There's this conspiracy believed by many progressives that the media intentionally pushes a Republican agenda, which is why we keep losing to them all the time. And forget about the fact that we beat them far more often than we lose, or how completely impossible it is that such a thing could happen all these years without any journalist ever mentioning that they're forced to convey Republican talking points, or that Fox News' intentional bias is clearly different from the bias we get from any other news org. The part that interests me most is how, if this conspiracy were true, how truly lousy these people are at it.
Because let's get one thing out there: Even Fox News sucks at propaganda. They are a Republican network, through and through, yet they peruade absolutely no one of anything. You watch Fox News because you're a believer looking for the latest talking points, and if you weren't already a believer, there's nothing they will say that will get you to believe. A traumatic event like 9/11 or a disaster like the oil gusher in the Gulf might get you to rethink your political positions. But there's nothing Bill O'Reilly can say that will get you to start hating big government if you weren't there already.
And that's why conservatives can even oppose policies that help them, because none of it really means anything to them. It's empty rhetoric and feelgood talking points. Required rationalizations to sooth the cognative dissonance they feel when reality keeps butting up against their beliefs. But it doesn't actually mean anything. And so Fox Newsies can demand taxcuts they'd never get, oppose taxcuts they WILL get, and attack healthcare reforms that will save them money and protect their lives.
Nobody's actually persuaded by this crap. You only believe if you want to believe, and even then, the rhetoric is only skin-deep and doesn't alter anyone's core beliefs. As far as propaganda goes, this stuff is pretty weak tea.
And as for the rest of the media, it's obvious that pushing Republican goals isn't their intent. They don't do it because they're ideologues. They do it because they're stupid and shallow. That's why they bring shallow guests on their shows, because they're even more shallow than their guests and wrongly believe the guest's own hype about their supposed expertise.
Rudy The Terror Clown
If the MSM were partisan, they'd bring out heavyweight conservative thinkers who spend all their time justifying conservative positions, and who know this stuff better than you know your mother. They'd bring out a modern-day Kissinger, who might bore the host and viewers with his depth, but who really knows how to provide effective arguments supporting rightwing positions. But instead, they give us Rudy Giuliani.
Now, Giuliani isn't a dumb man. He was a lawyer, an effective prosecutor, and a famous Mayor; none of which requires a Mensa-like IQ, but clearly puts him above the intellect of a Palin. And if the topic of discussion were New York, fighting crime, or winning an election in New York, I'd certainly bow to Giuliani's wisdom; if only because I'm too ignorant to know how to dispute his claims. But as for national security and fighting terrorists, the man has the same credentials I do: None.
Giuliani's not an expert on terrorism. His only claim to fame on the subject was that he talked tough when Bush was still hiding with his tail between his legs. And while that was certainly an improvement, that makes him about as much an expert on terrorism as a hospital clown is an expert on cancer. Sure, he's met lots of sick people and made you feel better, but you're still not going to turn to him for medical advice.
And it's not just that Rudy isn't knowledgeable about terrorism. It's that he doesn't even have anything decent to say on the subject. I'm no expert, but I know enough about it that I could sound persuasive if I was asked about it on TV. But Giuliani doesn't even do that. No, it's just the same bunch of huff you could hear from any moron who agreed with him, and he doesn't even begin to support his position with anything that would persuade anyone of anything.
In fact, whenever he's presented with the opportunity to give a persuasive argument and present his case, he ducks away and heads back to his talking points; keeping the conversation as meaningless as possible. And while I'm sure that does well to prevent him from looking like the unknowledgeable lightweight he is, it doesn't do anything to push the Republican agenda down the field in any way.
If this is someone's idea of pushing a Republican agenda, they don't seem to like Republicans very much.
The Right to Remain Stupid
In this case, Rudy is obsessed with Miranda, as if it's some huge blunder to read someone their rights. But let's remember: Miranda doesn't give anyone rights. They already have those rights, and Miranda is a reminder of those rights.
And first off, who doesn't know they have these rights? As someone at WaMonthly pointed out, a Richard Reid might not have known his rights because he's a foreigner, but a college-educated citizen like Faisal Shahzad probably knows better. And if a reminder of those rights isn't currently part of the terrorist training these guys get, I'm sure it will be now. Seriously, are we to imagine that Al Qaeda hasn't thought to tell their minions to keep their mouths shut? Please.
And secondly, what exactly would we do if the guy refuses to talk before we Mirandize him? Beat him up? Again, this guy has the right to remain silent, whether we inform him of this or not. Miranda isn't going to change that. And the idea that we can arbitrarily strip people of these rights because they do something bad is absurd, as it negates the very idea of them being rights. Unless we're going to rewrite the Constitution to say "The Bill of Privileges," these people aren't making any sense. I can hear it now "You have the privilege to remain silent. If you choose to evoke this privilege, it will be denied to you."
And yet, that's the only way that Giulian's position makes any sense: If he imagines that we get to torture people until we read them their rights, which means we need to do away with this right. But again, there's nothing magical about Miranda and rights can't be stripped away just because they're inconvenient. But I suppose, if we want to convince rightwingers of this, we just need to capture a Tea Partier Terrorist, evoke the "public safety exception" of Miranda, and wait for the howls of protests from wingnuts across the country.
For whatever reason, these people can't comprehend hypothetical situations, and need to see their policies used against them before they begin to see the problems we're talking about. That'd also be a good way to get them to oppose the Arizona Immigration Law. Ask them for their immigration papers a few times and wait for the protests.
The Unpersuasive Clown
And the bigger point is that nobody is going to be persuaded by anything Giuliani said. When Tapper asked Giuliani if we've ever stripped someone of their citizenship and labeled them an enemy combatant, Giuliani said that it's happened, but then changed the subject and didn't answer it. And that's just dumb.
You ignore questions you don't like, but this one went right to the heart of the point. And if you can't knock a question like that out of the ballpark, you shouldn't even be on the show. It'd be like if you asked the clown doctor how leeches will get rid of your tumor, and he answered by making a balloon animal and pulling a coin out of your ear. Yes, he got away with not answering the question; but no, he didn't convince you to put leeches on your pancreas.
If this is the sort of bozo a partisan media will give us to sell their corporate point of view, I'd hate to see what would happen if they were any good at it. Instead, it just makes more sense to think that the media keeps giving us shallow dopes like Giuliani and Liz Cheney because they, themselves, are extremely shallow, and actually imagine them to be experts.
Giuliani stood on rubble and talked tough after a terrorist attack, while Liz Cheney was related to someone who talked tough about terrorism. To a shallow twit, this is enough to make these people experts on terrorism. But the rest of America will continue to treat Giuliani as a tough former mayor, while getting puzzled as to why the word "Liz" was put before the name Cheney.
Dopes like Giuliani are who you turn to when you want to find out what the offical Republican talking points are. You don't turn to them for anything original or insightful.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
Saturday, May 08, 2010
How to Change the Change
Don't be surprised when, come November, the "conventional" wisdom once again proves to be incorrect. We've been assured that people are mad at incumbents and will be punishing anyone associated with Washington.
And I swear, I read a story earlier today about how incumbents did suprisingly well in today's primaries, but I can't find it now. I suspect it's because it went against the media's story, which is why I can't find it, because it didn't fit into their preferred storyline. But it demonstrated my point: Incumbents aren't as nearly at risk as you've been led to believe.
And the biggest oddity about the whole thing is that the entire meme is about how voters are tired of the status quo and are demanding change. This paragraph about Harry Reid's problems sums up the idea quite well:
Because I daresay that this IS what voters want. This IS the change they voted for. And anyone who supports it isn't supporting the status quo. I mean, that's the whole complaint of Republicans and the Tea Partiers: That Obama is a socialist who is changing too much. So if your complaint is that you don't like the status quo, you don't get to complain about Obama and his allies, as he's changing the status quo. Again, his radical agenda is the big complaint against him.
Obama's Radical Establishment
And that's what's so weird about the schizo political coverage this year, as we're to believe that Obama is a radical who represents the Establishment, while conservatives want to shake up the system by keeping things exactly as they are. And I'm like, huh? This is a message? This is supposed to work? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. Because, yeah, people are saying they want change. But that's a completely meaningless word if the "change" they want involves us going back to the way things were in the past.
And the entire storyline is absurd. To hear the media tell it, the "conventional" wisdom essentially amounts to voters always wanting change, all the time, including a change against the changers they elected last time who did the changes they said they were going to do. As if we all want change for change's sake, and nobody really wants change at all. And I simply can't believe that. And all it really is, is that the people who lost the last election want to change that, because they don't like having lost the last election, and reporters are lazy and like that story, as it's the same story they told last time, when voters really did want change.
And so, yeah, we've got a sizeable portion of the population clamoring for "change," but it's smaller than the group that lost the last election. And while they're loud about their demand for change, it still doesn't negate the fact that they lost the last election and didn't get any bigger since then. So again, I have serious doubts about these demands for "change," outside them being part of a media-created storyline. Yes, there are people who want change, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
And I swear, I read a story earlier today about how incumbents did suprisingly well in today's primaries, but I can't find it now. I suspect it's because it went against the media's story, which is why I can't find it, because it didn't fit into their preferred storyline. But it demonstrated my point: Incumbents aren't as nearly at risk as you've been led to believe.
And the biggest oddity about the whole thing is that the entire meme is about how voters are tired of the status quo and are demanding change. This paragraph about Harry Reid's problems sums up the idea quite well:
A succession of polls show most Nevadans are unhappy with his leadership, and his close association with Obama's agenda has turned off some voters in a state known for moderate politics with a libertarian streak. In a year when voters want change, he has a record in the Senate reaching back to the Reagan years.Huh? Voters want change? You mean, like a significant reform of healthcare? Or a pro-active approach of having the government solve problems? That sort of change? Or how Obama has completely revolutionized the way Washington works, so much so that he continues to disprove every known piece of conventional wisdom? Is that the sort of change voters want?
Because I daresay that this IS what voters want. This IS the change they voted for. And anyone who supports it isn't supporting the status quo. I mean, that's the whole complaint of Republicans and the Tea Partiers: That Obama is a socialist who is changing too much. So if your complaint is that you don't like the status quo, you don't get to complain about Obama and his allies, as he's changing the status quo. Again, his radical agenda is the big complaint against him.
Obama's Radical Establishment
And that's what's so weird about the schizo political coverage this year, as we're to believe that Obama is a radical who represents the Establishment, while conservatives want to shake up the system by keeping things exactly as they are. And I'm like, huh? This is a message? This is supposed to work? Sorry, but I'm just not seeing it. Because, yeah, people are saying they want change. But that's a completely meaningless word if the "change" they want involves us going back to the way things were in the past.
And the entire storyline is absurd. To hear the media tell it, the "conventional" wisdom essentially amounts to voters always wanting change, all the time, including a change against the changers they elected last time who did the changes they said they were going to do. As if we all want change for change's sake, and nobody really wants change at all. And I simply can't believe that. And all it really is, is that the people who lost the last election want to change that, because they don't like having lost the last election, and reporters are lazy and like that story, as it's the same story they told last time, when voters really did want change.
And so, yeah, we've got a sizeable portion of the population clamoring for "change," but it's smaller than the group that lost the last election. And while they're loud about their demand for change, it still doesn't negate the fact that they lost the last election and didn't get any bigger since then. So again, I have serious doubts about these demands for "change," outside them being part of a media-created storyline. Yes, there are people who want change, but that doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Terrorists Give Us the Dry Runs
Ugh, I hate it when the media gets fear-mongering in their veins and we end up with headlines like: Official: NYC Suspect Did Dry Run Before Car Bomb
And this is a great scary whistle for conservatives, who keep warning us about the dry runs they've witnessed every time they see brown-skinned people acting suspicious (ie, having brown skin). But if you read the article, you see that this wasn't a "dry run." Rather, the guy was apparently scouting locations for the best place to put it, which isn't a dry run or a "dress rehearsal" as the article also called it.
But it sounds a lot scarier to think that this guy had already been practicing his attack in broad daylight, for an attack that didn't require any practice. I mean, it'd be one thing if he had parked a car in a nearby location to see what the reaction would be, but that's not the case. And that's exactly what scared conservatives always think is happening every time scary brown people scare them, but don't actually attack. They're not innocent; they're just testing us.
And so Colleen Long of the AP decided to play into that, describing a reconnaissance mission as a "dry run," because it sounds more ominous. And now, we should expect to hear fevered reports of dry runs every time a brown-skinned person drives around the block more than once, thanks to a media that's more interested in getting attention than getting the truth.
And this is a great scary whistle for conservatives, who keep warning us about the dry runs they've witnessed every time they see brown-skinned people acting suspicious (ie, having brown skin). But if you read the article, you see that this wasn't a "dry run." Rather, the guy was apparently scouting locations for the best place to put it, which isn't a dry run or a "dress rehearsal" as the article also called it.
But it sounds a lot scarier to think that this guy had already been practicing his attack in broad daylight, for an attack that didn't require any practice. I mean, it'd be one thing if he had parked a car in a nearby location to see what the reaction would be, but that's not the case. And that's exactly what scared conservatives always think is happening every time scary brown people scare them, but don't actually attack. They're not innocent; they're just testing us.
And so Colleen Long of the AP decided to play into that, describing a reconnaissance mission as a "dry run," because it sounds more ominous. And now, we should expect to hear fevered reports of dry runs every time a brown-skinned person drives around the block more than once, thanks to a media that's more interested in getting attention than getting the truth.
