It's the Empirical Evidence, or the Lack of it, Stupid.

A couple nights ago I attempted to watch that retarded (textbook meaning intended) propaganda, pro Intelligent Design movie by Ben Stein. And today I watched some vid of Christopher Hitchens debating some theologian at some theological college. The theologian was weak and tanked. Totally. Granted, this was the more honest question, in that debate, than in Ben Stein's propaganda piece. After all, Stein's piece of shit was a deliberate attempt, by means of bullshit, to warp the meaning of the word science to include, well to put it in it's real context, pure bullshit. The theologian squaring off against Hitchens at least was an honest fellow. He was arguing to prove the existence of God. He failed, utterly, but honestly, at least.

Here is where the theologian completely fwkd the dog (screwed the pooch does not come close to the level of failure. Fwkd the dog, is exactly desciptive, though.)
(*I did come back and clean up the language. You should get what I mean there with out all the letters*)

The Theologian tried to make a point by saying that he did not understand one of the core proven facts of Quantum Theory, basically, specifically the part about Schrödinger's cat.

Here is the thing, and call me some sort of quantum elitist if you must but what the hell. This is the core, as in basic floor level understanding of quantum physics he is not getting. And it is proven science. Matter can be in two places at the same point in time. Proven Fact. Matter can be, also, energy at the same point in time. And as a natural result something can be in two places at the same point in time, either as matter or energy. This is the easy to get shit. This is the proven science shit. But the theologian can't get it?

But he can believe with out any empirical evidence that actually proves it to be merely more likely than not that Jesus was ever alive, leave alone did any thing said in the gospels.

Hmmm . . . . .

Edit to add:

I do not mean to say or imply that the mere fact no theologian can put together a minimally good argument for the existence of God, empirically, means there is no God (or what ever term you prefer for the Divine.) But it boggles my mind that people are still trying. Let me take the Divine part out, and point out the error in even trying. Imagine I told you there was an invisible creature in your room, and all its atoms were so out of phase with our strand of reality that there was no way to capture, photograph, measure, weigh, or quantify in any way known to human metrics or arts or sciences. You would tell me I was bullshit, right? But when a theologian says God exists because he believes it to be true, and can't imagine life with out God, well? He has made an equally bullshit argument. But I have to concede, he could be right. I could be right too. Oh. And those elusive invisible creatures? I think they might be Nargles. But I will have to check with Professor Lovegood. They could be another creature, entirely.

Friday Quickies

Let's see. We have the bit about how John Bolton made a "joke" about a nuke taking out President Obama's home town, sweet Chicago, at the Conservative Political Action Conference(CPAC). Unsurprisingly, the room ful of Republicans gave up a hearty laugh at that.

See. These guys never were the cool kids, and never could be. I did see some vid from last night's Olbermann show. He had some journalist there who had a look see around the convention, and reported that (just as I stated was the more advanced stage of delusion) these people think they are the normal. He held up a button that was one of the hits of the event:

Regular Americans vs Liberal Elites.

Ok. I guess someone wearing that, or sharing the sentiment, otherwise, is trying to make real the idea in the old Huey Lewis song, "Hip to Be Square." My reply to that? Good luck with that. (*not*)

Speaking of Mr. Olbermann, we are apparently keeping track of the same trash that these uncool kids on the Hannity Message Board have been up to. Olbermann specifically named Hannity as his "Worst Person in the World," based on the secesionist trash, armed revolt, revolution whoring threads that have been so popular there. But the story does not end there. The peeps on that board are dealing with on the one hand, a coordinated attack by Olbermann's minions, basically making nuisances of themselves. If I am up on my terminology, that is called doing a drive by. And at the same time, they are dealing with the sobering thought that all that talk of war and violence against the government could be crossing the line, and the Secret Service might not only shut the board down, but that they might go out and reach out and touch some of the posters out there in the real world.

Fun.

Oh. And since I got into this Hannity Board frame of mind, let me post something from one of my favorite posters. And when I say favorite, I mean favorite example of someone who, to my layman's mind, is completely insane. Note. She isn't always this demented. But it happens a lot.

Every single solitary day, the Beast Lord and his pack of Predatory Animals in Washington and in our state capitals further destroy the threads that bind people together to form communities and society itself.Sooner or later, one incident will cause the very very very thin thread still remaining because of HIPPIE SOCIAL AGGRESSIONS to snap.Bubba groups are already formed, already commanded by individuals whom other individuals respect, giving them NATURAL control and command authority -- the authority the HIPPIE ANIMALS in the DNC demand but destroy with their every pronouncement and their every "policy" and their every DESTRUCTIVE action.Those small groups will NATURALLY band together to serve common survival -- and leaders will automatically rise to the top as other individuals, also threaten, see natural leadership ability and wisdom in one person and give them their trust.Family is the smallest and most tightly bound social unit -- and one or two dominant personalities always have the lead in those units -- those who rebel are forced out, those who excel are trusted and imitated and followed out of NATURAL RESPECTFrom family, communities are formed -- and the same thing happens -- either economic or social misfit drives away the few, while the others unite under the NATURAL leadership of the few who are perceived as trustworthy.

(That is about a third of the whole rant. Go here for the rest, if you dare)
Pro Revolution Wing Nutter's Rant, from the Hannity Board.

See my point? Now that is someone who never even got close to being a cool kid. I am reminded of the strange girl in my (what was it?) 3rd grade class, who used to eat the pencil shavings. I swear I actually saw this girl eating pencil shavings. I am creative, ya, but I can't make that shit up on my own. That idea had to come from a mind more warped than my own.

What is the Core Motivation of the Anti-Media Elite Republicans?

My guess? It is a deep, yet unrecognized realization that they really are not very nice, or likable people, and never will be popular enough, and it is that sense of shame in never being good enough that drives all the direct media criticism, bet it either the "They are biased in favor of Liberals," bit, or the,"They are mean to us," bit.

Now this has been on my mind again, on account of that propagandist Ziegler doing the rounds, whoring his (I won't even call it a documentary, but instead) propaganda piece called,"Media Malpractice." This the movie which is based on the premise that the media deliberately tanked Sarah Palin's image. Ok. Let me deal with the basics here. I know my 'Nanook of the North,' documentary production theory, and Ziegler is so far away from even that sort of hum buggery that the next closest fair point of comparison is Leni Riefenstahl, Hitler's master propagandist. And I make the comparison only on the point of deliberately making deliberate propaganda, deliberately. Yes, every so called documentary filmmaker is, to a point, an essayist. Just as some essay writer or commentator sits down and describes what they subjectively think and want to express, so does a documentary filmmaker. But few lie so shamelessly about it, as Ziegler does. I saw some tape from earlier this week where he was histrionically shouting how his movie was about the truth, truth, truth, about media bias. (Need I say how tiresome that act is, to sentient creatures?)

But let's get back to the core of the Republican neurosis of the anti-media bias bias, being the end result of a overcompensating reverse shame spiral, shall we? And I will hold up Succubus Sarah as exhibit one. Let us recap what was the specific things she specifically put out there in the media, about herself, that she wanted to project:

Gun chick, hunting chick, shoot a moose and cut and drain the blood out of it, chick. Pit bull with lipstick chick. Every Alaskan including me will get paid if we,"Drill baby drill," chick. Never saw a dollar from the federal government that we Alaskans would not take, chick. Lie about how self sufficient Alaska is, chick. Lie about the bridge to nowhere, chick. Actually sold the State Jet at a loss through a broker cause I could not get a decent price for it on Ebay (*suprise*), chick. I know about foreign policy cause Alaska is close to Russia, chick. Flirtatiously wink at the TV camera, repeatedly, during a nationally televised Vice Presidential Candidate Debate, chick.

I am going to stop there, but the point is, there is a small percentage of Americans who would find her an attractive person or an attractive politician. Most would reject her. Most actually did, actually. In the real world, she would be that person at the party that you would want to get away from ASAP, if they trapped you in a conversation. And I am not saying that all Republicans are that socially inept and possessing of an impossible personality, but she is a perfect example of what I am talking about. She knows precisely that her appeal is a low percentage number of the whole. She may think that anyone who does not think that her moose killin' blood drainin' gun totin', bullshit ass is all that and and bag of chips is dead wrong about her, up there in the conscious part of her head. But deeper down she knows she is no better than the stale fried potato crumbs at the bottom of the bag, 3 days after it was opened.

