anything that is suggested? Guess this is another example of how the GOP completely lacks any plan of their own.
- Modern day theologian Glenn Beck has apparently been having conversations with the voice in his head that he claims is Jesus. It seems that The Son Of God doesn't want Cap and Trade. I'm quite curious as to what Beck's Jesus thinks about bearing false witness to they neighbor. And where in the Constitution does it say anything about what Jesus does or does not want?
- Seems that in light of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina that GOP candidates are opting out from appearing at fundraising events with her. I don't think it's too much of a far reaching statement, but the fractioning of the modern conservative movement ( and the GOP as a whole ) is more evident now than it ever has been.
- It's rather troubling when seeing poll results like this. I'm quite skeptical of any poll that makes such a broad determination regarding any piece of legislation that the public at large has been misinformed of. And while Pew Research has been a reliable polling agency for many years, I feel that the results shown indicated that many of the near 1000 that were polled don't seem to understand the far reaching implications of Arizona's fascist stance on this issue.
- I still don't get it. If S.E. Cupp is really an atheist, why did she write a book about how the "evil, liberal, media" is destroying religion? It just doens't make sense - unless it's all just a charade. Regardless of her motives, she gets taken to the woodshed by Cenk Uyger in the linked interview.
- Arizona is getting a lesson in "free market capitalism" that they likely won't forget anytime soon. The conservative mantra of "choice and competition" isn't exactly playing in their favor on this front, as the boycott of the state is showing a loss of millions is tourism dollars. Even the GOP didn't want to have their convention there.
- Modern day theologian Glenn Beck has apparently been having conversations with the voice in his head that he claims is Jesus. It seems that The Son Of God doesn't want Cap and Trade. I'm quite curious as to what Beck's Jesus thinks about bearing false witness to they neighbor. And where in the Constitution does it say anything about what Jesus does or does not want?
- Seems that in light of Sarah Palin's endorsement of Carly Fiorina that GOP candidates are opting out from appearing at fundraising events with her. I don't think it's too much of a far reaching statement, but the fractioning of the modern conservative movement ( and the GOP as a whole ) is more evident now than it ever has been.
- It's rather troubling when seeing poll results like this. I'm quite skeptical of any poll that makes such a broad determination regarding any piece of legislation that the public at large has been misinformed of. And while Pew Research has been a reliable polling agency for many years, I feel that the results shown indicated that many of the near 1000 that were polled don't seem to understand the far reaching implications of Arizona's fascist stance on this issue.
- I still don't get it. If S.E. Cupp is really an atheist, why did she write a book about how the "evil, liberal, media" is destroying religion? It just doens't make sense - unless it's all just a charade. Regardless of her motives, she gets taken to the woodshed by Cenk Uyger in the linked interview.
- Arizona is getting a lesson in "free market capitalism" that they likely won't forget anytime soon. The conservative mantra of "choice and competition" isn't exactly playing in their favor on this front, as the boycott of the state is showing a loss of millions is tourism dollars. Even the GOP didn't want to have their convention there.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Afternoon
- Apparently it's not good form to teach kids to eat healthy anymore. Michelle Malkin takes after Michelle Obama like she's built up a police force that is going to prevent parents from feeding their own children what they think is good for them. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some conservatives are intentionally getting fatter to show their hatred of Mrs. Obama. Rush Limbaugh has already got a good start on this.
- It seems that some people in Alaska are starting to wake up to the fact that Sarah Palin is a complete and utter disaster. Some within the conservative realm are claiming that the release of her next book will boost her ratings, I have to question that. After all, people thought that here Fox"News" special would be a ratings phenomenon, but it turned into something wholly unspectacular. I'm fairly certain that her "nature program" isn't going to be a shining star on her record either.
- For conservatives to continually claim that there is no violent rhetoric directed at liberal/progressive, this little stunt doesn't really help their cause.
- You can generally tell when a conservative is completely out of rational ways to discuss any given topic when they result to homophobic/sexist blatherings. I can recall when Newsweek ran a cover picture of Sarah Palin and conservatives went completely bat-shit insane, calling it a blatant, sexist, attack. Personally, I didn't find it sexist at all, as Palin posed for and signed off on the picture herself. But there certainly are different rules for anyone outside the conservative sphere, isn't there.
- Much in the same way that Glenn Beck is completely misrepresenting what Net Neutrality is, Megyn Kelly is doing here part to misinform people by actually censoring the realities of what the FCC is trying to do. What happened to "fair and balanced"?
- Seems that Arizona has a serious problem not only with Hispanics, but takes issue with students even learning about them. I'm sure the term "racial animus" will be striken from any English text within the next few months as well. The one question I have is this - does this just do away with only learning about hispanics or anyone that isn't white and from America?