Progressives Still Think We're Losers
I still keep reading about how the Republican strategy to make people hate Democrats is so effective, which is why they keep beating us. As one commenter at WaMonthly wrote:
And secondly, are we to imagine that Dems didn't make 2006 and 2008 all about Bush? I'm pretty sure this is a strategy we used quite effectively, with the difference being that we then went ahead and explained how we'd do things better. Meanwhile, the Republican strategy is to demonize everyone who isn't a Republican, under the delusion that there are more Republicans than non-Republicans. And of course, the more they motivate the base, the more they offend everyone else; making it so they'll lose more votes than they gain.
And the weird thing is how they continue to imagine that 2006 and 2008 are somehow outliers. And that makes sense as these same people were adament that we'd lose in those elections too, and still don't quite understand why their political model didn't apply in either year.
But of course, it's not 2006 and 2008 that were the outliers. It was 1994, 2002, and 2004 that were the outliers, while we made gains in the other seven Congressional elections. So Republicans have a 3-7 record, yet we're to imagine that they've got a brilliant strategy that we just can't beat. And for as much as I keep pointing this out, these people continue to hold on to their obviously flawed political model and refuse to acknowledge that the much-hailed Republican Hate Strategy has been an immense failure for a very long time.
And as for this year, it's not the Republican strategy that has them beating us. It's the economy, stupid. And if things keep improving as they are, there's little Republicans can do to win this election. Sure, the sky is falling for progressives, because they think we need to hit Republicans harder than they hit us. But they said the same damn thing at this point before the last two elections, and still don't understand why they were wrong.
The sad part is that though the rebranding is a failure, Republicans have risen in the polls. Their secret is to make all elections about Democrats. Voters hate politicians, so the Democratic message of 'vote for us' tends to lose to the Republican message of 'don't vote for them'. The exceptions were 2006 and 2008, when even people who don't pay attention to politics realized how bad Republicans are.And first off, this is a "secret" strategy? I don't think so. Attacking Democrats has been the cornerstone of every Republican campaign for the last forty years.
And secondly, are we to imagine that Dems didn't make 2006 and 2008 all about Bush? I'm pretty sure this is a strategy we used quite effectively, with the difference being that we then went ahead and explained how we'd do things better. Meanwhile, the Republican strategy is to demonize everyone who isn't a Republican, under the delusion that there are more Republicans than non-Republicans. And of course, the more they motivate the base, the more they offend everyone else; making it so they'll lose more votes than they gain.
And the weird thing is how they continue to imagine that 2006 and 2008 are somehow outliers. And that makes sense as these same people were adament that we'd lose in those elections too, and still don't quite understand why their political model didn't apply in either year.
But of course, it's not 2006 and 2008 that were the outliers. It was 1994, 2002, and 2004 that were the outliers, while we made gains in the other seven Congressional elections. So Republicans have a 3-7 record, yet we're to imagine that they've got a brilliant strategy that we just can't beat. And for as much as I keep pointing this out, these people continue to hold on to their obviously flawed political model and refuse to acknowledge that the much-hailed Republican Hate Strategy has been an immense failure for a very long time.
And as for this year, it's not the Republican strategy that has them beating us. It's the economy, stupid. And if things keep improving as they are, there's little Republicans can do to win this election. Sure, the sky is falling for progressives, because they think we need to hit Republicans harder than they hit us. But they said the same damn thing at this point before the last two elections, and still don't understand why they were wrong.
Monday, May 03, 2010
Most Popular Politician in America
For some time, I've been referring to Obama as "the most popular politician in America" whenever people start imagining that we're really falling behind. And I recently had someone ask me about that, as they weren't really sure if that was true. But...who else would it be? I mean, there really aren't that many people even known on the national level, and most of the ones who are known are infamous characters, with soiled reputations.
So I went ahead and did a little looksie into the various people I could think of, including a few non-politicians. And remember, these are people who aren't being held responsible for running the world, and in many cases, have no other responsibility than to impress people and aren't bound by the constraints of actually putting their money where their mouths are. Oh, and these are "favorable" ratings, which are friendlier than "approval" ratings; which most of these folks don't have.
The top rival, of course, would be Sarah Palin. Yet, Palin's favorable rating is 30% according to CBS, while 63% said she wouldn't be an effective president. CNN had her at 39% favorable, with 69% saying she isn't qualified to be president.
Glenn Beck has an 18% favorable rating, with 47% saying they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion. Rush Limbaugh is a hero by comparison, with 23% of people having a positive attitude towards him. He was better known, but also more hated.
George W has a 27% favorable rating over a year out of office, while presidential loser John McCain sits at 23% (though that was a recent development, and normally polls around 40%). Oddly Darth Cheney polls about ten points higher than his former boss, even though he's a far more repellant man. And finally, Karl "Turdblossum" Rove has a positive rating of 14%, while 38% say they don't even know who he is. Ouch!
Minority Leader Boehner has a 12% favorable rating with 55% saying they never heard of him, according to Fox. While Gallup has his favorable at 29%.
And of the Republicans I saw, Mitt Romney did the best, getting 40% favorable; though of course, the Republican Base HATES Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, Obama's favorable is still around 55%. So even if Obama's competition gained five points and he lost five points, he'd still trounce his opponent by a nice margin. Yet all the same, I'm sure we'll keep hearing about how much trouble he's in, and how his opponents have got him on the ropes; all evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, only 12% polled said they favored replacing Grant on the $50 bill with Reagan. So, yea Grant fans!
So I went ahead and did a little looksie into the various people I could think of, including a few non-politicians. And remember, these are people who aren't being held responsible for running the world, and in many cases, have no other responsibility than to impress people and aren't bound by the constraints of actually putting their money where their mouths are. Oh, and these are "favorable" ratings, which are friendlier than "approval" ratings; which most of these folks don't have.
The top rival, of course, would be Sarah Palin. Yet, Palin's favorable rating is 30% according to CBS, while 63% said she wouldn't be an effective president. CNN had her at 39% favorable, with 69% saying she isn't qualified to be president.
Glenn Beck has an 18% favorable rating, with 47% saying they didn't know enough about him to have an opinion. Rush Limbaugh is a hero by comparison, with 23% of people having a positive attitude towards him. He was better known, but also more hated.
George W has a 27% favorable rating over a year out of office, while presidential loser John McCain sits at 23% (though that was a recent development, and normally polls around 40%). Oddly Darth Cheney polls about ten points higher than his former boss, even though he's a far more repellant man. And finally, Karl "Turdblossum" Rove has a positive rating of 14%, while 38% say they don't even know who he is. Ouch!
Minority Leader Boehner has a 12% favorable rating with 55% saying they never heard of him, according to Fox. While Gallup has his favorable at 29%.
And of the Republicans I saw, Mitt Romney did the best, getting 40% favorable; though of course, the Republican Base HATES Mitt Romney.
Meanwhile, Obama's favorable is still around 55%. So even if Obama's competition gained five points and he lost five points, he'd still trounce his opponent by a nice margin. Yet all the same, I'm sure we'll keep hearing about how much trouble he's in, and how his opponents have got him on the ropes; all evidence to the contrary.
Oh, and in case you were wondering, only 12% polled said they favored replacing Grant on the $50 bill with Reagan. So, yea Grant fans!
Sunday, May 02, 2010
The Progressive Pony Plan
Do you know why progressives believe that our best option is to write progressive bills and demand that Republicans keep filibustering them until they pass? Because that's the only way their strategy makes any sense. It's not based upon reality. It's based upon their need for it to be true. They developed the strategy first, then crafted reality to match it.
And so we're to imagine that Republicans will continually break every time we write a progressive bill, when we can't even peel off one Republican for a moderate bill. And we're to imagine that this is happening because Obama's a moron who would rather have Lucy pull the football away when he could have a touchdown on every play. So the obvious strategy that feels good would also be the easy strategy that would work every time, if only we attempted it.
Honestly, how can anyone believe these fantasies? Hell, I'd fully support liberal laws that didn't require Republican input. And I'd also like for Santa Claus to pay all my bills and buy me a pony. But it ain't going to happen. And if Republicans were ever stupid enough to allow this strategy to work even once, they'd never make that mistake again. Holding your breath and turning blue ISN'T a plan.
And so we're to imagine that Republicans will continually break every time we write a progressive bill, when we can't even peel off one Republican for a moderate bill. And we're to imagine that this is happening because Obama's a moron who would rather have Lucy pull the football away when he could have a touchdown on every play. So the obvious strategy that feels good would also be the easy strategy that would work every time, if only we attempted it.
Honestly, how can anyone believe these fantasies? Hell, I'd fully support liberal laws that didn't require Republican input. And I'd also like for Santa Claus to pay all my bills and buy me a pony. But it ain't going to happen. And if Republicans were ever stupid enough to allow this strategy to work even once, they'd never make that mistake again. Holding your breath and turning blue ISN'T a plan.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Breaking News: Ex-President Bush Still Sucks
What is wrong with journalists? I don't get it. How can they be so blisteringly stupid as to write an article like: Miss Him? Bush's Reputation Might Be Ready For a Rebound.
And what is the evidence of this "rebound"? Well, on the plus side, two of his friends say it'll happen, Iraq isn't doing so bad, and Obama isn't doing so great. And on the minus side, people still hate Bush and remember what he did. And that's it. That's the basis of an entire article which I saw repeatedly on Yahoo.
Oh, and I'm not sure if this is a plus or minus, as they mention that Nixon and Carter worked at rehabing their images. Because yeah, both those guys are widely loved now. I'm sure all the Nixon and Carter statues will be going up any day. And hell, at least Nixon and Carter had enough brains to pull-off some sort of redemption. Bush, on the other hand, is morely likely to win a farting contest than a Nobel prize.
And it wasn't even that the article was wrong. It was just dumb. Pointless. A thought exercise for the brainless. Hell, the article contained everything needed to refute its own point, and it would have been easier to make the opposite point: That the man's been out of office a year now and people still hate him. But I guess that article would have been a bit mean, as well as obvious.
So instead, we get an article attempting to be a self-fulfilling prophesy, just in case it actually happens. But at this point, Bush has no hope of being remembered as a good president. Indeed, the man is such an embarrassment that his main focus should be on not being remembered at all.
And what is the evidence of this "rebound"? Well, on the plus side, two of his friends say it'll happen, Iraq isn't doing so bad, and Obama isn't doing so great. And on the minus side, people still hate Bush and remember what he did. And that's it. That's the basis of an entire article which I saw repeatedly on Yahoo.
Oh, and I'm not sure if this is a plus or minus, as they mention that Nixon and Carter worked at rehabing their images. Because yeah, both those guys are widely loved now. I'm sure all the Nixon and Carter statues will be going up any day. And hell, at least Nixon and Carter had enough brains to pull-off some sort of redemption. Bush, on the other hand, is morely likely to win a farting contest than a Nobel prize.
And it wasn't even that the article was wrong. It was just dumb. Pointless. A thought exercise for the brainless. Hell, the article contained everything needed to refute its own point, and it would have been easier to make the opposite point: That the man's been out of office a year now and people still hate him. But I guess that article would have been a bit mean, as well as obvious.
So instead, we get an article attempting to be a self-fulfilling prophesy, just in case it actually happens. But at this point, Bush has no hope of being remembered as a good president. Indeed, the man is such an embarrassment that his main focus should be on not being remembered at all.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Governor Perry and the Coyote
Governor Perry shot a coyote back in February, and nobody saw him do it, and a report was never filed, and the coyote was left there, and he didn't bother mentioning it to the media until now. Now that this coyote "is mulch," thanks to Perry and his trusty pistol.
And I'm sorry, but I call bull on this story. He jogs with his pistol? A coyote was going to attack his dog? He takes it down with his hollow-tipped bullets and laser-sighted gun? With just one shot? That all sounds like bullshit to me. Governor Perry's nothing but a hollow-tipped suit who made George W look savvy.
The fact that nobody talks about him as being the Republican presidential nominee either means he's the secret guy they already picked for the job, or the Republican Establishment knows what a real dunce he is. Or possibly both.
And I'm sorry, but I call bull on this story. He jogs with his pistol? A coyote was going to attack his dog? He takes it down with his hollow-tipped bullets and laser-sighted gun? With just one shot? That all sounds like bullshit to me. Governor Perry's nothing but a hollow-tipped suit who made George W look savvy.
The fact that nobody talks about him as being the Republican presidential nominee either means he's the secret guy they already picked for the job, or the Republican Establishment knows what a real dunce he is. Or possibly both.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Obama Suggests Death Tax Panels May be an Option
Sometimes, a cigar is a cigar, and sometimes it's a penis. And it's generally a good idea to figure out what it is you're holding before setting it on fire. (Unless you're into that sort of thing, of course.)
And so it bugs me when political types insist on parsing every word Obama says and insisting that it's some sort of code for what he's about to do. I understand why his critics do that, as they're so eager for him to finally confirm their suspicions that they'll jump on every clue they can find, no matter how vague or bizarre it is. But I wish the media would be a little better about this.
So I see an article titled Obama Suggests Value-Added Tax May be an Option, which opened with:
And since when does the chair of an advisory board count as an aide at all? I mean, the purpose of the board is to find "new ways of thinking," so it's not like Volcker is expressing Obama's opinions. That'd defeat the whole purpose. This isn't like things were in the Bush years, when even cabinet secretaries were nothing but glorified hypemen for the boss. Volcker's there to advise, not sell policies or run the show.
A Better Picture of the Options
And did Obama actually show openness to the idea? Only if you take his words and twist them into ultra-code absurdity. Here's what he said:
Obama as Regular Guy
And any normal person reading his words would realize that Obama said he doesn't even know what the options are. No, he didn't rule it out, but he also didn't say it was an option. But newsies desperate for a story were quick to jump on his non-denial as proof that he's at least considering it. And yes, perhaps he IS slowly trying to get us to warm up to the idea. But Obama doesn't really have a track record for speaking in code like this, and there's no reason why we shouldn't simply accept his words at face value.