And that is the beginning cognitive dissonance, and dysfunction. Deep (or perhaps not so deep) down the Republicans actually want to be loved and admired widely. They want to be seen as hip, cool. They want to be seen as the kind of people who all sorts of people, not merely the rest of the weirdo kids in the oddball club house, want to emulate. But they are not willing to give up their narrow-thinking, and backwards-acting conduct. And the cool kids do not act or think that way. The cool kids do not wake up and go to church from 8am till noon on a Sunday. The cool kids are at best only a couple hours into sleep, after the after hours party, and they will wake up at noon, and go meet the rest of the cool kids somewhere, to have some Bloody Marys or attend a Champagne Jazz Brunch.

So they know they are not ever going to be the cool kids. And that makes them feel inadequate. And just like the inadequate-feeling child, they will outwardly blame anyone but themselves. They will insult the cool kids and bitch endlessly about how mean and bad those cool kids are, or if they are really delusional they will start to say that they are the REAL cool kids, no matter the fact they are still eating their own boogers in plain sight.

Or, in this case, they concoct insane conspiracy theories about how the media is against them, or totally in the tank for the the other guy. Even if on some deep level they can know that they are lacking in the very qualities that would make them popular, they really can't accept that reality. So instead of dealing with it and undergoing an Oprah Style Makeover, they sit and stew in their own bile, and fall deeper into their own shame spiral, while inventing monsters and conspiracies that are trying to keep them down. God forbid they deal with how it is their own backward-thinking and weird-acting that is keeping them down.

Honestly, I did not have the following song in mind when I stared this post, but as I got further into the process, the theme of "popular" got louder and louder in my head. So here goes. And just to be clear, no one in their right mind would confuse the GOP with Glinda. LOL.


(Granted the song is focused on the superfical aspect of popularity, but the point is, Republicans want to be adored, widely, but are not willing to make the changes that would make them more appealing. So instead of getting more popular they get less and less so. And they blame others for their un coolness by condeming those who do not like them. Real mature, that.)

Follow Up. Quickies. Smorgassboard. Whatever.

Well I made good effort attempt to get some more data, before coming back here. Most notably is the reaction of rank and filers over on the Hannity Board. The one thread was titled (ironically, considering the infamous youtube video of the insane attention whore, Brittney Fan), "Get off Jindal's Back." Naturally someone came along and posted a pick of the infamous youtube attention whore. That should have killed the thread, but sadly not. I did not last 2 pages of it, but I might dare listen to Hannity's radio show a little, just to hear him whine like a little girl. I might be able to take 10 minutes of that before needing a rest from it.

Now I intend to leave behind the sick and twised world of partisan message boards, but this nugget, part of my ongoing Racist Republicans Acting like Republican Racists Series, deserves mention. On a thread where the original topic was an inquiry (so stated) into what has become one of the more popular Anti Obama Insults over there. "Obammy." The thread starter drew, or at least raised the pregnant question about the similarity between Obammy and Mammy, the traditional slave era nickname for African Women who were tasked with taking care of the slave owners' children. Not a great leap of logic there, to make or at least question the sound alike link there, and consider the racist implication of that particular Anti Obama nickname.

Of course the Racist Republican Reverse Race Card came out, multiple times. There really is, to my mind, a knee jerk, pathological tendency on the part of Racist Republicans to, on the one hand try to get away with the most awful racist tinged shit they can, while still, with a straight face (and on the internet that doesn't even matter) whine whine whine about how unfair it is that all these awful, racist things they say gets twisted into an accusation of their being racists.

Again, we are dealing with that delusional, detached from reality shit, that is a prime feature of the most insane wing of the GOP. And before I spend too much more time on the point, let me show you all the quote this one piece of garbage Republican Racist posted:

"Like I said earlier, you see anything derogatory towards Obama as being racist. Nothing I can do about that."

The fact that this racist piece of garbage is more concerned with his "right" to make "derogatory" remarks about Obama, than some social value not to engage in racist seeming behaviour is very telling about his lack of moral character, and well, serves as more than enough evidence to call them a racist. It is a simple equation. If you are more concerned with being free to make racist flavored derogatory remarks, than you are concerned with not braking that social taboo that says doing anything close to that is bad and your fault, you are a racist piece of garbage.

Anyway, that to my mind was about as ironic as it gets. Well, let us not forget the shoot the law making chimp cartoon -- patently offensive no matter who the law making chimp was supposed to represent.

That went long. I will limit this to one more topic. The other day I posed the question whether Conservatism ruined the GOP or was it that the GOP ruined Conservatism? I was being mostly rhetorical there, but considering the wrong direction that Bobby Jindal's speech took?

And not as an aside, but consider David Brook's, the man who wrote a mock love sonnet about John Robert's nomination to the SCUS, analysis of that:

Jindal's Reply Nihilism and Insane.

I went much longer in my first posting of this but I am editing it way down. Brooks is basically saying that the Conservative Wing of the GOP is Nihilistic and Insane.

Wow. Just Wow.

I Confess. I Did Not Watch Either Speech, Yet.

I am watching clips of the post mortem of Jindal. Now before I recount the more interesting observations, let me move the topic back to me, for an actually salient point.

Lately, I have been catching up on "30 Rock" episodes. It is some brilliant stuff and Tina Fey deserved every Emmy, far as I say. But the real point of this digression is the character of Kenneth the Page. He (the character, not so much the actor who is rather brilliant) is the clueless simple man, and often the foil for anyone who happens upon him. One of the episodes I watched just last night featured Kenny willing to degrade himself in any number of ways for money. I'd call it slapstick, but as the tasks got weirder and weirder, they had the action happen off cam and all we saw was how disheveled and bruised Kenny looked, after completing the task.

Now what does this have to do with Bobby Jindal? At one point last night I read a posting on HuffPo where the writer made a direct (even if facetious) comparison between Jindal and the often-hapless Kenny. Well, if they were meaning, willing to serve as a foil for another's entertainment or otherwise use, they might have had a point. Just based on the the little I have heard/read it seems Jindal served as the scape goat, or jumped on the hand grenade for the protection of the rest of the company, even if what he was doing was supposed to be a great career move for him. Oh, and sorry I mixed metaphors, there, but back to things that go boom, Jindal Bombed.


{Edit to Add: I just watched the Fox News Post Mortem and even they say Jindal bombed.}


But when it is all said and done, I don't think Kenneth the Page is the right comparison for Jindal. Like I said, I have only watched so much (meaning so little) of last night's trag--comedy, but I have seen the man on TV before, and the comparison I would make is this:

Bobby Jindal is a brown-skinned Howdy Dody. Without the cowboy hat and visible strings.

But beyond that, he is the male, brown skinned, warm weather climate preferring version of Sociopathic Succubus Sarah. There is something clearly crazy - not right, about both of them. And I am sure I have posted (way) in the past how it is that all politicians are at least a little crazy, particularly on the egotistical, narcissistic fronts. But I think both these nutters are way past that ordinary-for-politicans' delusionalism.

Oh. I almost made a post about this yesterday, but since I am doing my usual thing, spanking on the more insane and delusional and just plain dangerous Republican Governors, let me say which is the one who seems most sane and least dangerous. Huntsman, of Utah. I heard/read something about him the other day where he was acting all rational and sane and criticizing the GOP Leadership in D.C. for being irrelevant, and more focused on image than ideas.

That guy can think. That guy could actually get elected POTUS . . . well, but for the fact that it is not likely for him to win a primary. Between the GOP idiots on the radio and TV, and the fact that obvious lunatics like Jindal and Palin can get popular among the rank and file of the GOP, not only despite their insanity, but likely on account of the crazy things they believe, say, and do, I think Huntsman's chances at winning a GOP primary are grim. Not that I really want there to ever be another GOP POTUS. But if I had to make a Sophie's Choice kind of choice, had to pick between Huntsman, Palin or Jindal, I would pick Huntsman. Not that I know all that much about him yet, but my first instinct was that he was NOT yet another witless delusional dangerous person. And that counts for a lot, until proven otherwise.

Explain This, Republicans. And Some Quickies.

How come it is a good thing when an individual worker can bargain to improve his work terms, but it is bad when group of them try to bargain?

Well?

How come it is a good thing when a church or other kind of private charity gives out aid, but it is a bad thing when the government does it?

Well?