- It seems that some people in Alaska are starting to wake up to the fact that Sarah Palin is a complete and utter disaster. Some within the conservative realm are claiming that the release of her next book will boost her ratings, I have to question that. After all, people thought that here Fox"News" special would be a ratings phenomenon, but it turned into something wholly unspectacular. I'm fairly certain that her "nature program" isn't going to be a shining star on her record either.
- For conservatives to continually claim that there is no violent rhetoric directed at liberal/progressive, this little stunt doesn't really help their cause.
- You can generally tell when a conservative is completely out of rational ways to discuss any given topic when they result to homophobic/sexist blatherings. I can recall when Newsweek ran a cover picture of Sarah Palin and conservatives went completely bat-shit insane, calling it a blatant, sexist, attack. Personally, I didn't find it sexist at all, as Palin posed for and signed off on the picture herself. But there certainly are different rules for anyone outside the conservative sphere, isn't there.
- Much in the same way that Glenn Beck is completely misrepresenting what Net Neutrality is, Megyn Kelly is doing here part to misinform people by actually censoring the realities of what the FCC is trying to do. What happened to "fair and balanced"?
- Seems that Arizona has a serious problem not only with Hispanics, but takes issue with students even learning about them. I'm sure the term "racial animus" will be striken from any English text within the next few months as well. The one question I have is this - does this just do away with only learning about hispanics or anyone that isn't white and from America?
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Some Thoughts For Your Morning
- With all the talk about how Elena Kagan is somehow unfit to be a member of the SCOTUS, I was reminded last night while watching Rachel Maddow that Chief Justice William Renquist WAS NEVER A JUDGE before Nixon nominated him.
- Considering how conservatives are shrieking about Kagan's citation of Thurgood Marshall's comments regarding the original Constitution will likely dominated Republican cross-examination during confirmation, I have to ask why they think the original Constitution was so great. After all, it's been amended 27 times - the most recent was in 1992 - so it appears the debate over whether the original was "perfect" has been going on for over 200 years.
- I'm guessing that Ann Coulter attends an open-face Meth buffet before she appears on any Fox"News" program.
- Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks seems to take issue with not just Kagan's nomination but with Obama's presidency as well. And while I will concede that he hasn't been forceful enough on several issues, I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this. As for me, I think Kagan is going to help overshadow the obvious conservative activism that Scalia, Roberts, and Alito bring to the bench with every case they hear.
- Considering how conservatives are shrieking about Kagan's citation of Thurgood Marshall's comments regarding the original Constitution will likely dominated Republican cross-examination during confirmation, I have to ask why they think the original Constitution was so great. After all, it's been amended 27 times - the most recent was in 1992 - so it appears the debate over whether the original was "perfect" has been going on for over 200 years.
- I'm guessing that Ann Coulter attends an open-face Meth buffet before she appears on any Fox"News" program.
- Cenk Uygur of The Young Turks seems to take issue with not just Kagan's nomination but with Obama's presidency as well. And while I will concede that he hasn't been forceful enough on several issues, I think a lot of people are jumping the gun on this. As for me, I think Kagan is going to help overshadow the obvious conservative activism that Scalia, Roberts, and Alito bring to the bench with every case they hear.
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Inflating The Data
Conservative outlets today are misrepresenting information in order to further the narrative that the "system doesn't work" - when in point of fact it did.
The misinformation started at ---- CBS?
Karoli over at Crooks And Liars has it pegged right:
This is precisely the tactic that Fox"News" uses when they pull out the "some people say....." line before they deliver any number of their daily talking points on issues of the moment. One would think people would have the intellectual capacity to question specious and unsourced claims like this.
More to the point, this style of sloppy reporting does nothing to benefit the national dialog nor to harbor any sort of confidence in our security. Much in the same way that conservatives were pushing the "he almost got away" line, this in no way represents the facts surrounding the case.
The misinformation started at ---- CBS?
Sources tell CBS News that would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad appeared on a Department of Homeland Security travel lookout list - Traveler Enforcement Compliance System (TECS) - between 1999 and 2008 because he brought approximately $80,000 cash or cash instruments into the United States.
TECS is a major law enforcement computer system that allows its approximately 120,000 users from 20 federal agencies to share information. The database is designed to identify individuals suspected of or involved in violation of federal law.
Karoli over at Crooks And Liars has it pegged right:
Stories on mainstream sites that begin with "sources tell..." but do not name those sources usually end badly. This one is no exception.
This is precisely the tactic that Fox"News" uses when they pull out the "some people say....." line before they deliver any number of their daily talking points on issues of the moment. One would think people would have the intellectual capacity to question specious and unsourced claims like this.
More to the point, this style of sloppy reporting does nothing to benefit the national dialog nor to harbor any sort of confidence in our security. Much in the same way that conservatives were pushing the "he almost got away" line, this in no way represents the facts surrounding the case.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Playlist Of Doom