And that's something that some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around: Obama isn't a typical politician. He doesn't speak in memorized talking points and codewords. He's a real person who happens to be extremely intelligent and actually thinks about what he's saying. Because it would be stupid for him to outright state that a VAT isn't an option, if he doesn't know enough about it. It might be the best option in the world and then he'd be branded a liar for changing his mind.
And that's something else his critics simply can't grasp: He's not an ideologue. He's not president so he can push a specific economic or political theory. He just wants the best policies possible, whatever they are. He's said so himself, and it just makes sense. Even if he's a selfish man (which I'm sure he is, to a certain extent), then he'll want to make sure to do the best job possible. That's all he's after. So he can't rule-out certain policies if they might be the best ones for us.
And that's something these people just can't wrap their heads around. Yes, many politicians speak in codewords to say things they can't actually say, and Obama's predecessor was definitely one of those types. But sometimes, the cigar really is a cigar.
And so it bugs me when political types insist on parsing every word Obama says and insisting that it's some sort of code for what he's about to do. I understand why his critics do that, as they're so eager for him to finally confirm their suspicions that they'll jump on every clue they can find, no matter how vague or bizarre it is. But I wish the media would be a little better about this.
So I see an article titled Obama Suggests Value-Added Tax May be an Option, which opened with:
President Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that a new value-added tax on Americans is still on the table, seeming to show more openness to the idea than his aides have expressed in recent days.And first off, he's got one advisor who mentioned the idea, and two spokesmen who denied it was under consideration when asked about it repeatedly. So this counts as "aides" expressing the idea? Does Paul Volcker now count as more than one person, or are they including these denials as "expressing" the idea?
And since when does the chair of an advisory board count as an aide at all? I mean, the purpose of the board is to find "new ways of thinking," so it's not like Volcker is expressing Obama's opinions. That'd defeat the whole purpose. This isn't like things were in the Bush years, when even cabinet secretaries were nothing but glorified hypemen for the boss. Volcker's there to advise, not sell policies or run the show.
A Better Picture of the Options
And did Obama actually show openness to the idea? Only if you take his words and twist them into ultra-code absurdity. Here's what he said:
I know that there's been a lot of talk around town lately about the value-added tax. That is something that has worked for some countries. It's something that would be novel for the United States. And before, you know, I start saying 'this makes sense or that makes sense,' I want to get a better picture of what our options are.All he said was that he doesn't have an opinion and wants a better idea of what his options are. Did he say it wasn't an option? No. But he also didn't rule out the use of Death Tax Panels to determine how much of everyone's stuff the government gets when they die. Nor did he deny that he'll start imposing a 100% White People Tax on all the people he hates. But that doesn't mean they're under consideration.
Obama as Regular Guy
And any normal person reading his words would realize that Obama said he doesn't even know what the options are. No, he didn't rule it out, but he also didn't say it was an option. But newsies desperate for a story were quick to jump on his non-denial as proof that he's at least considering it. And yes, perhaps he IS slowly trying to get us to warm up to the idea. But Obama doesn't really have a track record for speaking in code like this, and there's no reason why we shouldn't simply accept his words at face value.
And that's something that some people just can't seem to wrap their heads around: Obama isn't a typical politician. He doesn't speak in memorized talking points and codewords. He's a real person who happens to be extremely intelligent and actually thinks about what he's saying. Because it would be stupid for him to outright state that a VAT isn't an option, if he doesn't know enough about it. It might be the best option in the world and then he'd be branded a liar for changing his mind.
And that's something else his critics simply can't grasp: He's not an ideologue. He's not president so he can push a specific economic or political theory. He just wants the best policies possible, whatever they are. He's said so himself, and it just makes sense. Even if he's a selfish man (which I'm sure he is, to a certain extent), then he'll want to make sure to do the best job possible. That's all he's after. So he can't rule-out certain policies if they might be the best ones for us.
And that's something these people just can't wrap their heads around. Yes, many politicians speak in codewords to say things they can't actually say, and Obama's predecessor was definitely one of those types. But sometimes, the cigar really is a cigar.
The Foundationless House
The way people "know" things is by trying to fit it with the things they already know. If something matches their previous knowledge, it gets included. If it doesn't match, it gets discarded. That's just how we discriminate our input and learn how to make sense of it all. It's like building a house with whatever scraps you happen to find; using anything that fits. The better it fits, the sturdier the house.
And that's a great system, IF the foundation you're building it on makes sense. But if the foundation is flawed, then you're going to get a lousy house. And too often, people suffer from cognative dissonance because they have sketchy facts that don't fit, and these facts continue to conflict with one another. And this happens when the foundation they're building upon is fake and doesn't match the reality they keep experiencing. And this dissonance causes frustration and anger, and they don't know why. But rather than searching their beliefs and finding the base of their trouble, they lash out at the world that refuses to match the one they expect to find.
And that's why conservatives are always so confused, because the foundation of their thoughts are almost completely fictional. They take a few names and concepts from history and reassemble them into the only way they fit into their political ideas. But that's a lousy way to do things, and is like someone trying to lay the foundation of their house to fit the house they already built.
Real Olden Times
And so you get these people who imagine that their childhood was the idyllic Leave it to Beaver world they remember. And they imagine that their grandparents were all god-fearing farmers and ranchers; living the life of the Old West, which really only existed for a very short time period before their grandparents were born and wasn't nearly as romantic as they were led to believe.
And so these people continue to pine for the days when Men were Men, and doctor bills could be paid with chickens. And while those things did happen, particularly during the Great Depression when money was sparse, that wasn't the norm. Like with my family. My grandparents weren't farmers and neither were their parents. I've read my family's history going back to Europe and there doesn't seem to be a farmer in the bunch. They were businesspeople. They lived in cities. They paid their doctors in cash.
And they had problems, just like we do. One of them moved to America for mysterious reasons. Another was an alcoholic. Another had multiple divorces. One great-grandfather barely spoke English. Another ruined his father's business due to incompetence. They had problems, just like everyone does. They didn't live in some agrarian utopia. They were real people, just like us, and they bought their food in stores, just like us.
Mythical Foundations
But you can't convince some people of these things. They all want to believe that their grandparents shot their own meat and farmed their own food. But that's a myth. For the past ninety years, a majority of Americans lived in cities. And even the rural folks weren't all farmers and ranchers. But this is the foundation they've laid for themselves, which is why they still want to hold to their rural roots, even though most of them are urbanites like us, and a large majority of rural folks are part of the same culture as the rest of us.
So they drive pick-up trucks that never get dirty and listen to "country" music that's nothing more than pop music with a twang. And it's all a sham. A desperate bid to get back to a time that never existed. And the more they feed on fictional food, the hungrier they get. And they get angry that everything doesn't seem to fit on the foundation that never existed.
So they'll say incredibly stupid things about how we might be able to pay for our cancer treatments with chickens, not because it makes a lick of sense, but because it's all they've got. And they'll point to a mythical time when our grandparents did the same thing as all the justification they need, even if their grandparents never did anything of the kind. How sad.
And that's a great system, IF the foundation you're building it on makes sense. But if the foundation is flawed, then you're going to get a lousy house. And too often, people suffer from cognative dissonance because they have sketchy facts that don't fit, and these facts continue to conflict with one another. And this happens when the foundation they're building upon is fake and doesn't match the reality they keep experiencing. And this dissonance causes frustration and anger, and they don't know why. But rather than searching their beliefs and finding the base of their trouble, they lash out at the world that refuses to match the one they expect to find.
And that's why conservatives are always so confused, because the foundation of their thoughts are almost completely fictional. They take a few names and concepts from history and reassemble them into the only way they fit into their political ideas. But that's a lousy way to do things, and is like someone trying to lay the foundation of their house to fit the house they already built.
Real Olden Times
And so you get these people who imagine that their childhood was the idyllic Leave it to Beaver world they remember. And they imagine that their grandparents were all god-fearing farmers and ranchers; living the life of the Old West, which really only existed for a very short time period before their grandparents were born and wasn't nearly as romantic as they were led to believe.
And so these people continue to pine for the days when Men were Men, and doctor bills could be paid with chickens. And while those things did happen, particularly during the Great Depression when money was sparse, that wasn't the norm. Like with my family. My grandparents weren't farmers and neither were their parents. I've read my family's history going back to Europe and there doesn't seem to be a farmer in the bunch. They were businesspeople. They lived in cities. They paid their doctors in cash.
And they had problems, just like we do. One of them moved to America for mysterious reasons. Another was an alcoholic. Another had multiple divorces. One great-grandfather barely spoke English. Another ruined his father's business due to incompetence. They had problems, just like everyone does. They didn't live in some agrarian utopia. They were real people, just like us, and they bought their food in stores, just like us.
Mythical Foundations
But you can't convince some people of these things. They all want to believe that their grandparents shot their own meat and farmed their own food. But that's a myth. For the past ninety years, a majority of Americans lived in cities. And even the rural folks weren't all farmers and ranchers. But this is the foundation they've laid for themselves, which is why they still want to hold to their rural roots, even though most of them are urbanites like us, and a large majority of rural folks are part of the same culture as the rest of us.
So they drive pick-up trucks that never get dirty and listen to "country" music that's nothing more than pop music with a twang. And it's all a sham. A desperate bid to get back to a time that never existed. And the more they feed on fictional food, the hungrier they get. And they get angry that everything doesn't seem to fit on the foundation that never existed.
So they'll say incredibly stupid things about how we might be able to pay for our cancer treatments with chickens, not because it makes a lick of sense, but because it's all they've got. And they'll point to a mythical time when our grandparents did the same thing as all the justification they need, even if their grandparents never did anything of the kind. How sad.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Our Beliefs Mirror Our Selves
I just wanted to repost a comment I made on Facebook, in regards to a discussion on Hell, its pointlessness, and whether or not religious people choose their own beliefs. I personally thought a discussion on the pointlessness of Hell was a bit odd, as pointlessness would be one of the things that made it hell, but decided against making that point. And yeah, you've been reduced to reading my second-hand Facebook postings. Deal with it.
I don't think people pick or choose their religion any more than they choose which foods taste good to them. Nor do I think people accept religions as-is.
I think their religions are a mirror of themselves, and they see the parts that they want to see. The parts that make sense resonate with them, so that's what they focus on, while they ignore the rest. Authoritarians need authority they don't have, so their religion includes an all-powerful god that punishes dissenters forever. But it's not their religion that gave them the hell, it's their personalities which chose to adopt that part of the religion. And they only believe as far as it gives them power over those who don't listen to them.
Other Christians are confident enough to not require a vengeful god, so they don't really focus on that aspect of their religion. They're kind people who prefer a loving Jesus, so that's what their religion is to them. It's not that one group chooses Hell versus Love, it's just that they focus on the part that mirrors their own personality. A loving Christian has more in common with a Buddhist than they do an angry Christian, because it's not the religion that makes them this way. It's their personality that decides how they adopt their religion. I'm sure there are angry Buddhists too. And there's a reason why some Christians say things that sound like they could have come from the Taliban. Yes, they're citing religious texts, but it's not the religion talking.
And that's what we all do. We all seek those things which resonate with us and fit our identity. We see what we want to see. And as long as we realize that we're doing this and train ourselves to know what truly makes us happy, this isn't a problem. It's only a problem when we don't know what we really want, or try to force our preferences on to others. There is an objective reality out there, but until we understand what our biases are, we'll never really see the whole thing.
I don't think people pick or choose their religion any more than they choose which foods taste good to them. Nor do I think people accept religions as-is.
I think their religions are a mirror of themselves, and they see the parts that they want to see. The parts that make sense resonate with them, so that's what they focus on, while they ignore the rest. Authoritarians need authority they don't have, so their religion includes an all-powerful god that punishes dissenters forever. But it's not their religion that gave them the hell, it's their personalities which chose to adopt that part of the religion. And they only believe as far as it gives them power over those who don't listen to them.
Other Christians are confident enough to not require a vengeful god, so they don't really focus on that aspect of their religion. They're kind people who prefer a loving Jesus, so that's what their religion is to them. It's not that one group chooses Hell versus Love, it's just that they focus on the part that mirrors their own personality. A loving Christian has more in common with a Buddhist than they do an angry Christian, because it's not the religion that makes them this way. It's their personality that decides how they adopt their religion. I'm sure there are angry Buddhists too. And there's a reason why some Christians say things that sound like they could have come from the Taliban. Yes, they're citing religious texts, but it's not the religion talking.
And that's what we all do. We all seek those things which resonate with us and fit our identity. We see what we want to see. And as long as we realize that we're doing this and train ourselves to know what truly makes us happy, this isn't a problem. It's only a problem when we don't know what we really want, or try to force our preferences on to others. There is an objective reality out there, but until we understand what our biases are, we'll never really see the whole thing.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Donald Douglas Doesn't Know What a Tax Cut Is
As part of my quest to always be right, I make a point of reading people I disagree with, to see if maybe I've missed something. And one of my favorite sources for this is the unesteemable Donald Douglas of the American Power blog, who never had an original thought he didn't get from somebody else. And while it's pointless to ever read Donald's material for his own thoughts (as you won't find any), I find he's a good repository of cutting edge conservative thought (at least as far as that goes).
And so I happened to read his angry post President Obama's Lying About Taxes because Obama claims to have cut taxes for "95% of working Americans." And I was interested in this, as I had heard this claim repeatedly. But then I read Donald's basis for his debunking (which is itself a collection of other people's thoughts), and saw that I was right back where I started.
Apparently, a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless it's a cut in tax rates which goes towards rich people. Anything else is just a "give away," and if middle-class people pay less in taxes, their taxes still weren't cut unless Donald says they were. And sure, if the marginal tax rate for most Americans goes down, it's still a lie, because...well because...well because the WSJ told Donald that it was a lie; and that's good enough for him.