How come it is a good thing when a church or other kind of private charity gives out aid when the money is coming from the Federal Government, but it is a bad thing when the Federal Government is doing the spending?

Well?

How come it is a good thing to have the Federal Government make spending choices between religious and other private charities, but it is a bad thing for the Federal Government to make spending choices at the point of distribution of services?

Well?

How come is it a good thing, and not torture, to engage in a practice that convincingly makes both a human's body and mind believe that it is actually being drowned, but it is a horrible horrible thing to make someone wear a seat belt or a helmet?

How come it is a good thing for the United States to be considered (believed) to be a Christian nation, and should lead the world in a global campaign to make the whole thing Christian, but it is a bad thing when Muslims want the same sorta thing, locally and globally?

Well?

I'll stop there.

Moving on to the Quickies:

Kudos to Rupert Murdoch for apologizing for that horrible cartoon. Once again, he has shown that he has a lot more class than many, many of the consumers of his products (and I am thinking about Fox New Viewers.) However the apology fell short. Regardless of the inferences based on the use of the chimp, the fact that the cartoon had any inference of any American Lawmaker being gunned down on the street was beyond the pale, all by itself, actually.


Palin has reared her head again, this time by proxy. That propaganda piece by Republican propagandist Ziegler, "Media Malpractice" is back in the news. For reasons I do not know Matt Lauer had the hack on his show, recently. MATT. YO. Listen Up. It's time you get with the program. Do not rely on the sunshine being the best disinfectant theory to always win out. We must point out the nutters, and the loons, and the hacks for what they are, crazy people, if not bullshitters, if not crazy and bullshitters, and not do anything to legitimize their bullshit.

Lastly (for now) Bobby Jindal is making a strong run for taking over First Place in the My Least Favorite Sitting GOP Governor Sweepstakes. Truth be told, he wasn't that far beyond Sociopathic Succubus Sarah -- I mean that shit about performing the exorcism and curing the girl's cancer is classic psychosis level crazy-assed crazy shit, but his actual excuse for turning down Fed Stim $$ for continuation of Unemployment Benes? I know I should not post violent imagery against politicians, beyond the obviously slapstick kind, so I will say it this way. I hope he comes down with a case of word salad tonight. Well that might not work well, as they likey will do it on tape, never mind tape delay, so I think I should say I hope he catches that case of word salad in two years, and is stuck with it for the next tow years non stop. That in of it self is not bodily harm, but he will sound like a gibbering idiot, all the while. Wait, I mean sound more obviously like a gibbering idiot.

Oh. I almost failed to mention the reason he wants to turn down the money; it is because the State of LA would have to change the law regarding Unemp. benes, thereby bringing the worst of the states for stingy, anti worker requirements to collect such benes, in line with the rest of the civilized world.

"Unemployed workers are worst off in the Deep South, where relatively few people are eligible to receive payments. Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas stand out. "
Nasty, Mean, Partisan Prick, Jindal.

And you know there are going to be some ignorant Republicans who are going to support Jindal, even when fully apprised of the real reasons for this alleged (*cough*) stand on principle. (*choke*)


Some of these partisan hacks are wrapping themselves in the mantle of 10th Amendment Sovereignty. Again, and beyond the usual, these people use the same words but are not speaking the English Language, actually. And in this case their understanding of Constitutional Law is worse than the illiterate Yak Herders. The Yak Herders at least will not pretend to know what they don't, but these "Constitutional Conservatives," just make shit up.

And to explain that, there is not one thing in the U.S. Constitution that prevents the Federal Government from attaching all sorts of strings, and hinges, and trap doors, and spiderwebs or other icky things to any grant of money to the states. Likewise there is nothing in the Constitution that says that states have any sort of Constitutional claim, based on such strings, hinges, and trap doors. Nor is there mention of the states having any ability to override such strings and what not.

It has always been like that. For over 200 years, this is how it has been. Now don't be inventing some Constitutional claim where there clearly is not, ya bullshitters.

What do George Will, Sarah Palin, and Some Numnuts Over on the Hannity Board Have In Common?

They remind me of that guy from that infamous 1970's TV commercial who famously declared:

I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV.

To explain, George Will is taking a lot of heat lately for being a shill for the anti global warming crowd. But you know how I like to say things like, don't pretend? You know how base line facts are important to me? Here is the baseline fact. George Will knows as much about the science of climate change as an illiterate Yak herder knows about polymer extrusion technology. That does not mean all by itself that every thing George Will says on the subject is the purest of bullshit, but honestly, I will take George's word on the history of Baseball (not as gospel, but as someone who seems to have done enough work in the field to know something about it), but I have no reason to take his word on any field of science. Actually.

Now what does that have to do with a particular poster (actually one of the moderators) on the Hannity Board? This guy is religiously, zealously against the global warming argument, but even if he has done some research, he is clearly not talking about a field he has mastered, but instead is clearly presenting an ideologically-biased, dogmatic, and subjective POV. Loon even has a website dedicated to the subject, even if he clearly really has no mastery over it.

*Sidebar* Back when I was a lobbyist at the state level, I got to see the serial crazies who would show up to legislative hearings to let the people's elected representatives know what they thought on a range of subjects, no matter how little they knew about what they were talking about.

I am not saying this guy from the Hannity board is that bad, but I am making the inference. At least he has done his partisan talking point home work.

Moving along, what does Sarah Palin have to do with this conversation, beyond the fact she is a ripe, and by that I mean stinking ripe ignorant partisan on this issue, herself? Well she is a bridge to that guy who was not a doctor, but played one on TV. And the point I am making about her and George, and the Hannity board loon is, one can learn the terminology. That is what people who play doctors on TV do; they learn to say Foley bag, and ventricle, or epi, or infarct. But the mere fact they learn how to use some terms, and by use I mean say or type, doesn't mean they know shit about the concepts.

Yes, I drug Sociopathic Succubus Sarah into the topic as low hanging fruit. But this whole stink over George Will, and how the Wash. Post was giving him a pass for stating partisan bullshit as if it were scientific fact, did make me think of Ms. Palin. I remember when I was first learning about her, and I mean like days before her acceptance speech, and I watched/heard her interview with someone where she blabbed blabbed about energy policy. At first it seemed she knew what she was talking about, somewhat, but the more I learned about her, and the more video I watched, the more convinced I became that she was mostly just spewing jargon and talking points, more so than actually having a mastery of the subject.

And that is what a lot of the right wingers who are gun ho against the global warming argument are doing these days. Not to say that I totally believe that everything the proponents of global warming theory say is 100% verified scientific fact, but I think they have proved the likelihood of some facts, and that is saying a lot. That is science, actually. It might not be perfectly unassailable veritas, but it is sound science. However, what their opponents are doing, to a large extent, is throwing lots of terminology and jargon at the global warming side, and hoping they can earn points for sounding scientific, with out having actual sound science to back their arguments up. And that is bullshit; just like some actor who used to play a doctor on TV being in a position to be an authority on the Worth of some over the counter remedy.

I Disagree With AG Holder (I Would Not Say it That Way), But I Disagree With Racist Republicans Even More. Much Much More.

And for obvious reasons. (And before I go any further with this post, I better put the kettle to boil. I think I am going on a full roll here.)

As a point of departure, let me quote AG Holder's hot button remark, and the gist of what he seemed to be saying. He said that the U.S. was 'a nation of cowards' on matters of race, with most Americans avoiding candid discussions of racial issues.
Discussion of Racial Issues.

I see his point, but I don't think his point really is the critical point. People do talk about race, in America. They do, I am guessing here, talk differently when among intimate company, and with like minded people than they would with others, in greater numbers, than those who seemingly let it all out no matter the audience. But they do talk about it. And what they, and by that I mean the Racist Republicans, say, is very disturbing, to my mind. Never mind the fact that lots of these Racist Republicans particularly of the gun nut insane variety are doing the "Stockpile arms and ammo thing," which is their thing when ever the Dems take over the White House, but that paranoid violent fetish is taking on a new and more insidious flavor, with the barely covert, and sometimes overt racism that is directed at President Obama. Of course the most ironic part of that insanity is the often observed tendency of these gun loving, often ignorant folk is the fact they are calling Obama the racist. How queer is that?

But I am going to put aside the worst of the worst (who have not committed a felony yet. Make that a racist hate crime felony yet.) Even what some of the Republicans who sorta mean well say is scary to me. And to explain, I don't mean scary like a bunch of racist rednecks looking to use some nigras for target practice, scary, but shit, how do seemingly intelligent people not see that they are missing the point, scary.