Oddly, much of Donald's evidence comes from a WSJ article written in October 2008; many months before Obama was even president. Donald also cites an American Spectator piece from January 7, 2009, a PolitiFact article that says Obama's telling the truth, and a Heritage Foundation piece saying that Obama will raise taxes on the rich; which was part of Obama's campaign platform.
Brilliant, Donald. All those quotes and not one that proved your point. Perhaps next time, Donald should look into Obama's actual tax policies.
Besides the Point
And after "debunking" Obama's claim by pointing to a ridiculously inaccurate post he had already written, Donald then moves on to items entirely unrelated to his subject; like the bogus claim of the IRS hiring "thousands" of employees to enforce health insurance mandates, bemoaning tax increases for the rich which the Bush Admin had set to expire, as well as hypothetical tax increases which might never happen.
And finally, we have Donald using other people's words to complain about Obama's dreaded deficits, without noting that the tax cuts Donald wants would only make them worse; just as they did when Bush tried that approach. Nor were Bush's raging deficits mentioned at all. Poor, confused Donald. He spends two long blog posts quoting other people's words to show that Obama's lying, but fails to find any lies in what Obama said.
And if you were wanting to learn if Obama's claim to have cut taxes for 95% of working Americans is a lie, you're just going to have to look elsewhere. Donald just hasn't found the person to quote on that one yet.
And so I happened to read his angry post President Obama's Lying About Taxes because Obama claims to have cut taxes for "95% of working Americans." And I was interested in this, as I had heard this claim repeatedly. But then I read Donald's basis for his debunking (which is itself a collection of other people's thoughts), and saw that I was right back where I started.
Apparently, a tax cut isn't a tax cut unless it's a cut in tax rates which goes towards rich people. Anything else is just a "give away," and if middle-class people pay less in taxes, their taxes still weren't cut unless Donald says they were. And sure, if the marginal tax rate for most Americans goes down, it's still a lie, because...well because...well because the WSJ told Donald that it was a lie; and that's good enough for him.
Oddly, much of Donald's evidence comes from a WSJ article written in October 2008; many months before Obama was even president. Donald also cites an American Spectator piece from January 7, 2009, a PolitiFact article that says Obama's telling the truth, and a Heritage Foundation piece saying that Obama will raise taxes on the rich; which was part of Obama's campaign platform.
Brilliant, Donald. All those quotes and not one that proved your point. Perhaps next time, Donald should look into Obama's actual tax policies.
Besides the Point
And after "debunking" Obama's claim by pointing to a ridiculously inaccurate post he had already written, Donald then moves on to items entirely unrelated to his subject; like the bogus claim of the IRS hiring "thousands" of employees to enforce health insurance mandates, bemoaning tax increases for the rich which the Bush Admin had set to expire, as well as hypothetical tax increases which might never happen.
And finally, we have Donald using other people's words to complain about Obama's dreaded deficits, without noting that the tax cuts Donald wants would only make them worse; just as they did when Bush tried that approach. Nor were Bush's raging deficits mentioned at all. Poor, confused Donald. He spends two long blog posts quoting other people's words to show that Obama's lying, but fails to find any lies in what Obama said.
And if you were wanting to learn if Obama's claim to have cut taxes for 95% of working Americans is a lie, you're just going to have to look elsewhere. Donald just hasn't found the person to quote on that one yet.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Those Who Live In Glass Jaws...
Republicans are much too funny. Because their beliefs only make sense if they cherrypick reality and ignore anything that doesn't fit; which is a large majority of everything real. And so, via Memorandum, I see that Republicans are outraged that Obama savagely smeared them.
Witness this "hyperpartisan" abuse from Obama, after nothing that he had cut taxes for 95% of working Americans:
AllahPundit:
The aptly named Scared Monkeys:
Sure, Obama lowered taxes for these people while they continue to imagine that their taxes went up, but it's offensive for Obama to even mention the irony of this. Scared Monkeys went as far as to insist that this shows how Obama can't take criticism. Sure, they bristle at even the most benign of comments on them, but Obama's the sensitive one. Right. They call him a socialist Muslim anti-American intent on destroying the country, while he notes his amusement, and this makes him the jerk.
But as usual, they protest too much. The only reason they found it so offensive was because it was true, and the reason they're so outraged is because they were already outraged and this was the closest justification they could find for explaining that outrage. And so Obama is attacked for being a despot by people who are angered that he's not taking them seriously. To bozos like these, that's the deepest cut of all.
Witness this "hyperpartisan" abuse from Obama, after nothing that he had cut taxes for 95% of working Americans:
So I've been a little amused over the last couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes. You would think they would be saying, 'Thank you.'Ouch! That's a sting that will be burning for days. He's amused by people who demand lower taxes from someone who already lowered their taxes, and jokes about how they should say "thank you." Naturally, Republicans were stunned by this hateful slam.
AllahPundit:
this may well be the single most obnoxious soundbite he’s uttered since his immortal bitter/clinger bon mot during the campaign.Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau, who equated Obama's comment to calling Tea Partiers "Ungrateful Slugs":
The statement, outrageous in any case, is a sign of a troubling tendency on behalf of the President.Indeed, by expressing amusement, Obama's either a delusional despot or a trash-talker baiting his opponents. Low-grade trash-talk, indeed.
[...]
Could the President have confused himself with a benevolent despot, someone who does whatever he wants and then waits for the plaudits from a sycophantic public?
[...]
At any rate, such low-grade trash-talking is unworthy of his office. In case he doesn't remember, he's supposed to be President of all the people -- not just of those who agree with him.
The aptly named Scared Monkeys:
President Barack Hussein Obama has nothing on Marie Antoinette as The One says to the Tea Party and Americans for that fact, “LET THEM EAT TAXES”.And what did all these outraged Republicans say about the fact that Obama lowered taxes for a huge majority of Americans? Almost nothing. AllahPundit came closest, with his main complaint being that Obama was essentially a liar because he'd have to raise taxes later, while pretending that this is what most Tea Partiers are complaining about. But the rest of these bozos didn't even seem to understand what Obama's remark even meant.
[...]
What President of the United States mocks and makes fun of the people he serves? Do you ever remember a President being so flipped and condescending?
Sure, Obama lowered taxes for these people while they continue to imagine that their taxes went up, but it's offensive for Obama to even mention the irony of this. Scared Monkeys went as far as to insist that this shows how Obama can't take criticism. Sure, they bristle at even the most benign of comments on them, but Obama's the sensitive one. Right. They call him a socialist Muslim anti-American intent on destroying the country, while he notes his amusement, and this makes him the jerk.
But as usual, they protest too much. The only reason they found it so offensive was because it was true, and the reason they're so outraged is because they were already outraged and this was the closest justification they could find for explaining that outrage. And so Obama is attacked for being a despot by people who are angered that he's not taking them seriously. To bozos like these, that's the deepest cut of all.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
The AP Strikes Again
I don't know what it is about the Associated Press, but when I see any story with their logo on it, I know the story's got to be crap. This time, I see yet another article telling us how bad things are for Obama and Democrats, because one poll is so heavily against them. You know, because Obama's still the most popular politician in the country, yet not quite as popular as he's been in the past because his approval rating is a dismal 49%, on a poll with a 4.3 point margin of error.
But first off, it's just one poll. One poll which says a third of people are Tea Partiers. A third?? Fox News' recent poll put the number at 19%, while other polls put it at 13%. That alone would suggest that this poll might have skewed just a bit towards conservatives. And if we view the actual poll results, we see a five point shift of Independents leaning from Dem to Repub, and a six-point shift of people identifying as conservatives, taking three points each from moderates and liberals. Either something massive just happened, or this poll is an outlier which leans right.
Oh, and get this: It showed that 31% of people support the Tea Party, yet only 16% say they know much about it. Oh, and only 28% of people have a "favorable" view of the Tea Party, meaning that 3% of them supposedly don't even like the group they're in. At a guess, I think they're asking the wrong question and this poll didn't say what they think it said.
And the poll shows that only 16% said they "strongly agree" with the Tea Party, while the others only "somewhat agree." Methinks 16% is probably the closer figure for true Tea Partiers, with active Tea Partiers being an even smaller group than that. I wonder why the AP didn't mention that. I also wonder if the media will ever realize that many "Independents" are Republicans who prefer to think of themselves as independent.
Tea Partiers for Obama
And check out this absurdist paragraph:
Oh, and for as badly as things are for Democrats, this poll still shows them as being slightly more popular than Republicans, while Dem numbers actually went up. No word yet on when the AP will tell us about how bad this is for Republicans.
But first off, it's just one poll. One poll which says a third of people are Tea Partiers. A third?? Fox News' recent poll put the number at 19%, while other polls put it at 13%. That alone would suggest that this poll might have skewed just a bit towards conservatives. And if we view the actual poll results, we see a five point shift of Independents leaning from Dem to Repub, and a six-point shift of people identifying as conservatives, taking three points each from moderates and liberals. Either something massive just happened, or this poll is an outlier which leans right.
Oh, and get this: It showed that 31% of people support the Tea Party, yet only 16% say they know much about it. Oh, and only 28% of people have a "favorable" view of the Tea Party, meaning that 3% of them supposedly don't even like the group they're in. At a guess, I think they're asking the wrong question and this poll didn't say what they think it said.
And the poll shows that only 16% said they "strongly agree" with the Tea Party, while the others only "somewhat agree." Methinks 16% is probably the closer figure for true Tea Partiers, with active Tea Partiers being an even smaller group than that. I wonder why the AP didn't mention that. I also wonder if the media will ever realize that many "Independents" are Republicans who prefer to think of themselves as independent.
Tea Partiers for Obama
And check out this absurdist paragraph:
And it could get worse for Democrats: One-third of those surveyed consider themselves tea party supporters, and three-quarters of those people are overwhelmingly Republicans or right-leaning independents. That means they are more likely to vote with the GOP in this fall's midterms, when energized base voters will be crucial amid the typical low turnout of a non-presidential election year.Oh, no! Three-Quarters of Tea Partiers might vote Republican!! Whatever can Obama do to win them back? Oh yeah: Nothing. This isn't a separate movement which could go in either direction. These are the hardcore anti-Obama Republicans who chose to call themselves Tea Partiers to show how rebellious they are towards Obama. This isn't getting worse for Democrats. This is where things were before Obama became president. They're not voting with Republicans. They are Republicans.
Oh, and for as badly as things are for Democrats, this poll still shows them as being slightly more popular than Republicans, while Dem numbers actually went up. No word yet on when the AP will tell us about how bad this is for Republicans.
Why Obama Drives Them Bonkers
I feel bad for Republicans. Obama just doesn't give them much to work with. With Clinton, they had a pot-smoking, draft-dodging, lying baby boomer with an insatiable appetite for putang; back when people actually cared about such things. And Clinton loved to make everything about himself, and took delight in making people eat whatever dung they handed to him. If Republicans wanted to talk about welfare reform or taxcuts, by god, Clinton would make that reform and those cuts his. And conservatives cried all the way to the bank.
But Obama's just not like that. Sure, he's got a sense of humor, but he's really all about getting the job done. And that means crafting policies that give his opponents absolutely nothing to work with, and if you make the mistake of criticizing his policies, you'll end up burying yourself in a stupid position that you should have avoided from the start. And you'll convince yourself that it's a real goldmine to propose gas tax holidays and oppose stimulus bills that send millions to your constitutents.
And when the dust settles and you're further behind in the polls than when you started, you'll do something really dumb, like suggest that he beat you because he's black; as if that's always been some trump card. But no, he's just smarter than you. He'll sit back and patiently wait for you to play all your cards, and once you've shown him everything you've got, he'll take whatever cards cards he needs right out of your hand and make another straight flush for himself.
And no, that's not in accordance with the rules of Poker, but Obama's not playing Poker. He's running a country, and while you're fuming about how he's not playing the game properly, he's already on to his next victory.
Conservatives Criticize Nothing
So we get headlines like Michelle Obama Makes First Solo Trip Abroad as First Lady, Draws Criticism from the Right. And I had to click on the article, to see if they finally found the nut they were looking for. But no luck, it was an exagerrated headline by a political writer as frustrated at the Obamas ability to keep clean as Republicans are.
Apparently, the strongest "criticism" they could find was a Michelle Malkin post which criticized Michelle Obama for wanting "shamnesty" for illegal aliens, helping Americans fight obesity, and not helping Arizona ranchers deal with violence on the border. Why should border violence be on the First Lady's agenda? I have no idea, and I doubt Malkin does either. Obama is driving them nuts and this is the best they can do.
And worst of all, they really seem to think they've got something. Post a picture of the First Lady successfully using a hoola-hoop, use senseless "quotes" around a phrase she used, and insult Mexicans a few times. That's got to be a recipe for success, right? And yet...nothing seems to gain traction with the people. How can that be? I mean, it worked so successfully with the Clintons that he's widely regarded as being a great president ten years out of office. So it's got to work with a president who actually knows how to get shit done, right? Right?
And, sad. It's all so sad. Attacking liberals is all they've got and now they've got one who won't even pretend to play along.
But Obama's just not like that. Sure, he's got a sense of humor, but he's really all about getting the job done. And that means crafting policies that give his opponents absolutely nothing to work with, and if you make the mistake of criticizing his policies, you'll end up burying yourself in a stupid position that you should have avoided from the start. And you'll convince yourself that it's a real goldmine to propose gas tax holidays and oppose stimulus bills that send millions to your constitutents.
And when the dust settles and you're further behind in the polls than when you started, you'll do something really dumb, like suggest that he beat you because he's black; as if that's always been some trump card. But no, he's just smarter than you. He'll sit back and patiently wait for you to play all your cards, and once you've shown him everything you've got, he'll take whatever cards cards he needs right out of your hand and make another straight flush for himself.
And no, that's not in accordance with the rules of Poker, but Obama's not playing Poker. He's running a country, and while you're fuming about how he's not playing the game properly, he's already on to his next victory.
Conservatives Criticize Nothing
So we get headlines like Michelle Obama Makes First Solo Trip Abroad as First Lady, Draws Criticism from the Right. And I had to click on the article, to see if they finally found the nut they were looking for. But no luck, it was an exagerrated headline by a political writer as frustrated at the Obamas ability to keep clean as Republicans are.
Apparently, the strongest "criticism" they could find was a Michelle Malkin post which criticized Michelle Obama for wanting "shamnesty" for illegal aliens, helping Americans fight obesity, and not helping Arizona ranchers deal with violence on the border. Why should border violence be on the First Lady's agenda? I have no idea, and I doubt Malkin does either. Obama is driving them nuts and this is the best they can do.
And worst of all, they really seem to think they've got something. Post a picture of the First Lady successfully using a hoola-hoop, use senseless "quotes" around a phrase she used, and insult Mexicans a few times. That's got to be a recipe for success, right? And yet...nothing seems to gain traction with the people. How can that be? I mean, it worked so successfully with the Clintons that he's widely regarded as being a great president ten years out of office. So it's got to work with a president who actually knows how to get shit done, right? Right?
And, sad. It's all so sad. Attacking liberals is all they've got and now they've got one who won't even pretend to play along.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Let He Who Is Without Beliefs Cast The First Stone
There’s a small part of me that resents the concept of religious beliefs, as if some people have thoughts that are more important than my thoughts; which usually involve money and porn. But overall, I accept the idea. After all, these beliefs are supposed to come directly from our creator, which implicitly does make them more important than my own mortal thoughts. Not that I believe in any sort of creator, but I’m willing to accept the premise and don’t disbelieve in any of them, so this is something I’m willing to live with.
But there lies a problem: Once you’ve accepted the premise of religious beliefs, you’re forced to respect EVERYONE’S religious beliefs. Not that you have to believe in them yourself, but you’re stuck with the idea that none of these beliefs are right or wrong, beyond how you personally interpret them. And if you expect people to respect your beliefs, you’re stuck respecting theirs. And then there are the poor suckers like me, who don’t get any special privileges because all our thoughts are mortal, but that’s a separate issue.
And so I find it funny when religious people who expect others to respect their beliefs start tossing issues of morality at the religious beliefs of others. A Catholic wants people to respect his beliefs by banning abortion, yet heaps scorn at a Muslim who keeps his wife hidden behind veils. A Baptist demands that alcohol be illegal, yet scoffs at a Hindu for worshipping cows. And I have a Buddhist Facebook friend (who I really do like) who insists that it's misogynistic for a Catholic hospital to not perform hysterectomies. (I believe that's a position they've now changed, though I'm not sure about that.)
But no, it doesn’t work like that. If we respect the idea that a god or whatever might want things a certain way, then we're stuck admitting that it's not the Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, or Hindu doing these things. It's the god or whatever telling us to do things like that. And hey, who's to say god ISN'T a misogynist? Maybe he really DOES want men to work while woman stay at home, have as many kids as possible, and hide behind veils; and maybe all the feminists are going to Hell. That's up to whoever made us, not us.
And if you blame someone for their religious beliefs, you're basically tossing the entire idea of religion right out the window, and then you don't get to have any religion at all. And so while I think it's logically consistent for atheists to crap on religion and insist that none of these people's beliefs deserve special treatment (an attitude I don't support, btw), religious people are stuck acknowledging that someone else's religious beliefs don't necessarily reflect the views of the person espousing them, but rather, the creator they believe in. After all, if religious beliefs were optional, they'd be pretty damn useless.
Now, that still leaves them room to say that these views are wrong, because they believe in their one true religion. But it does mean you can't blame the person for what they believe. The Catholic Church might be misogynistic, but that's because they think their god wants it that way. You can say their god is wrong, but you can't blame them for repeating the claim. It just doesn't work like that.
If you get to believe in karma, then the Taliban gets to believe that music is evil and Allah loves beards. But once you start thinking that these guys are jerks who are abusing religion as a way of gaining power, then you're already halfway to atheism. And soon enough, you reach the sad conslusion that all your thoughts are mortal thoughts and start reaching for the porn.
But there lies a problem: Once you’ve accepted the premise of religious beliefs, you’re forced to respect EVERYONE’S religious beliefs. Not that you have to believe in them yourself, but you’re stuck with the idea that none of these beliefs are right or wrong, beyond how you personally interpret them. And if you expect people to respect your beliefs, you’re stuck respecting theirs. And then there are the poor suckers like me, who don’t get any special privileges because all our thoughts are mortal, but that’s a separate issue.
And so I find it funny when religious people who expect others to respect their beliefs start tossing issues of morality at the religious beliefs of others. A Catholic wants people to respect his beliefs by banning abortion, yet heaps scorn at a Muslim who keeps his wife hidden behind veils. A Baptist demands that alcohol be illegal, yet scoffs at a Hindu for worshipping cows. And I have a Buddhist Facebook friend (who I really do like) who insists that it's misogynistic for a Catholic hospital to not perform hysterectomies. (I believe that's a position they've now changed, though I'm not sure about that.)
But no, it doesn’t work like that. If we respect the idea that a god or whatever might want things a certain way, then we're stuck admitting that it's not the Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, or Hindu doing these things. It's the god or whatever telling us to do things like that. And hey, who's to say god ISN'T a misogynist? Maybe he really DOES want men to work while woman stay at home, have as many kids as possible, and hide behind veils; and maybe all the feminists are going to Hell. That's up to whoever made us, not us.
And if you blame someone for their religious beliefs, you're basically tossing the entire idea of religion right out the window, and then you don't get to have any religion at all. And so while I think it's logically consistent for atheists to crap on religion and insist that none of these people's beliefs deserve special treatment (an attitude I don't support, btw), religious people are stuck acknowledging that someone else's religious beliefs don't necessarily reflect the views of the person espousing them, but rather, the creator they believe in. After all, if religious beliefs were optional, they'd be pretty damn useless.
Now, that still leaves them room to say that these views are wrong, because they believe in their one true religion. But it does mean you can't blame the person for what they believe. The Catholic Church might be misogynistic, but that's because they think their god wants it that way. You can say their god is wrong, but you can't blame them for repeating the claim. It just doesn't work like that.
If you get to believe in karma, then the Taliban gets to believe that music is evil and Allah loves beards. But once you start thinking that these guys are jerks who are abusing religion as a way of gaining power, then you're already halfway to atheism. And soon enough, you reach the sad conslusion that all your thoughts are mortal thoughts and start reaching for the porn.
Thursday, April 08, 2010
What a Fool Believes
To follow-up my last post, I was reading about wingnut Gregory Giusti and his mother's suggestion that Fox News and other radicals were the likely source for Giusti's anger against Nancy Pelosi, and just wanted to note how weird it is that this isn't happening more.
I mean, if you were to take even half the things these people are saying seriously, why wouldn't you be threatening lawmakers? I mean, if you thought the government was seriously intent on taking our liberties and destroying our country, you shouldn't just threaten lawmakers, but actually attack them. That'd just be self-defense. And if this was really happening, we'd all be joining in, not just conservatives. Because as I've said before, we don't have a different vision of what America should be; just a different set of facts. Fortunately for all of us, the conservative "facts" are wrong.
And that's what puts the lie to Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers; because they're not suggesting we even threaten lawmakers with violence, let alone commit violence against them. It's all just a rhetorical game for them, even for the rubes on the street. Sure, they're angry, but they're angry because that's what they do. And it's only the oddball kook like Giusti who isn't in on the joke and really believes this stuff.
Not that they'd ever admit to not believing it, but deep down, they all know they're playing a game here. And that's why they've forgotten completely how much they hated Clinton when he was president, and now see this commie radical liar as a mainstream figure who had many admirable traits. And by 2026, after the glow of Obama's two terms finally wears off, they'll have another batch of Democrats to hate; not because they believe any of the hype, but because hating Democrats is what they do.
And you'll have a few oddballs, like Giusti and that guy who climbed over the Whitehouse fence to see Clinton, who take the rhetoric a little too seriously and remind us of what someone would do if they really believed any of this nonsense. The rest of them are just looking for something to bitch about.
I mean, if you were to take even half the things these people are saying seriously, why wouldn't you be threatening lawmakers? I mean, if you thought the government was seriously intent on taking our liberties and destroying our country, you shouldn't just threaten lawmakers, but actually attack them. That'd just be self-defense. And if this was really happening, we'd all be joining in, not just conservatives. Because as I've said before, we don't have a different vision of what America should be; just a different set of facts. Fortunately for all of us, the conservative "facts" are wrong.
And that's what puts the lie to Beck, Limbaugh, and their followers; because they're not suggesting we even threaten lawmakers with violence, let alone commit violence against them. It's all just a rhetorical game for them, even for the rubes on the street. Sure, they're angry, but they're angry because that's what they do. And it's only the oddball kook like Giusti who isn't in on the joke and really believes this stuff.
Not that they'd ever admit to not believing it, but deep down, they all know they're playing a game here. And that's why they've forgotten completely how much they hated Clinton when he was president, and now see this commie radical liar as a mainstream figure who had many admirable traits. And by 2026, after the glow of Obama's two terms finally wears off, they'll have another batch of Democrats to hate; not because they believe any of the hype, but because hating Democrats is what they do.
And you'll have a few oddballs, like Giusti and that guy who climbed over the Whitehouse fence to see Clinton, who take the rhetoric a little too seriously and remind us of what someone would do if they really believed any of this nonsense. The rest of them are just looking for something to bitch about.
Small Government Conservatives Heart Big Government
I keep hearing from liberals that conservatives have different goals in mind for America and really are different from us. Like this comment at Washington Monthly:
And if they were right about that, I'd agree with them. It's not that they have a different vision and really want Americans to suffer. It's that they have a different set of facts than we do, and truly believe that "Obamacare" will make things worse, based upon lies they were told about it.
And if they really did have a different vision, then they wouldn't have to believe lies. Fox News would gladly tell them that healthcare in America will improve with Obamacare and they'd still reject it because they don't want healthcare to improve. But they DO want Americans to have good healthcare, and we know this because they'll proudly tell us that we already have the best healthcare. Meanwhile, they've been told that Obamacare involves Death Panels.
They're not rejecting Obama's vision of good healthcare. They're rejecting Death Panels. And again, if they were right, I'd agree with them. So would you. Nobody wants a death panel killing their grandma. Similarly, if they knew what was in the law, they'd support it too, because they want America to have the best healthcare. These aren't differing visions. We all want the same thing. We just have different ideas of how that can be achieved, based upon our understanding of reality.
And finally, after eight years of Bush-Cheney and their rubber-stamp Congress, the idea that anyone could suggest that conservatives hate Big Government is a bit scary. I guess conservatives aren't the only ones who use their own set of facts, truth be damned. Conservatives have no problem with Big Government, just as long as they're the ones in control of the government.
What you don't seem able to understand is that this isn't a debate between two parties which have different visions of how gov't should function. This is a debate between one party with various visions of how gov't should function and one party that wants to see gov't fail. The whole 'drown in a bathtub thing'--that's not just empty talk.But that's simply untrue. Because if they really did have a different vision, then why do they have to lie so much? It's not that they really want people to die for lack of insurance, it's that they truly believe that the free-market is better at this than the government, and imagine that Obama is a socialist who really wants big government for the sake of controlling our lives and ruining our country.
And if they were right about that, I'd agree with them. It's not that they have a different vision and really want Americans to suffer. It's that they have a different set of facts than we do, and truly believe that "Obamacare" will make things worse, based upon lies they were told about it.
And if they really did have a different vision, then they wouldn't have to believe lies. Fox News would gladly tell them that healthcare in America will improve with Obamacare and they'd still reject it because they don't want healthcare to improve. But they DO want Americans to have good healthcare, and we know this because they'll proudly tell us that we already have the best healthcare. Meanwhile, they've been told that Obamacare involves Death Panels.
They're not rejecting Obama's vision of good healthcare. They're rejecting Death Panels. And again, if they were right, I'd agree with them. So would you. Nobody wants a death panel killing their grandma. Similarly, if they knew what was in the law, they'd support it too, because they want America to have the best healthcare. These aren't differing visions. We all want the same thing. We just have different ideas of how that can be achieved, based upon our understanding of reality.
And finally, after eight years of Bush-Cheney and their rubber-stamp Congress, the idea that anyone could suggest that conservatives hate Big Government is a bit scary. I guess conservatives aren't the only ones who use their own set of facts, truth be damned. Conservatives have no problem with Big Government, just as long as they're the ones in control of the government.
The All-Mighty Carter
Wow. They say that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it looks like conservatives really want to put that to the test.
Apparently, a Qatari diplomat smoked a cigarette in an airplane bathroom, made a stupid joke about trying to light his shoes when someone asked him about the smell of smoke, and got arrested by air marshals for it.
This is enough for conservatives to "know" that this guy is a terrorist who either tried to blow up the plane or was doing a test run for blowing up a plane (because we all know that would-be terrorists always clue people in about their intentions by making jokes about bombs), and Obama and the media will cover all this up because Obama's a Muslim traitor.
Seriously. There are lots of people on that one article who insist that this is the most likely scenario, even though we really DID thwart a terrorist attack a few months ago and Obama was happy to talk about it.