For example (and I know some folk are sincere-ish and some are full of shit, fully) when I see or hear people say,"I don't see race," I want to groan. Honestly I do, and here is why. I know some people really mean that is how they think they should think, and that might be their goal, but they are sorta gilding the lily, at least when we remember what is one of the core human traits. Humans are judgmental by nature. That is the hard-wired part. And then there is the socializing, and the data gathering, and personality forming, and associating, and filter construction, and the absorption of ideas, and points of views from one's family and surrounding community, and from all media.

Given the reality of all that, the likelihood that any properly sentient human can not see race is not even a remote chance, if they were born blind. The real, as in realistic, goal if not state, is to (and I am going for caps here, as this is something I wish I could psychically shout into every human's brain, for hopefully quick absorption)

SEE RACE FOR THE SUPERFICIAL SHIT THAT IT IS, AND THEN, JUDGE PEOPLE BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER, AND THEIR ACTIONS, AND OTHER IMPORTANT FACTORS LIKE THAT.

Again, I know lots of folk mean well, but if there is ever going to be a time when the human race, not even to the last man, woman and child, but only a simple majority of them actually truly sees other humans as only humans, first, foremost, we are no where near that, yet. Pretending we are is not helpful. Pretending an infection is gone when it is only presenting to a lesser degree, is not going to help cure the patient. Ya still need to treat the infection, right?

Well, that is point one. Moving on to point two, let me restate the thing some seemingly well meaning people say, and that is,"I don't see color." Again, that is bullshit. Of course people see color, and different ethnic features, and hear very foreign accents and languages, and manners of dress, and ways of worshiping the invisible deity or deities of their choice. Let's not pretend. Remember what I just said about infections that are still there but not as obviously so? But in the narrowest of strictest American Neurosis black/white race relations, those words that on one level derive from the outward appearance of skin tone, miss the point. Here is my facetious way of explaining that. If one thinks it is merely a matter of skin color (no matter how technically inaccurate the words white and black are at describing the actual humans in question), they are so totally without a clue they should be sent to the back row of the class, shut up, and let the adults talk, instead.

Ok, I guess I had a little snark in there that wanted out, but the point is (and I have said this over and over and over in this life) the words white and black in reference to race in America are not just about skin color. It always has been (regardless of which actual color-feature-describing terms are used) about status. And even if the election of President Obama is a watershed moment in the history of America, there still are legacy status meanings attached to the words.

Don't believe me? Than ask yourself why is the Republican Party 90% white? And no matter the why of it, doesn't an imbalance of membership of such an extreme based on 'race' sorta lend itself to an us vs them context, since, if you are a white Republican, and at all enmeshed with that as part of your identity, don't you know not so deep down, mind you, that at least 9 out ten blacks is a double them? Blacks are a them by default, but since over 90% of blacks who participate in the political process are Democrats, isn't that a clear double them scenario?

And the preceeding paragaph would not make any point in this discussion if we did not state the obvious truth; even if the GOP is not 100% hostile, as an entity, to blacks, it is far more so than the Democratic Party. And if you doubt it, I can tell you this much; 9 out of 10 randomly selected blacks would say that, and before anyone suggest it is the blacks who are more so hostile to whites, remember -- the Democratic Party is over 60% white. So something is going on over on the GOP side, that is powerfully unfriendly to blacks. No doubt, there.

Again, don't pretend, don't ignore the core facts on the ground.

And I though I might go much longer, but I routinely deal with the really awful (non felonious variety) of Republican Racists, I can well bear to not go off on that tangent today. But before I end, I have to make a prediction about Mr. Steele, the first African American GOP Chair. Now I am not saying I want him to fail (beyond the fact I sorta want the GOP to self destruct no matter who is at the helm, actually), but I am beginning to think that when it is all said and done, Mr. Steele is more likely to aggravate the more racist racists in the GOP than not. His 15 year old hip hop references are not gong to cut it, I guess. But accuse me of going after the low hanging fruit there. Hey. For all we know this shit about the actual payments from campaign coffers to his sister's then phantom catering company, might lead to Steele having a very short stay as captain of the SS GOP.

We will see.

Following Up re That Trader. Or Perhaps Not a Trader, but an Ex Trader and Commentator, Rick Santelli.

Corrections first. See above. The man who threw the fit on the trading floor was ex trader, current CNBC commentator, Rick Santelli.

Yes, I have seen the short version of his meltdown, as shown by Chris Matthews as the lead in to an interview with with him. Now as offensive as I find the "Larry Cramer" school of financial reporting, which is to my mind like watching a crack addict while they be high, but worse, and the fact that Santelli is very adept at that sort of insane theatre, that was not the part that caused me to stop the tape. The part was when he started lying.

After running the clip of Santelli's melt down, Matthews ran the clip of WH Press Secy Gibbs inviting Santelli to come one down to the WH and read the plan, and how Gibbs offered to buy him a cup a coffee; decaf, though. And then Santelli got down to the lying. At first he lead off with the delusional bullshit, about how it is not about the (to him, he implies, non existent) details of the plan, but it is a matter of philosophy. (*Editorial Note* At this point I groaned, as I did not know for sure what was coming next, but for it being a lie.) Then he started on some line of shit about how this is America and a card laid is a card played. And then it quickly got to the point where he was lying so obviously that I had to shut that shit off. He stared on some tangent about how contracts are sacrosanct, or some such; that once a contract has be made, that is it. There is no changing the deal.

As I said just before, that was way too much of a lie for me to waste any more of my time listening to that liar. Not only did I take the required basic contract law course, and also the follow up deal making class, but I took two classes in Licensing. I know about contracts and contract law. Here are my all time favorite contract law concepts:

Anticipatory Breach,
Rescission, and naturally
Renegotiation.

Contract law is not a matter of monolithic philosophy or as my one Biz law Prof would say, "Jungle Law." Renegotiating the deal (or getting out of a stinky one) has been part of the custom and practice since the Roman Times, if not earlier. Anyone who says otherwise is not only a damned liar, but likely a bullshit partisan hack and hypocrite. And as punishment for that, they should be forced to listen to taped lectures on the Uniform Commercial Code, for 100 hours.

Maybe that will be enough for the truth to sink in. Of course they will have to take and pass a test on the UCC. And if they fail? Do over. Do the 100 hours of tape again, and take the test again, and again until a passing grade is achieved.

And no. The UCC is not that bad a topic. Actually, is is the core of the law involving sales and ordinary business matters, here in the USA. Being forced to pass a course in it is like being forced to learn anything else useful, like Driver's Ed. But I confess, I passed on taking the specific course called UCC. Instead, I took International Business Transactions. I learned all the key concepts, but not only with the International Trade extras, but the Instructor wasn't a ball breaker. It was a relatively easy B+ for me. But I digress.

Mean, Cruel, Heartless, Selfish Republicans. And Did I Say Delusional Liars? Did I Say Wrong, Too?

In the middle of watching McLaughlin Group, I heard Pat Buchanan say the following, or word to the effect that Obama's mortgage relief plan was taking care of his people and not taking care of the Chicago Board of Trade traders. That last part there had to do with that infamous melt down of the idiot trader that I have not forced myself to watch yet. Since I published my list of excuse less things Republicans whine about, do you really think I need to put myself through that?

Point is, no Pat. Most Americans really do not give a shit about what some dumb-assed, egotistical trader thinks.

Moving on to the rest of that conversation, Monica Crowley was spewing the lies as fast and as strongly as a horse with bladder control problems can pee. She actually lied about the amount of Americans who are against the mortgage bailout, in principle ( leave alone the actual plan, which is short on the actual government funding, and long on the re drawing of the mortgage terms.) And she repeated the GOP talking point about how, and she actually used the language that it was the Fed gvt's fault in the first place, and they "Held a gun to the heads," of the banks.

There we have not only another example of Republicans using the words but not speaking English, actually, but in this case it is a blatant lie. As Clarence Page pointed out, as long as the banks were making money, they were very happy . . . until the bubble burst. But the truth of the matter is we had a sick system, that provided a way for greedy mortgage brokers to make money by signing up folks for mortgages under any lousy conditions they could get away with, and for them to pocket their fees, and then sell off the bad paper on the back end market. People who make their money processing mortgages, but not by actually collecting the regular and steady monthly payments don't really seem to care if those payments get made, actually. That is how the crisis actually began and actually did the original damage to the housing market, actually.

Ya. I personally would be more willing to listen to Republicans about this sort of stuff if they at least recognized the existence of the back end market, and the net disastrous effect of having people serve as mortgage brokers, who never actually service and hold the notes. But since they lie, make shit up, exaggerate, and deliberately avoid key facts and reality that thwart their precious theories, I really have little desire to give them the benefit of the doubt, when they are so obviously full of shit about nearly everything. Yes. I am going that far today. I am one month into the Obama Administration, and I said it myself here, that it is just going to get worse and worse. I guess the only consolation could be that Obama and company do a good enough job of stabilizing the economy (or seem to at least), and that the Republicans get even more whiny, shrill, bullshit, and just plain wrong, and that they pull a political "Liberty Valance."

And if you don't know what that means, I will explain: "Who killed Liberty Valance? Liberty Valance killed Liberty Valance."

Ya. I can't swear to it, and I will not be so bold as to declare it is definitely gonna happen, but if the Obama plan leads to a recovery, then why the hell will anyone but the most dogmatic, knee jerk of Republicans show them the slightest bit of respect anymore? I mean really!


Oh jeeze. The next topic was Holder's speech on race, and what not. Good thing I was paying more attention to my typing than the segment. From what I got out of it, Pat was not as racist race bating as he had been on one of the cable news infortainment shows, earlier this week; mercy, that.

Republicans Are the Whiniest Bizzatchezes.

Things Republicans whine about, and have no rational cause or reason, to whine about.

That they lost the damn election. (That is their own damn fault.)

That they are out of power (That is their own damn fault.)

The the rest of people (the majority of Americans) don't like them very much (Again, their own damn fault.)

That people keep calling them racists. (Not all but for so many, that is true, and is their own damn fault.)

That no one in their right mind wants to listen to their garbage.
(That is their own damn fault.)

That fully half of the people half outta their damn minds, still do not want to listen to their garbage. (That is their own damn fault.)

That they are now, and always have been, and likely will always be only the smaller of the two major political parties in America. (Again, their own damn fault.)

That everyone else thinks they are mean, cruel, heartless, selfish, and lousy company.
(That is their own damn fault.)



Shit. This is harshing my Saturday evening mellow. I will stop for now, but reserve the right to pick up where I stopped, at some point in the future, but I will end with the following:

that it sucks to be a Republican, generally. (That is their own damn fault, dumbassed whiny bizatechezes think they don't have to stop being suck bags, on their damn own. Pathetic.)

Some Friday Quickies

How About This, for a Counterpoint to the Scesh Trash, Impeach Obama Loonies?


Louisiana Congressman Cao Faces Recall Petition Over Stimulus Vote


Well I can't say that guy is going to end up on the wrong side of history, but he seems to be on the wrong side of his constituents.

Oh crap. It's a bunch of ministers circulating the Petition. See see, you Republicans. You keep defending mixing of religion and politics. There. You are reaping what you are sowing.

(Personally I would prefer the petition not being that closely associate with ministers, just saying.)

Speaking of the insidious intersection of Religion and Politics, Fred Phelps and his daughter were barred from entering the U.K.
http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1044016.html

Hell, we don't want them here, so I can see why no one else would want them.

This does not mean I totally agree with the Brit. laws about enforced sensitivity to all groups. Racism might be my pet peeve, but I think the Brits go a bit too far with their (and I will used the Brit term) scheme. But in this case it was a proper call. It seems the stated purpose for their visit to the U.K. was to raise hell.

"Sorry love. That's just not cricket. Try France instead. Or perhaps instead, we suggest you visit Amsterdam, find yourself a nice Hash Parlor and as you yanks say, mellow out, eh what?"


Kudos, to Joe Scarborough for showing that one can be a "Proud Conservative" without being an angry crazy person.

The Loyal Opposition.


And Lastly I am still gonna blame Sarah Palin for this shit, even if this is not her particular fault, actually.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/20/impeach-obama-stickers-no_n_168550.html

I am not even going to post the image, but here is why I blame Sociopathic Succubus Sarah for this shit. Not that she was the first to link Obama to terrorists, but she was the most famous public person to do it, on account of being the GOP VP Nominee, all that. She owns this shit. The shit heads who would slap this shit up on the car or where ever are "her people." Granted, they are exercising their First Amendment Rights in doing so, but in their doing so I am repulsed. Just saying. To be specific it is not the impeach part that I am repulsed by. I am repulsed by the play on Obama's name to link him to the number one enemy of the nation.

What sort of evil twisted fuck would proudly display that shit? Really!

(Rhetorical question, that.)

Speaking of Racist Republicans, Won't Some One Properly Shut Up Hannity About His Being Such a Colossal Hypocrite?

Before I run off on a potentially inaccurate tangent, I have seen The Rev. Sharpton on his show, and lets just face facts; Hannity can not keep up with The Rev. on just about any topic (and I am not now nor have I ever been a fan of The Rev. Word.) So every now and then, he gets some heavy reistance to his witless moron-mongering. (Ok. I admit for a neologism, I could and should do better than that, but for now, it stands.)

Recently Hannity has dragged his favorite dead horse back on stage, and I mean that other Rev., The Rev. Wright. I mean really. How pathetic. Didn't Wright become irrelevant to the national conversation about a year ago? And here is Hannity bringing him up, like a rabid dog digging up a corpse from a shallow grave. Did I say pathetic already? I did. Sorry for the redundancy.

Let me set this up, now. As reported over on Newshounds, on a recent broadcast Hannity was already adrift in an ocean of insanity, trying to draw a parallel between the cult of personality style public displays of communist leaders in such countries, and a recent display at a Barnes and Noble store, featuring a looping vid of Obama.

Now before I get the the rotting corpse of a dead issue, The Rev. Wright and his, "Chickens coming home to roost," remark, let me deal with this Barnes and Noble thing. Barnes and Noble is in the business of selling books and what-nots. There are many books and DVDs and what-nots on their shelves dealing with Obama, and the history of the first black president being elected; all that stuff that they would like to sell. Now I am not saying the Mgr. or Ast. Mgr. of that Barnes and Noble store doesn't have the slightest bit of like for Obama, but get real Hannity. Even if they love Obama, they would love to see the books and DVDs and what ever the hell other Obama related merchandise bought up. Ya think? Um. Ya actually got it ass backwards there, fella. This is not about socialism, but it is about capitalism.

Their on-line store has 308 Obama related items for sale, for crying out loud:

http://books.barnesandnoble.com/search/results.aspx?WRD=obama

Or 310. The number went up from the time I first looked. That number could be significantly higher in a week's time, for all I know. Anyway (and sorry for the aside), I am not even sure how things got from there to The Rev. Wright. Damn. I will have to re watch the video.




Opps. There was a jump cut to the later segment. I did not see how he got there. But as good a job as Tony Danza does in trying to get Hannity to try to look on the other side, he does not at all stop the wind bag from pontificating further.

Here is how I would stop the wind bag. As soon as Hannity got cranked up about how awful Rev. Wright is/was, I would look for and use the chance to drop the following.

"Well Mr. Hannity, I guess there is a major difference between the way you look at that sort of thing and I do."

I would hope he would take the bait and challenge me to what I meant there, and I would reply something like,"Well I guess I am just more used to listening to sometimes angry, sometimes crazy people. I mean I have been listening to your radio show for years, off and on, and Rush, even longer."

And assuming I get the chance to finish the thought, I would say."And I do know that the mere fact someone says something angry or crazy sometimes, does not mean that that is the whole story. Take you for example. When you go on about how you think Obama is a socialist you seem to be angry, coo coo coca puffs. But I 100% agree with you when you say New York is the greatest city on the earth. See how that works? I agree with you, but only when you make sense."


Ya. I would like to see someone finally put him in proper context on his own show. But this is America, in the year 2009. The perversity is that people (few, yet some) can make a living by being such a total hypocrite. Some even become multi millionaires, being a total hypocrite. And in the case of Hannity what we have is a human being of little talent who is making a living acting like a crazy angry man in public, in some cases by directly criticizing other people who act crazy angry, in public.

Perverse!

Oh, and before I end, let me respond to that question Hannity asks Danza about whether he would sit in a church and listen to . . . bla bla yadda yadda?