A Superhistorian Named Tony
But those aren't the "little knowledge" people I'm referring to. No, I was writing about a guy named Tony, who wrote a comment on that story "Yup....Obama won't let it be known another of his Muslim brothers got caught despite his increasing efforts to make it easier for them...."
And I assumed that to be a joke, until I saw his reply to someone questioning his comment:
According to Tony's reality, Carter installed Saddam in Iraq, deposed the Shah of Iran, started the Iraq-Iran War (during the midst of his re-election campaign, no less), and somehow started Al Qaeda in an entirely different country over seven years after leaving office, and was even able to convince the Shiite Iranians to turn their country into a "training mecca" for Sunni Al Qaeda. And people say Carter was ineffective.
And damn, this sort of thing would leave even Glenn Beck shaking his head in disbelief. It's like someone gave him a few names, dates, and events and told him to develop a Grand Unification Theory that tied it all back to Jimmy Carter. Honestly, it's this sort of thing that really makes me think our schools should stop covering the colonization of America so much in order to allow them to get to more recent history before the end of the year. But then again, perhaps Tony was home schooled.
Apparently, a Qatari diplomat smoked a cigarette in an airplane bathroom, made a stupid joke about trying to light his shoes when someone asked him about the smell of smoke, and got arrested by air marshals for it.
This is enough for conservatives to "know" that this guy is a terrorist who either tried to blow up the plane or was doing a test run for blowing up a plane (because we all know that would-be terrorists always clue people in about their intentions by making jokes about bombs), and Obama and the media will cover all this up because Obama's a Muslim traitor.
Seriously. There are lots of people on that one article who insist that this is the most likely scenario, even though we really DID thwart a terrorist attack a few months ago and Obama was happy to talk about it.
A Superhistorian Named Tony
But those aren't the "little knowledge" people I'm referring to. No, I was writing about a guy named Tony, who wrote a comment on that story "Yup....Obama won't let it be known another of his Muslim brothers got caught despite his increasing efforts to make it easier for them...."
And I assumed that to be a joke, until I saw his reply to someone questioning his comment:
I sound insane? Obama is agreeing to not use nuclear weapons EVEN if our troops are attacked with bio or chemical weapons? And this is just the first step....He's Jimmy Carter the 2nd....Do a little research and you'll find out it was Carter that is really responsible for enabling the rise of terrorism in the middle east....He's the one who put Saddam Hussein in power! He's the one that allowed Ayatollah's to gain power in Iran.....Were it not for Carter, basically there'd be no Al Queida! He's the same president that went around the world apologizing for the US! sound familiar??Yes, without Carter, there'd be no Al Qaeda. No, that doesn't sound insane at all. And his explanation gets even better.
According to Tony's reality, Carter installed Saddam in Iraq, deposed the Shah of Iran, started the Iraq-Iran War (during the midst of his re-election campaign, no less), and somehow started Al Qaeda in an entirely different country over seven years after leaving office, and was even able to convince the Shiite Iranians to turn their country into a "training mecca" for Sunni Al Qaeda. And people say Carter was ineffective.
And damn, this sort of thing would leave even Glenn Beck shaking his head in disbelief. It's like someone gave him a few names, dates, and events and told him to develop a Grand Unification Theory that tied it all back to Jimmy Carter. Honestly, it's this sort of thing that really makes me think our schools should stop covering the colonization of America so much in order to allow them to get to more recent history before the end of the year. But then again, perhaps Tony was home schooled.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Conservatives Boycott Own Self Interests
The Headline: GM Ready to Repay Govt Loan, Sees Chance of Profit
And if that wasn't clear enough, the lede says it all:
And then there are Republicans, who were assured that this was all part of Obama's evil plot to take over America, and insisted that we boycott GM because "every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise."
In other words, they wanted a giant American company with tons of suppliers and employees to suffer, as well as a huge loss of taxpayer money, simply to punish Obama. Brilliant strategy, guys.
General Tso's Motors
At the 9.12 Project last May, they asked the poignant question: Is General Motors About To Become General Tso’s Motors?
Well, it looks like we now have our answer. Yes, it is. And just as General Tso's Chicken is quite popular and delicious, it looks like General Tso's Motors should be showing a profit and the taxpayers will get their money back. And naturally, all the Tea Partiers were quick to admit the err of their ways and swore to never again let their fevered imaginations get the better of them. Or...not.
Here's a miniscule sampling of Teh Crazy from people responding to an article showing that they were wrong:
Now, you'd think from these comments and the hundreds more just like them that GM had gone under and we had lost all our money. But no, this was a positive news story, yet none of these people seem aware of it, while many continue to demand that we boycott GM in a desperate bid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One commenter apparently believes that Wall Street will reward Ford for not accepting the bailout, as if investors care more about supporting moral victories than making money.
But of course, that is how these people think. Their boycott went against their own interests, but because they wanted Obama to suffer, they supported it. And quite a few of these people insist that we boycott all American cars, and in a mindboggling display of idiocy, offer strong support for Toyota of all things. Toyota?! At a guess, I'd say they're outraged that the government punished Toyota with a heavy fine and feel the need to subsidize the company any way they can.
But that's just how it is with these people. They don't understand the markets. The concept of "Too big to fail" eludes them entirely. Even the idea of saving American jobs is foreign to them. No, all they understand is opposing Obama. They've got an anti-Obama compass that points away from wherever Obama is, and that means they want America to fail while supporting a Japanese carmaker who kills Americans.
Moral Relativity doesn't begin to describe these lunatics.
And if that wasn't clear enough, the lede says it all:
General Motors Co., steadily returning to health after its near-collapse in 2009, said Wednesday it plans to pay off its government loans by June — five years ahead of schedule — and could report a profit as early as this year.Now, any reasonable person would see that and say "yea!" This is clearly good news. First, we're told that the bank bailouts are predicted to turn a profit, and now this. Anyone who loves America would surely see the positive nature of this news and celebrate.
And then there are Republicans, who were assured that this was all part of Obama's evil plot to take over America, and insisted that we boycott GM because "every dollar spent with GM is a dollar spent against free enterprise."
In other words, they wanted a giant American company with tons of suppliers and employees to suffer, as well as a huge loss of taxpayer money, simply to punish Obama. Brilliant strategy, guys.
General Tso's Motors
At the 9.12 Project last May, they asked the poignant question: Is General Motors About To Become General Tso’s Motors?
Well, it looks like we now have our answer. Yes, it is. And just as General Tso's Chicken is quite popular and delicious, it looks like General Tso's Motors should be showing a profit and the taxpayers will get their money back. And naturally, all the Tea Partiers were quick to admit the err of their ways and swore to never again let their fevered imaginations get the better of them. Or...not.
Here's a miniscule sampling of Teh Crazy from people responding to an article showing that they were wrong:
Thanks to Naked Marxist Obama's policies...we have the most phoney/idiotic President since Jimmy Carter and he's 10 times worse than President Bush II. Marxist President Obama will be a lame duck after 2010 people!!!Anti-Obama Compass
The GM that made America no longer exists thanks to the UAW. Obama bailed out GM with our tax money so he could give it to the UAW as payback. These socialist liars realize they will never have another chance to kill this country so you had better worry! November can't some soon enough.
The gov't should not be in the car business. Since when has the gov't ever ran anything that would show a profit. Should have let GM fail instead of a bailout.
Dear GOD please let GM fail and shut down for ever so there will be one less Obama government take over company in this country. BOYCOTT ALL GM PRODUCTS.
The bail-out with taxpayer money was money well spent, eh? Nothing is "too big to fail." It is failure and adversity that develops the character and strength necessary to survive. You learn and move forward.
Barack-ski inherited the auto industry problem. But like all the other problems, the solution he chose were all his. What a waste of tax $ to become owners of GM. Helped his precious unions though. He forced GM creditors to take a bad deal, ended up owning the company with the unions and now is forcing GM to build clown cars that nobody wants. Jimmy Carter Part 2.
Now, you'd think from these comments and the hundreds more just like them that GM had gone under and we had lost all our money. But no, this was a positive news story, yet none of these people seem aware of it, while many continue to demand that we boycott GM in a desperate bid to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One commenter apparently believes that Wall Street will reward Ford for not accepting the bailout, as if investors care more about supporting moral victories than making money.
But of course, that is how these people think. Their boycott went against their own interests, but because they wanted Obama to suffer, they supported it. And quite a few of these people insist that we boycott all American cars, and in a mindboggling display of idiocy, offer strong support for Toyota of all things. Toyota?! At a guess, I'd say they're outraged that the government punished Toyota with a heavy fine and feel the need to subsidize the company any way they can.
But that's just how it is with these people. They don't understand the markets. The concept of "Too big to fail" eludes them entirely. Even the idea of saving American jobs is foreign to them. No, all they understand is opposing Obama. They've got an anti-Obama compass that points away from wherever Obama is, and that means they want America to fail while supporting a Japanese carmaker who kills Americans.
Moral Relativity doesn't begin to describe these lunatics.
We're All Heroes
I just read the story of the Frenchman who jumped into the East River to save a two-year-old who had fallen into the cold water, and the one thing that really bugs me about these kind of stories is how they act as if there's something truly special about this guy. That's not to diss his act in anyway, but I'm quite convinced that almost anyone would have done the same thing in his place.
The truth is that we're ALL heroes. We ALL want to help people. We ALL would jump into freezing water to save someone. People can be short-sighted and greedy and selfish, and act in ways that hurt others, but that's just because they don't see how else to act. The problem with these people is that they lack the imagination required to think outside their own little sphere, and their acts of selfishness generally backfire and end up hurting them more than if they saw the Big Picture and acted less selflessly. I consider myself to be a VERY selfish person, which is why I treat people well and strive to make the world better, as it benefits me more in the long run.
But all the same, even your most selfish person would surely be the hero when the situation arose. Modern life just doesn't present easy options for people to understand how they can do the right thing, but when you see a toddler in the water or some other dire situation with an obvious requirement, the proper response comes easy. People really do want to do the right thing. They just need to understand how.
The truth is that we're ALL heroes. We ALL want to help people. We ALL would jump into freezing water to save someone. People can be short-sighted and greedy and selfish, and act in ways that hurt others, but that's just because they don't see how else to act. The problem with these people is that they lack the imagination required to think outside their own little sphere, and their acts of selfishness generally backfire and end up hurting them more than if they saw the Big Picture and acted less selflessly. I consider myself to be a VERY selfish person, which is why I treat people well and strive to make the world better, as it benefits me more in the long run.
But all the same, even your most selfish person would surely be the hero when the situation arose. Modern life just doesn't present easy options for people to understand how they can do the right thing, but when you see a toddler in the water or some other dire situation with an obvious requirement, the proper response comes easy. People really do want to do the right thing. They just need to understand how.
Black Conservatives Don't Care About Black People
The AP Headline: Black Conservative Tea Party Backers Take Heat
The Story: Black Republicans are attacked for being Republican, while some are closet conservatives who aren't allowed to speak openly about their beliefs.
The Evidence: Absolutely nothing.
Apparently, the AP couldn't find one person to say, either on the record or off, that black people shouldn't be Tea Partiers. But instead, a platform is given to a bunch of poor rich victims who whine about how they're attacked for being conservative by anonymous people we never learn anything about.
And sure, yeah, there are people who attack black Republicans for being Republican, just as there are racist Republicans who attack Obama for being black. And if the article's point stands that Tea Partiers shouldn't be labeled as racists merely because some are, then it should be assumed that Black Republicans aren't taking a significant amount of heat, even if there are some people who attack them for it.
But no. Tea Partiers aren't inherently racist, but black Republicans are "taking heat" from anonymous people who can't be found. And how much "heat" are they taking? I haven't the foggiest. The article mentions absolutely no harm these successful people have taken for being Republicans, beyond unnamed people asking them questions like "How can you not support the brother?" Ouch!
The Story: Black Republicans are attacked for being Republican, while some are closet conservatives who aren't allowed to speak openly about their beliefs.
The Evidence: Absolutely nothing.
Apparently, the AP couldn't find one person to say, either on the record or off, that black people shouldn't be Tea Partiers. But instead, a platform is given to a bunch of poor rich victims who whine about how they're attacked for being conservative by anonymous people we never learn anything about.
And sure, yeah, there are people who attack black Republicans for being Republican, just as there are racist Republicans who attack Obama for being black. And if the article's point stands that Tea Partiers shouldn't be labeled as racists merely because some are, then it should be assumed that Black Republicans aren't taking a significant amount of heat, even if there are some people who attack them for it.
But no. Tea Partiers aren't inherently racist, but black Republicans are "taking heat" from anonymous people who can't be found. And how much "heat" are they taking? I haven't the foggiest. The article mentions absolutely no harm these successful people have taken for being Republicans, beyond unnamed people asking them questions like "How can you not support the brother?" Ouch!
Tuesday, April 06, 2010
Obama: Blowing Republican Minds One at a Time
To hear some liberals tell it, the media is a rightwing mouthpiece completely biased against us. But if you get outside of that construct of victimhood, you can see a more accurate explanation: They just like easy storylines. They're story tellers, and there are few stories better than a good conflict.
Just look back at the coverage during the Olympics and you'll see all of the same storylines we see in politics all the time. It's all about this person "blasting" that person and who's trying to overcome what. Same goes with Tiger Woods and his affair, and any other sports story. Anyone can report scores, these people want dirt. How can we expect these people to properly report policy debates when they don't even find sports interesting unless it's coated in human drama?
And so it's just natural that Republicans are interesting for them. Pitting jerkoff Republicans against do-gooder Democrats is a great story, which is why our political landscape so closely resembles professional wrestling. And that's what's so great about Obama, in that he's capable of changing the story.