Since I am a strict separate Church from State kinda guy, I am not in favor of any preacher going off on their own political opinion from the pulpit, no matter what those political opinions are. That is not to say preachers are not entitled to have opinions on political things. Just keep that stuff out of the church.

But those you who have been keeping up with my blog (if there are any such people out there) know that I have a deep and fixed loathing for preachers who preach politics. Sickens me, the very idea of it.

I Was Thinking of Going Off on a Republican Racist Tangent, Once Again. Decided to Bag, it, But . . .

after listening to Rush Limbaugh rant and rave about AG Holder's remarks about race relations in America, I sort of came back around to my earlier topic.

Let's Call this:

IF YOU THINK THIS SHIT, YOU COULD BE A RACIST REPUBLICAN,
OR REPUBLICAN RACIST.

(1) You think the NAACP is a racist organization.
(2) You think the Congressional Black Caucus is a racist organization.
(3) You have no idea why some black folk are still angry about racial inequality.
(4) You think Obama is a racist, because of :

A. Rev. Wright being a sometimes angry, sometimes crazy man,
B. what he said about Gamy,
C. because he runs around talking about being black,
D. what ever else you got.

(5) You think there something racist about there being a Negro College Fund.
(6) You think there is something racist about BET (who watches that anyway?)
(7) You think "Fresh Prince of Bell Aire" is racist. (I shit you not. I saw some dumfuk make that argument on the Hannity Board over the past couple days.)
(8) You don't think the Council of Conservative Citizens is a racist organization.
(9) You don't think Rush Limbaugh is a racist.
(10) You don't think Sean Hannity is a racist.
(11) You think being called a racist is equal to being the victim of actual real racism.
(12) You are more likely to be worried about darker skinned immigrants than white Europeans. I mean they never over stay their Visas, un unhhh, no that!
(13) You think that there is more black on white racism, than white on black racism.
(14) You don't think there still is racism in America, that it is a real problem, such things.
(15) You think the US Federal Government was wrong, in trying to force people not to act like racists, by desegragating schools, and lunch counters, and busses and trains, and such, no matter that there are two Constitutional Amendments dealing with trying to fix the harm that racism has done to this country.
(16) You think the Civil War was not about slavery, or was started by "Northern Aggression" not the secesh trash seceding and then firing weapons on Federal Positions.
(17) You think that rap is inherently pro black racist, even if the largest block of consumers of rap music is white kids from the burbs.


(18) You think that "The Magic Negro" song was funny and not racist, and that instead of taking offense to things they find racially offensive, blacks need to lighten up. (Pun intended, by me.)
and lastly
(19) You think that it is more the fault of the 95 or so percent of voting blacks for not voting for Republicans, and/or that the wicked Democrats bamboozled them poor silly willy black folk, not that it is the fault of the 90% white Republican Party being a place where white racists feel perfectly welcome. You reject the idea that the reason those same 95% of voting blacks reject the GOP, is because it is a party where there are way too many white racists, who are seemingly made to feel right at home there, and black people do not tend to feel comfortable in the same place where white racists feel comfortable, actually.

I'll stop there. I am not fuming here, but over the past few days I have allowed myself to read way too much Republican Racist shit, and well, I need to purge a bit.

Round Two

I actually forgot about this prime example of Republican Idiocy. Michelle Bachmann is the gift that keeps on giving, that is is you are a Dem like me who is well entertained that someone this insane can be elected to Congress as a Republican. Her latest delusional meme? The country is running out of Rich People. Priceless. That is how I describe it, however a case can be made for the other POV:

"Make her stop. It hurts. "

Michelle Bachmann.

And I am not going to post the psychotic flavored compilation vid shown on Hannity's show, last night. But I will comment on it, after having watched it. Granted, I am not a wing nut extremist Republican. So I just don't pee in my pants the way they do, over the things they do. I agree with President Obama mocking the GOP talking point about how a stimulus package is supposed to be about spending (I will only briefly mention the GOP mental infirmity and dysfunctional tendency to not be able to grasp the obvious; it is a function of that whole use the same words while not speaking English, actually, thing.) But the video montage was very poorly assembled. They counter cut the Republican doom sayer, histrionics, with the Democrats own gloom and doom if we don't do it, predictions. The vid ends with the climax of President Obama signing the bill into law, as the music ends . . . on an uplifting, triumphant Major Chord.

I think I know what the problem really is, with the vid. Hannity pees his pants over that bit of classical music (metaphorically speaking.) He uses it to open his radio broadcast, in addition to other bits. Likely it is one of the few classical pieces he knows. And he obviously knows shit about music theory.

Anyone knows if you want to make a moment more downbeat you pick something in a Minor Key, not a Major Key. If they really wanted to make the case better, they should have gone with some Bach; Toccata and Fugue in D Minor, perhaps?


Not to mention the obvious (wait, we always need to mention the obvious to Republicans) organ music is creepy to start, leave alone in a Minor Key.

Quickies, Hodgepodge, What Ever

I don't have a set theme, and as yet have not seen a story nor thought of one that would sustain a solo treatment. But the day is young.

Anyway, kudos to Whoppi Goldberg for putting O'Reilly in his place. Last time I talked about his cowardly alleged joke about Helen Thomas, I mentioned the fact that Tina Fey has five Emmys for comedy; Bill O' has a long way to go before he can even pretend to be close to her, in the field. Whoppi got to the point much faster by telling him, on his own show:

"If You're Gonna Do Humor, Learn How To Do It."

Putting the other issue aside, ya know how these anti-elite Republicans hate being told that they need to learn about certain subjects before they should blat on about them, and they should learn about how to run a government before trying to run one, or should actually learn macroeconomics before putting together an economic policy. They hate that shit. So I do not expect Bill O' to take the word of some elite and successful stand up comic, comic actress, Emmy, Grammy, and Tony award winner. WTF does she know about comedy anyway?

And since I am at again, let me elaborate on the coward charge. Yes, some people try to be funny, and fail, and then try to hide behind the excuse, it was just a joke. Others deliberately set out to use the screen of telling a joke, just to say something hateful. Either way, it's a cowardly way to go. So no matter which was the case for Bill O', I call him coward. Ya, I give massive shit to the celebrity and party leadership Republicans (and as well, the shit heads who pop up time to time like Joe not a plumber). But I am owning what I am saying. When I call Sarah Palin a Sociopathic Succubus who is a danger to the whole human race (if she gets elected to higher/national office), I am not going for the joke. I am saying what I think and will gladly be judged by it. Shit. I got kicked off a message board a couple weeks ago for trashing that bag o trash. See what I did there? I insulted her. That was deliberate. It was not nice, it was not polite, but I am not going to say,"Just Kidding." I wasn't kidding. But ya know one person's truth telling is another's excuse less excess.

Dovetailing, neatly, I should mention the pic out there on the internet, of Michelle Malkin posing for a picture with the asshole holding a poster equating President Obama with Nazis. Now I would call that unreasonable hate. That asshole would likely think my remarks about Palin were hateful. I would argue that there is no comparison between President Obama and Nazi; no sane person, never mind savvy political scientist would draw that comparison. But Sarah Palin actually meets the classic definition of a sociopath. I did not make that one up. You can disagree with the conclusion, but I did not just pull that one out of my ass.

Speaking about pulling things out of asses, I might as well finish with the latest buzz about Ann Coulter. In her latest book she defends some racist group, the Council of Conservative Citizens, from what she was calling, unfair branding as racists.

Now how racist is this group you might ask? It is so obviously racist that merely linking to its web page on the Hannity Message Board is a breach of the boards rules against posting links to hate groups and hate material. And standards there are way low. Hell, just last week some psychotic ranter (I am serious, this one does truly psychotic rants against anyone not her kind of people, particularly Democrats) called President Obama an "Oreo," and did not even get a reprimand.

Either of These Tidbits Would be a Good Thing All by Itself, but

Together, the synergy makes it more felicitous than the arithmetic sum of the two.

The headline read as one sentence, but I will cut it half so you see what I mean. Oh and I am linking the HufPo page as this is where the headline ran):

Sarah Palin In Trouble
as
Oil Prices Fall.

Good News for the Nation.

Now of course oil prices falling is good news, for most of America. Woo Hoo that.

And since I am of a mind that Sociopathic Succubus Sarah is a dangerous nutter, Armageddon Death Cultist, lying sack of psychopathic ambition, linked to less than adequate ability in any measurably valuable skill or subject, anything that thwarts or limits her ability to be elected to any office outside of Alaska (and that would include representing Alaska in Congress) is a damn good thing, and we want more of that. Amen.

And I am not going to say that Sociopathic Succubus Sarah's former popularity in her home state is mainly based on her previous record of shifting money from oil companies to the citizens of Alaska. But I got to ask the question. What the hell else is there? I mean she is really sorta average looking, all that talk about her being a hotty is basically exaggeration. Not to mention the ugly assed glasses and that dumbassed hair do. What the hell is that suppose to be? A Librarian's Mullet?

Rare (text based) Three Fer. The Doctor is Always Right.

I have lately been enjoying the vast trove of product that is available for instant viewing from Netflix. Specifially I have been watching some of the more recent incarnation of Dr Who.

I heard the following quote in the episode I have been watching and it is so germane to American Politics and Social Issues that I had to pause the vid to post the quote here.


"If you're going to deny it, don't waste my time. Just shut up."


Yar. Sometimes being blunt is the most honest and best way to go.

Edit to add.


The specific "Dr Who," episode I was watching was the one where the delicious Eve Myles was playing the 19th Century character, Gweneth, who saves the world. And to clue in those of you who are not fans of the modern version of the franchise and it's spin offs, the actress is a lead in the spin off called "Torchwood." Her character is named Gwen, but this is a 21st century character.



Mmm, Eve Myles.

Excellent. So Rarely Does the News Put a Smile on My Face. We Are Not Likely Alone. Ya!

I am not sure why this mathematical probability makes me happy.

Wait. I know why. I have been saying it for years. If Humankind is the smartest species in the Universe, someone needs to go back to the drawing board and start it all over, from the beginning.

Now this story does not say that there are smarter critters than us out there, but hum, I like these odds:


Galaxy has 'billions of Earths'

There could be one hundred billion Earth-like planets in our galaxy, a US conference has heard.

Dr Alan Boss of the Carnegie Institution of Science said many of these worlds could be inhabited by simple lifeforms.

He was speaking at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Chicago.

So far, telescopes have been able to detect just over 300 planets outside our Solar System.

Very few of these would be capable of supporting life, however. Most are gas giants like our Jupiter, and many orbit so close to their parent stars that any microbes would have to survive roasting temperatures.

But, based on the limited numbers of planets found so far, Dr Boss has estimated that each Sun-like star has on average one "Earth-like" planet.

This simple calculation means there would be huge numbers capable of supporting life.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7891132.stm

I am not expecting a wise and benevolent ET to show up anytime soon. And you know, a more advanced species might instead of being the benevolent tutors, might weigh, and measure us, and find us lacking, and do like what happens in that book, "The Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy," and demolish planet Earth for a hyperspace by-way.

For the record, I think that would be a total buzzkill. But I like the idea of our galaxy possibly teeming with life, instead of being a vast, colorful wasteland.

Some Perhaps Not Unrelated Musings

Consider the following a brain teaser, if not a rhetorical question. Is it conservatism that has ruined the GOP or has the GOP ruined conservatism?

Answer (ya I know it was supposed to be a rhetorical question but I might come up with a punch line, and convert it into a joke): who cares which? Either way you end up with the same thing; a bunch of delusional, dogmatic sore losers, too in love with their failed ideology to seriously consider changing it. They'd rather tell outrageous lies, than admit their ideology and their ideas about governing and managing the economy have never worked.

I could go through a long list, but I will for now just mention one key lie that these fools need to deal with, and accept, but won't since they have too much emotion vested in their delusion. And the way I saw it recently on the Hannity Message Board (as telling a barometer of Republican lunacy as there is) was as the question, "Will Trickle Down Economics Work Again?" Honestly there is not one scrap of evidence to show it ever worked in the past. Ya, there are some people out there who are such slavish Reagan worshipers that they think the (then, when POTUS, already suffering from early stages of Altheizmer's) old man farted hundred dollar bills, and drooled silver dollars, but honestly, there is no evidence that Trickle Down worked. In fact the evidence suggests otherwise.

Moving on, remember what I said right after the election about them acting like out of control gamblers doubling down on their bad bets? What do you call the way them Republicans in Congress bet on the Stimulus Package not working?

This has to be the biggest gamble by one of the two major caucuses (Dems and GOP are separate caucuses, technically) since the Civil War, when the Dems erroneously bet on the Nation not having the will to see the bloody war through to the bitter end. What makes this choice even more of an insane play is the theory out there that one way or another, unless some further major disaster strikes, that the economy might substantially recover by itself. Not that I am an adherent of that theory, but it is the theory most favored by free market economists. Now that would be the Republican economists, at least them not pathologically, ideologically married to the theory that cutting taxes is the magic cure for all macro economic problems. So what the GOP as a voting block is doing is betting on failure. Guess Rush Limbaugh really is what passes for a brain for the dumb animal known as the Republican Party.

And let's dovetail into familiar territory; the Republican affection for clearly crazy people. Between Limbaugh's recent antics, and Beck's nightly meltdowns I have to ask again. Do Republicans have a specific attraction to crazy or crazy acting people, or is the truth of the matter more a matter of being tolerant past the normal objective outer limits of such to crazy or crazy acting people, based on confirmation bias and a pathological unwillingness to shun and condemn anyone with same or similar ideology and dogma?

Message to Republicans. Remember what we Dems did to Blago once it was obvious he was a crazy man? (In his case, his corruption was so excessive that it was clearly related to the being crazy part.) We tossed his ass over board, and threw out some bloody chum just to make sure the sharks were put on notice.

Granted, my metaphor there is grim, but I am going to give you republicans the best advice you are ever going to get from a self styled Yella Dog Dem. Ya'll need to start feeding the sharks too. You got leaders, both in and out of elected offices who need to be tossed over board. Ya'll not going to cure what ails your party until you rid yourself of your troublesome and backward thinking, failed idea embracing, not so much principled but more so stubborn and ignorant, unthinking leaders. You are not going to get any fresh leadership and fresh ideas until you clear your decks of the old bridge and senior staff. These are the idiots who crashed your ship into the reef. Do you actually trust them not to do that again?

PS. Main reason I feel so brazen as to give this advice freely is that I know that one of the main pathological weaknesses of Republicans is they are entirely incapable of telling the difference between a stubborn, blind, and self destructive adherence to ideology and dogma, and making a principled stand. I can tell them to change their self destructive ways until I look more like a Blue Dog than a Yella Dog, in the face. They will never listen to me. That is what makes this sport so much fun for me.

Ok. That is enough for now, but to mention my favorite Republican lies of last week. Firstly, that (not admitted or noted as such by the WSJ) Health Care Industry Lobbyist's op-ed that erroneous and dishonestly said that the stimulus bill is going to lead to the Fed. Government being able to tell doctors what they can an can not do for individual patient care. And the other one? That witless attempt, in trying to blame Obama for the extremely expensive POTUS helicopters that were originally ordered by Bush & Co., back in 2005.

Liars, liars, your hair should be on fire.

Bonus V-Day Vid

Ok. Before I Change My Mind and Select Something Wry, the Official St. Valentine's Day Music Video.

EWF!

Gotta love the masters and commanders of the 70's R&B Soul Funk Rock sound.





Happy Valentine's Day all, particularly those of you who don't have someone to celebrate Lover's Day with. Take care of your own self then. That is what I did. Shit. I bought myself some gourmet chocolate and caviar today. I am not going to despair, I am going to live well, damnit!

Ok. Before I Get to the Important Part -- Picking a St. Valentine's Day Video, and Posting it, Lemme Say the Following. I Despise Secesh Trash.

Over on the Hannity Message board, the sore looser Republicans are up to their old anti American shit again. Specifically they are upset that the Democrats won the election and are trying to govern the nation as Democrats.

Their solution? Armed Insurrection. Bifurcate the country. Tri-furcate the country. It is amazing how ugly idiotic nasty they are, these GOP sore losers. But there is something I think of as at least as bad if not worse, and that is those garbage spewing racist pieces of shit who are apologists for the prior insurrectionists in this land, known as The Confederacy.

Now some of them try to hang their hat on the following argument; the states were entitled to secede.

My reply to that? the Federal Government had no sane option but to fight and subdue that secesh trash. And that was more of a constitutional mandate than the alleged inferred right of states to secede.