First off, in case you hadn't noticed, he's black. And that's an interesting story for a president. Fairly unusual, I understand. Plus, he's cool, but not in a "trying to look cool" sort of way; which is always more cool. But beyond that, he's just a bright guy who's able to see the world in all four dimensions, when everyone else is working in two or three, and can reach through the other two dimensions that most people are lacking and completely tweak everyone's noses without them having the slightest clue how he did it.
And he's not only been able to throw Republicans for a loop, but he's convinced the media that there's a new story going on, and they're happily reporting it. Because they really WANT a new story, but Dems were simply unable to weave one for them that they were willing to repeat. Until now. Sure, yeah, they're still reporting Republican stories too, but...they really like Obama's stories.
Two Blacks in a Pod
And this is all a long way to marvel at the joy of seeing the top Yahoo frontpage story: RNC Chairman Michael Steele says he and Obama have it harder because of their race. And wow, like Steele's not getting roasted in RNC headquarters for that blunder. Even Yahoo's subline was good: "An embattled Michael Steele says he and his frequent foe share obstacles related to race." Yikes! Are we ready for our kumbiya moment yet?
And this is what I saw in a flash back in 2008 when Dodd dropped out of the race and I had to take a cold hard look at the top tier Dems, and spotted the great potential of Obama. This is why he was not only the first politician to make me go to a political rally (which was a great thrill, btw), but to actually make me want to go door-to-door to get out the vote before the Texas primary that year.
Not because I somehow thought we needed a black president and not because he gave good speech. But because he and his team are working at a level that most people can't even comprehend. And all the time that progressives attack him for not insulting Republicans enough, he's making profound changes in the very way our politics work and has done more to help liberalism than any progressive alive.
And all the while the "Tea Partiers" are repeating the same mistakes they made with Clinton, Obama is running circles around them in a way that they can't even comprehend. That's the guy I threw my support behind and he hasn't let me down.
Just look back at the coverage during the Olympics and you'll see all of the same storylines we see in politics all the time. It's all about this person "blasting" that person and who's trying to overcome what. Same goes with Tiger Woods and his affair, and any other sports story. Anyone can report scores, these people want dirt. How can we expect these people to properly report policy debates when they don't even find sports interesting unless it's coated in human drama?
And so it's just natural that Republicans are interesting for them. Pitting jerkoff Republicans against do-gooder Democrats is a great story, which is why our political landscape so closely resembles professional wrestling. And that's what's so great about Obama, in that he's capable of changing the story.
First off, in case you hadn't noticed, he's black. And that's an interesting story for a president. Fairly unusual, I understand. Plus, he's cool, but not in a "trying to look cool" sort of way; which is always more cool. But beyond that, he's just a bright guy who's able to see the world in all four dimensions, when everyone else is working in two or three, and can reach through the other two dimensions that most people are lacking and completely tweak everyone's noses without them having the slightest clue how he did it.
And he's not only been able to throw Republicans for a loop, but he's convinced the media that there's a new story going on, and they're happily reporting it. Because they really WANT a new story, but Dems were simply unable to weave one for them that they were willing to repeat. Until now. Sure, yeah, they're still reporting Republican stories too, but...they really like Obama's stories.
Two Blacks in a Pod
And this is all a long way to marvel at the joy of seeing the top Yahoo frontpage story: RNC Chairman Michael Steele says he and Obama have it harder because of their race. And wow, like Steele's not getting roasted in RNC headquarters for that blunder. Even Yahoo's subline was good: "An embattled Michael Steele says he and his frequent foe share obstacles related to race." Yikes! Are we ready for our kumbiya moment yet?
And this is what I saw in a flash back in 2008 when Dodd dropped out of the race and I had to take a cold hard look at the top tier Dems, and spotted the great potential of Obama. This is why he was not only the first politician to make me go to a political rally (which was a great thrill, btw), but to actually make me want to go door-to-door to get out the vote before the Texas primary that year.
Not because I somehow thought we needed a black president and not because he gave good speech. But because he and his team are working at a level that most people can't even comprehend. And all the time that progressives attack him for not insulting Republicans enough, he's making profound changes in the very way our politics work and has done more to help liberalism than any progressive alive.
And all the while the "Tea Partiers" are repeating the same mistakes they made with Clinton, Obama is running circles around them in a way that they can't even comprehend. That's the guy I threw my support behind and he hasn't let me down.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Impossible Burden of Proof
Alan Colmes, the former Elmer Fudd of Fox News, interviewed Dr. Jack Cassell, the Orlando urologist who told his Obama-loving patients to go elsewhere, and guess what: Colmes discovered that Dr. Cassell doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
When Colmes corrected a claim that Dr. Cassell made regarding healthcare reform, the doctor admitted his ignorance and had the gall to blame proponents of the bill for this, giving us this exchange:
Opponents Oppose, Always
And this is the same oddball claim that I heard repeatedly from opponents of the bill, on both the right and left. Apparently, they fail to understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim, not just the supporter of the thing under discussion. And if you can't prove your claim, you don't get to make one. Ignorance isn't an excuse for just making shit up.
And I got the same thing from commenter Tlaloc at Washington Monthly, who imagined that I had to explain exactly how the insurance exchanges will work to his satisfaction before he'd stop insisting that proponents were lying for saying they'd work. I kept telling the guy that I wasn't an expert and suggested he research this stuff himself, but he insisted that because I was the proponent that I had to do all the research and he wouldn't do my homework for me. Even now, he still insists that the exchanges can't possibly work, simply because he doesn't know anything about them.
But no, if you make a claim, you have to support that claim. And if you don't know enough to support your claim, you shouldn't be making it. That's just how it works. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It's only wrong when you insist your ignorance is knowledge and attack anyone for disagreeing.
When Colmes corrected a claim that Dr. Cassell made regarding healthcare reform, the doctor admitted his ignorance and had the gall to blame proponents of the bill for this, giving us this exchange:
Colmes: If you can’t tell us exactly what the deal is, why are you opposing it and fighting against it?Indeed. It's as if only proponents of something have to know what they're talking about, while opponents are given free rein to say whatever the hell they want, until they're satisfied that the proponents have explained things well enough. And of course, the bar is set so high that you'd need a time machine to show them what healthcare will look like in twenty years before they'll even begin to contemplate that they may have been mistaken. Merely quoting the bill, explaining what it means, and citing experts will never suffice.
Cassell: I’m not the guy who wrote the plan.
Colmes: But if you don’t know what the deal is why are you speaking out against something you don’t know what the deal is?
Cassell: What I get online, just like any other American. What I’m supposed to understand about the bill should be available to me.
Opponents Oppose, Always
And this is the same oddball claim that I heard repeatedly from opponents of the bill, on both the right and left. Apparently, they fail to understand that the burden of proof lies with anyone making a claim, not just the supporter of the thing under discussion. And if you can't prove your claim, you don't get to make one. Ignorance isn't an excuse for just making shit up.
And I got the same thing from commenter Tlaloc at Washington Monthly, who imagined that I had to explain exactly how the insurance exchanges will work to his satisfaction before he'd stop insisting that proponents were lying for saying they'd work. I kept telling the guy that I wasn't an expert and suggested he research this stuff himself, but he insisted that because I was the proponent that I had to do all the research and he wouldn't do my homework for me. Even now, he still insists that the exchanges can't possibly work, simply because he doesn't know anything about them.
But no, if you make a claim, you have to support that claim. And if you don't know enough to support your claim, you shouldn't be making it. That's just how it works. There's nothing wrong with ignorance. It's only wrong when you insist your ignorance is knowledge and attack anyone for disagreeing.
Saturday, April 03, 2010
CensusMyth.Garbage
While researching my last post, I happened upon a website at censusfact.info, which asks the burning question: How much information are you really required to give?
And of course, as I mentioned in that last post, the Constitution is clear that the government is required to hold a census every ten years "in such manner as they shall by law direct." And as I pointed out, the census law clearly states that you have to answer every question truthfully or be fined. So the answer to the question of how much info you're really required to give should be relatively simple: Everything they ask for.
But apparently, that approach is just a little too straight forward for the folks at censusfacts, as they not only ignore the law governing the issue, they don't even cite the sentence from the Constitution which mentions the census. That's right, they wrote an entire piece on the constitutionality of the Census, but failed to see what the actual constitution says about it.
Apparently, there's another approach to conveying facts than the one the rest of us use, which doesn't involve the use of any relevant facts. How interesting.
Noah Webster's Constitution
Not that they're immune to the concept of citations, as they do manage to quote Webster's Dictionary on the meaning of the word "census." And because that dictionary says that a "census" involves counting people, that's apparently the limit to what a census can possibly be and anything beyond that must be unconstitutional.
And sure, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines it as:
a periodic governmental count of a population that usually includes social and economic information (as occupations, ages, and incomes)
But that's just a liberal activist dictionary, as are all the other dictionaries that say the same thing. That's why censusfacts went old school, citing Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828. Because that's the way our Founding Fathers would have wanted it. Who needs a law degree when I can just use an old dictionary instead?
Down the Rabbit Hole
From there, the website takes an odd turn. They mention the Title 13 law which says that we're required to answer all the questions, but insists that since "the rule governing statutory construction requires that we do not construe a statute so strictly as to render it unconstitutional," that the law couldn't possibly demand this other information, because it would violate the Constitution.
Yet...nothing in the Constitution limits the Census to only performing a simple headcount; but rather says that Congress will decide what the Census will be, so there is no violation here. And they'd have known that if they bothered reading the Constitution they keep talking about. But instead, they're relying upon Noah Webster's narrow definition as being a legal substitute for the Constitution, and because Webster didn't say the Census could collect other data, the law can't say otherwise; even if it absolutely does.
From there, they walk to the All-Mighty 10th Amendment, which sits alongside the 2nd Amendment in the conservative pantheon as being the only parts of the Constitution that count, to declare that Title 13 couldn't be valid because the Constitution doesn't outright say that they can collect this other information; even though the Constitution clearly says that this law is within the powers of Congress.
But no matter, that part of the Constitution isn't in the 2nd or 10th Amendments, so it doesn't count.
Census in Wonderland
And so censusfacts gleefully declares:
Therefore, if a census taker comes to your door and you get fined $100, rather than answering the questions or paying the small fee, "You can challenge the fine on the basis of the 10th Amendment and be on solid legal ground."
That's right. Solid legal footing which ignores the Constitution and the law, but instead involves a 180-year old dictionary, total ignorance of constitutional law, and a complete disregard for common sense. Armed with that, you need to "resist the encroaching onslaught of socialism" and take "responsibility for the legacy of freedom that we leave our descendants."
Because there is no greater infringement of freedom than to allow the government to know your name, the type of home you live in, or the color of your skin. They're going to have to guess, just like everyone else.
And of course, as I mentioned in that last post, the Constitution is clear that the government is required to hold a census every ten years "in such manner as they shall by law direct." And as I pointed out, the census law clearly states that you have to answer every question truthfully or be fined. So the answer to the question of how much info you're really required to give should be relatively simple: Everything they ask for.
But apparently, that approach is just a little too straight forward for the folks at censusfacts, as they not only ignore the law governing the issue, they don't even cite the sentence from the Constitution which mentions the census. That's right, they wrote an entire piece on the constitutionality of the Census, but failed to see what the actual constitution says about it.
Apparently, there's another approach to conveying facts than the one the rest of us use, which doesn't involve the use of any relevant facts. How interesting.
Noah Webster's Constitution
Not that they're immune to the concept of citations, as they do manage to quote Webster's Dictionary on the meaning of the word "census." And because that dictionary says that a "census" involves counting people, that's apparently the limit to what a census can possibly be and anything beyond that must be unconstitutional.
And sure, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law defines it as:
a periodic governmental count of a population that usually includes social and economic information (as occupations, ages, and incomes)
But that's just a liberal activist dictionary, as are all the other dictionaries that say the same thing. That's why censusfacts went old school, citing Noah Webster's Dictionary of 1828. Because that's the way our Founding Fathers would have wanted it. Who needs a law degree when I can just use an old dictionary instead?
Down the Rabbit Hole
From there, the website takes an odd turn. They mention the Title 13 law which says that we're required to answer all the questions, but insists that since "the rule governing statutory construction requires that we do not construe a statute so strictly as to render it unconstitutional," that the law couldn't possibly demand this other information, because it would violate the Constitution.
Yet...nothing in the Constitution limits the Census to only performing a simple headcount; but rather says that Congress will decide what the Census will be, so there is no violation here. And they'd have known that if they bothered reading the Constitution they keep talking about. But instead, they're relying upon Noah Webster's narrow definition as being a legal substitute for the Constitution, and because Webster didn't say the Census could collect other data, the law can't say otherwise; even if it absolutely does.
From there, they walk to the All-Mighty 10th Amendment, which sits alongside the 2nd Amendment in the conservative pantheon as being the only parts of the Constitution that count, to declare that Title 13 couldn't be valid because the Constitution doesn't outright say that they can collect this other information; even though the Constitution clearly says that this law is within the powers of Congress.
But no matter, that part of the Constitution isn't in the 2nd or 10th Amendments, so it doesn't count.
Census in Wonderland
And so censusfacts gleefully declares:
Having established that federal government may not legitimately expand their census inquries beyond enumerating the people in the districts, we shall now see how our courts have treated the issue.And what do they find? A state appellette court from 1897 which declared that the Republic of Hawaii couldn't make a census of wealth, and a case from 1971 which said that the Census was constitutional. But we're informed that this second case was "completely irrelevant", because it didn't cover the specific issue of constitutional authority, and instead stated that the law wasn't vague and wasn't an invasion of privacy. So it should be assumed that the law is unconstitutional because no case has said that it wasn't.
Therefore, if a census taker comes to your door and you get fined $100, rather than answering the questions or paying the small fee, "You can challenge the fine on the basis of the 10th Amendment and be on solid legal ground."
That's right. Solid legal footing which ignores the Constitution and the law, but instead involves a 180-year old dictionary, total ignorance of constitutional law, and a complete disregard for common sense. Armed with that, you need to "resist the encroaching onslaught of socialism" and take "responsibility for the legacy of freedom that we leave our descendants."
Because there is no greater infringement of freedom than to allow the government to know your name, the type of home you live in, or the color of your skin. They're going to have to guess, just like everyone else.
Friday, April 02, 2010
The Evil Obama Census
While it's expected for conservatives to reflexively oppose healthcare reform and other liberalish policies, it's downright hilarious when they start attacking entirely innocuous issues, like the Census. For whatever reason, conservatives HATE the Census. Sure, yes, the Census is constitutionally mandated, but with Obama in charge of it, nothing can be taken for granted, and it should be assumed that he's up to no good.
So what's their big complaint? While they're upset about any question beyond a basic headcount, their primary complaint is that it asks about race. That's right. Because the Census requests that people identify their race, it's a deplorable trick that must be vanquished. After all, conservatives are now "color blind" and see no distinction between the races, while anyone who acknowledges race is a racist who is trying to hurt white people; and that includes the Census, which only started asking about race a mere two hundred and twenty years ago.
You see, that's what color blindness is all about these days: Protecting white people from all those lazy non-whites trying to hurt them all the time.
Sampling teh Crazy
Here's a sample of crazy, from just one post at RedState in which a hapless Republican congressman from North Carolina futilely attempts to persuade conservatives to fill-in their census forms, and is roundly ignored by almost every commenter.
Another commenter took the long view and reasoned that since scientists say that the human race started in Africa, we're all African-Americans, while also saying he's a "Native American" because he was born here. Somehow, it didn't occur to these geniuses that these are just labels for the various races and aren't to be taken literally. I suppose they also object to being called caucasians, because they never lived in the Caucasus.
Ignoring the Constitution
One guy actually suggests that because the original purpose of the Census is no longer applicable, it's ok for us to simply ignore that part of the Constitution:
In fact, ignoring the Constitution was a regular theme for these people. Apparently, the Constitution is an unbreakable rulebook which forbids Congress from doing practically anything, except for the parts they don't like, in which case it's really more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.
Like the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. Sure, it explictly states that Congress can write any laws it needs in order to fulfill its duties, but since it undermines their belief that the government is limited to only the rules explictly written in the Constitution, it doesn't count. Same goes for the Commerce Clause, which simply doesn't exist.
The Punchline
And of course, the punchline is that the Constitution doesn't mandate any of this. It's Title 13 of the United States Code that mandates that we send in our census forms, while the Constitution explictly states that Congress can do this, saying (emphasis added):
And what does the law say about filling out the census form?
Shooting Their Own Feet
So let's see, the Constitution requires the Federal Government to take a census in accordance to whatever law Congress passes, and the law Congress passed mandates that everyone answer the Census accurately or be fined. That sounds pretty damn clear to me. And what's the argument against filling out the census? I haven't the foggiest. For as insistent as these people are that Obama's census is horrible, they never bother explaining what the exact problem is.
At best, they allude to some issue with social programs, but never get around to explaining how it could possibly benefit them to not tell the government they're white. Perhaps they think ACORN will use it to round up all the white people and enslave them, I don't know. But that's not their main beef. Their main beef is simply that anything Obama does is horrible and unconstitutional, and that includes the Census.
As a reminder, they also hated Clinton's Census in 2000. Back then, their main complaint was about the dreaded long form, as well as the evils of statistical sampling; neither of which are issues this time around. Yet, while the complaints are different, the opposition is the same. Because again, this isn't about the Constitution or enumeration or Obama; they just oppose anything Democrats do, no matter what.
And rather than ending the cruel practice of keeping tabs on our nation's racial make-up, all their protest will do is deflate the number of whites in this country, while setting them up to be fined for non-compliance and getting a visit from a census worker; all of which will cost them more money. Way to go, douchebags. And of course, now that it's obvious that the Constitution demands a census and supports the law that makes compliance mandatory, conservatives can be expected to comply fully, having had their criticisms answered.
Or...not. Because again, this isn't about race or the Constitution or the Census or Obama. It's about there being a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Everything else is a sideshow.
So what's their big complaint? While they're upset about any question beyond a basic headcount, their primary complaint is that it asks about race. That's right. Because the Census requests that people identify their race, it's a deplorable trick that must be vanquished. After all, conservatives are now "color blind" and see no distinction between the races, while anyone who acknowledges race is a racist who is trying to hurt white people; and that includes the Census, which only started asking about race a mere two hundred and twenty years ago.
You see, that's what color blindness is all about these days: Protecting white people from all those lazy non-whites trying to hurt them all the time.
Sampling teh Crazy
Here's a sample of crazy, from just one post at RedState in which a hapless Republican congressman from North Carolina futilely attempts to persuade conservatives to fill-in their census forms, and is roundly ignored by almost every commenter.
"Sir, the only questions I object to on my on my census form are those dealing with race and culture. If we are all created equal, why does it matter what race I am or what culture I look to?"That last one, by the way, was the preferred response to the race question, by pretending that their nationality is a race; with at least six people saying that's how they'll fill it out. Others preferred to list themselves as "human," though there are some doubts as to that claim.
"I agree that the race question is offensive. I have filled out my form completely, although reluctantly."
"By all means, all conservative should fill out and return the census forms for enumeration purposes. After that I do not concur on the Constitutional mandate for completing the form."
"I’m not turning my data over to ACORN census takers. The extra data obviously only exists for some some social program overtones."
"There’s no way in hell that one’s race should constitutionally be a factor in doing that (not that the activists on the courts haven’t required it). Nor does one’s age or in what kind of structure they reside have any relevance to COUNTING."
"Maybe I’m just paranoid. Maybe I’m tired of being called a racist every time I oppose something Obama does. Maybe I don’t want those same people who call me a racist be the ones who decide what they are going to do based on my race."
"I for one will be going the “American” route. I will probably fill out the rest accurately, however I will not contribute to the continued race discrimination that our government happily encourages and participates in."
Another commenter took the long view and reasoned that since scientists say that the human race started in Africa, we're all African-Americans, while also saying he's a "Native American" because he was born here. Somehow, it didn't occur to these geniuses that these are just labels for the various races and aren't to be taken literally. I suppose they also object to being called caucasians, because they never lived in the Caucasus.
Ignoring the Constitution
One guy actually suggests that because the original purpose of the Census is no longer applicable, it's ok for us to simply ignore that part of the Constitution:
The reason for the census was done away with when representation was locked into the 435 member House of Representatives and 100 Senators. The enumeration included in the census for 3/5 persons was for the purpose of representation. If that part of the reasoning behind the census has been done away with, why comply with that constitutional mandate since it is now useless?And here's a guy who suggests that it's ok to ignore the Constitution because liberals do the same thing:
Taking the moral high ground and strictly following the constitution are all well and good, and I advocate both when possible, but it’s this kind of logic that has pinned our backs against the wall. I don’t condone skirting the constitution for political gain, but when the opposition brazenly uses such tactics to advance their agenda I think we should reciprocate accordingly.Yes, the Constitution is now optional, and can be ignored if you think its inconvenient.
In fact, ignoring the Constitution was a regular theme for these people. Apparently, the Constitution is an unbreakable rulebook which forbids Congress from doing practically anything, except for the parts they don't like, in which case it's really more of a set of guidelines than actual rules.
Like the Necessary and Proper Clause in the Constitution. Sure, it explictly states that Congress can write any laws it needs in order to fulfill its duties, but since it undermines their belief that the government is limited to only the rules explictly written in the Constitution, it doesn't count. Same goes for the Commerce Clause, which simply doesn't exist.
The Punchline
And of course, the punchline is that the Constitution doesn't mandate any of this. It's Title 13 of the United States Code that mandates that we send in our census forms, while the Constitution explictly states that Congress can do this, saying (emphasis added):
The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years in such manner as they shall by law direct.And these dopes would know that if they bothered reading the post they were responding to, as Representative McHenry stated that outright, quoting the Constitution and explaining what it meant. But because conservtives don't like that, they're forced to ignore that part of the Constitution and pretend that the Constitution limits the census to enumeration, because they can't be bothered to read the rest of that sentence.
And what does the law say about filling out the census form?
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects...to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey...shall be fined not more than $100.Oops!
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
Shooting Their Own Feet
So let's see, the Constitution requires the Federal Government to take a census in accordance to whatever law Congress passes, and the law Congress passed mandates that everyone answer the Census accurately or be fined. That sounds pretty damn clear to me. And what's the argument against filling out the census? I haven't the foggiest. For as insistent as these people are that Obama's census is horrible, they never bother explaining what the exact problem is.
At best, they allude to some issue with social programs, but never get around to explaining how it could possibly benefit them to not tell the government they're white. Perhaps they think ACORN will use it to round up all the white people and enslave them, I don't know. But that's not their main beef. Their main beef is simply that anything Obama does is horrible and unconstitutional, and that includes the Census.
As a reminder, they also hated Clinton's Census in 2000. Back then, their main complaint was about the dreaded long form, as well as the evils of statistical sampling; neither of which are issues this time around. Yet, while the complaints are different, the opposition is the same. Because again, this isn't about the Constitution or enumeration or Obama; they just oppose anything Democrats do, no matter what.
And rather than ending the cruel practice of keeping tabs on our nation's racial make-up, all their protest will do is deflate the number of whites in this country, while setting them up to be fined for non-compliance and getting a visit from a census worker; all of which will cost them more money. Way to go, douchebags. And of course, now that it's obvious that the Constitution demands a census and supports the law that makes compliance mandatory, conservatives can be expected to comply fully, having had their criticisms answered.
Or...not. Because again, this isn't about race or the Constitution or the Census or Obama. It's about there being a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Everything else is a sideshow.
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Final Post
Guess what folks, my time as “Doctor Biobrain” has come to an end. This is my final post. While I have enjoyed being Biobrain for the past five years, the truth is that I was little more than a paid staffer of the Obama campaign. And now that Obama has gotten healthcare reform and a few other liberal red meat items passed and is preparing for his long hard slog back to the center, my mission is complete. I’ve been tapering off the writing lately and now it’s over. Biobrain has ended.
As of today, I’m closing more than a hundred liberal blogs I’ve been writing for over the years, while I begin to ramp-up the various rightwing blogs I’ve kept on the backburner. By this time next year, I hope to be a myriad of influential fourth-tier tea party bloggers who decide to give Obama a second chance, based upon his support of certain key rightwing issues; beginning with yesterday's announcement of expanded offshore oil drilling, as well as his support for school vouchers, a balanced budget amendment, and a partial privatization of Social Security similar to the one proposed by Bush in 2005. Our analysis suggests that we’ll gain three conservatives for every liberal we lose from this, which is certainly a price we’re willing to pay.
Sorry if this upsets you. I had thought about not mentioning it at all and just letting this place die, but I figured I at least owed you the truth. And hey, it’s been fun and I really did enjoy reading your comments. And who knows, maybe you’ll stumble upon one of my rightwing blogs, notice a few similarities in writing style, and become a regular there. Trust me, the material’s about the same. It’s just the slant that’s different. And honestly, you couldn’t have thought that anyone could REALLY be as enthusiastic about Obama as I seemed to be, did you? I mean, come on. I was practically writing press releases for the guy. If you can find one word of criticism of Obama anywhere on this blog, you win a free Biobrain t-shirt.
Anyway, I hope you liked what you read and that this doesn’t disillusion you too much of Obama. No, he’s not really the Superman we’ve been making him out to be. Nor is he liberal in any real sense of the word. But he’s the Democrat and your boat is tied to his, so you’ve really got no other choice than to support him or sink with him. And that’s pretty much how I rationalized the work I was doing. Sure, it was on the wrong side of moral, but at least the intent was good. You’ve got to give me that.
Biobrain is dead. Long live Biobrain.
As of today, I’m closing more than a hundred liberal blogs I’ve been writing for over the years, while I begin to ramp-up the various rightwing blogs I’ve kept on the backburner. By this time next year, I hope to be a myriad of influential fourth-tier tea party bloggers who decide to give Obama a second chance, based upon his support of certain key rightwing issues; beginning with yesterday's announcement of expanded offshore oil drilling, as well as his support for school vouchers, a balanced budget amendment, and a partial privatization of Social Security similar to the one proposed by Bush in 2005. Our analysis suggests that we’ll gain three conservatives for every liberal we lose from this, which is certainly a price we’re willing to pay.
Sorry if this upsets you. I had thought about not mentioning it at all and just letting this place die, but I figured I at least owed you the truth. And hey, it’s been fun and I really did enjoy reading your comments. And who knows, maybe you’ll stumble upon one of my rightwing blogs, notice a few similarities in writing style, and become a regular there. Trust me, the material’s about the same. It’s just the slant that’s different. And honestly, you couldn’t have thought that anyone could REALLY be as enthusiastic about Obama as I seemed to be, did you? I mean, come on. I was practically writing press releases for the guy. If you can find one word of criticism of Obama anywhere on this blog, you win a free Biobrain t-shirt.
Anyway, I hope you liked what you read and that this doesn’t disillusion you too much of Obama. No, he’s not really the Superman we’ve been making him out to be. Nor is he liberal in any real sense of the word. But he’s the Democrat and your boat is tied to his, so you’ve really got no other choice than to support him or sink with him. And that’s pretty much how I rationalized the work I was doing. Sure, it was on the wrong side of moral, but at least the intent was good. You’ve got to give me that.
Biobrain is dead. Long live Biobrain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