And if you don't follow me yet, let me explain. It is not a matter really of rhetoric, or political ideology, or even constitutional interpretation, but one that is foremost if not purely a matter of National Security. That is so, as to allow any other political institution to have control of the navigable waterways of the nation (specifically, the Mississippi River) is to allow another political institution to dictate terms to the USA that are detrimental to its interstate and international commerce, and that is a matter of national security. If on one day you can ship your goods with out interference from deep in the interior of the nation all the way out to sea, and if on the next day there is some hostile power with gunboats blocking your way to the sea, that is a national security matter.

Lincoln understood that. Lincoln and his best generals saw that for the threat to National Security that it was, and were resolute that the insurrection must be crushed, even if the bodies ended up stacked like cord wood (metaphorically speaking.) And anyone who does not see that as the right attitude for the US Government to take circa 1861 really is an anti American piece of garbage, in my mind. Likewise, the latter day current day adherents of secession or rebellion are equally anti American pieces of garbage. Funny how these traitorous vermin wrap themselves up in the rhetoric of patriotism as they plot against the sovereign and valid Government of the Nation.

Then again, I keep telling all ya'll, these people use the same words, but are not speaking the same language that we reasonable reality based Americans do.

Twas the Night Before St. Valentine's Day

P.I.L. - This Is Not A Love Song




Ya. My sentiments exactly!

More Republican Delusionalism. Granted, O'Reilly Claims to be an Independent.

But if you mostly vote for Republicans, or mostly support them, or their take on the issues, I don't really care if you prefer to call yourself The Lizard King, The Leper Messiah, or a Boy Named Sue. You're a damned Republican. Really. Anyway . . .

I was at the NY City building, today, that has as it's unofficial name, "30 Rock." And that makes me think of the TV show, with that name. And that show makes me think of the talented and lovely Tina Fey. And (unfortunately) this week, thinking of Tina Fey makes me think about Bill O'Reilly, as he really backhandedly insulted her gravely, trying to weasel his way away (with out apologizing for it) from his nasty insult against veteran reporter Helen Thomas, earlier this week.

I'll just skip to the chase. At some point during his show, Wed night, I believe, he compared himself to (aw hell, I have to rerun the vid or look for the transcript) Saturday Night Live, in context of Tina Fey's brilliant send ups. Seems Bill has changed professions. He now thinks he is in the end of show biz called comedy, and that he is entitled to be listed among its luminaries like Tina Fey.

Taking a cue from one of the running gags on SNL's "Weekend Update" feature -- Oh Really?

I will not belabor the point. Tina Fey has won five Emmys for her work in TV comedy (never mind the rest of the awards up on her shelf). And Bill O'Reilly think he is in the same league for comedy?

Oh Really?

Not Really. Not at all.

I hope I am the First to Notice What is Wrong Here. Governors Aren't Suppossed to Have Corporate Sponsors. Are You Listening, Succubus Sarah?

Perhaps the real conflict of interest for Sarah Palin is not the corporations who furnish the prizes in her husband's snowmobile race, but instead (if not additionally) his racing team's corporate sponsors.

And before I go further, let me say the glaringly obvious. Can you imagine any other sitting governor wearing corporate logo clothing in public, at a large public event? How tacky. No wonder why the NASCAR and Pork Rind Republicans love this woman. You can dress her up in fancy elite designer clothes, but at heart she has no better taste than a Pit lizard at Talladega Superspeedway.

But the reason for this post is to criticize her judgment in walking around like a corporate billboard, not so much her tacky clothing on account of being tacky, per se.

Nothing says,"I'm bought and paid for. Yew betcha," like wearing the corporation's name right there on your clothing.

And I know that the likely Republican peanut gallery comments are likely to be on the order of, "It's her husband's sponsors, not hers." "That is just they way racing works. Ya got to have sponsors, unless you are stinking rich yourself."

And to that I repeat, and then add a little bit more:

Nothing says,"I'm bought and paid for. Yew betcha," like wearing the corporation's name right there on your clothing. It doesn't matter if it is technically your spouse who is actually bought and paid for, and you are just wearing the jacket.

Hell, it doesn't even matter if you wear the jacket or not. There is something unseemly with the idea of the spouse of a Governor not having a real job with a corporation but instead having a sponsorship deal. Granted, there are some kind of real jobs that would be a major conflict of interest for a governor's spouse, such as lobbyist, lawyer, PR flack, but I can imagine many that at least past the giggle test. Of course, whether or not there is a list of approved or not jobs for spouses of Alaskan Governors is a question I am likely to guess there is not. But Toddster's racing endorsements seems to me to be a bit too far to pass that test. I mean really. The job of the corporate sponsor is to pay for the stuff (if not give it outright), and in return for that, the racer is supposed to advertise the sponsor in public, if not specifically promote the corporate name and image.

That is too close to being a PR flack or a lobbyist. Don't you think?

And keeping that in mind, I just did some quick googling. Now I did not exhaust the topic, so don't take my word for it, but since (assuming I get this right) Todd is not an employee of the Arctic Snowmobile company, the sponsorship he gets from them could be considered gifts, and then that leads to the question (beyond conflict of interest inquiry), should he be reporting all that stuff on the financial disclosure forms?

I doubt he has. I think he likely should have to. That is my quickie guess, after just glancing at the requirements.

Next Pre St. Valentine's Day Video

Likely my favorite Fleetwood Mac song, and definitely one of my all time favorite music videos. Love the setting, art direction, camera work, and the homage a Magritte.

Ok. I Got A Hook Today. Not a New One.

It is an old, basic one; these Republicans just lie lie lie.

Today's big news is the withdrawal of the Gregg Nomination for Sec'y Commerce. (Sidebar. I spent time up in New Hampshire. His unappreciated by him likely nickname was and likely still is Jug Head, up there.) So I am watching Hardball and they have one of those lying liar Republican Operatives on, commenting on the withdrawal, and he focused on the moving of supervision of The Census, directly under the White House.

Lying liar Republican called it a power grab.

Excuse me?

Moving one responsibility that is under an executive branch department to another part of the executive branch is now a power grab?

Like I said above, it is an old basic one. I repeat my oft repeated theme as late -- they use the same words, these Republicans but they do not speak the same language.

Note to President Obama. I am free. I am available for the task of being Sec'y Commerce. I am willing to take the risk of what has to be one of the most inexplicably cursed offices.

P.S. Gregg did a decent enough job in his press conference. I can say that much with out plotzing.

Next One -- Pre St. Valentine's Day Video

VH1 TV Shows Music Videos Celebrity Photos News & Gossip

I Admit. I Went Out of My Way to Find an Excuse to Excoriate Sociopathic Succubus Sarah Palin. And I Found One.

Nope, the news report of her backing out of a promised headline appearance at the Conservative Political Action Conference was not enough, by itself. Although now that I mention it, I wonder if her excuse, "Duties of governing," is true. And when I say I wonder, I mean I already think I smell bullshit. Now some other commentators have weighed in on their ideas about the real reason for the why of it.

Now it has already but facetiously been suggested by the blogger over at CrooksandLiars called SilentPatriot that she might have,"[R]ealized sitting in a room with the likes of Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh was bad for her health political aspirations." And I repeat, the emphasis on facetiously; "Wait, we're talking about the GOP here. Nevermind. Rich Lowry must be heartbroken."

http://crooksandliars.com/silentpatriot/palin-backs-out-cpac

But let's gather some wool here. Could it be true there is a local reason for her to put aside her ambition for the big stage? Well let's take inventory. The Alaska Attorney General who sought to thwart if not blatantly obstruct the Troopergate probe, has resigned, on the heels of "The First Dude," being found in contempt of the legislature, as part of the same investigation.

Speaking of the First Dude, the Toddster, he is out on the tundra doing his he-man of the North mechanized race, thing. And I mention that as I have read an interesting theory about how the corporate sponsored prizes in the race can be seen as a potential conflict of interest for Ms. Governor.

And who knows what else is perking on the back burners, up there in Alaska? Could my dreams of seeing her indicted and convicted sooner than later be coming closer to being real?

(Jeeze, I am going longer on this side bar. Sorry. It got interesting to me.)

More speculation about her ditch of the event; could she actually be ditching because even if she was supposed to headline it, the stage/event would be crowded with the other luminaries of the GOP, including the official leader of the party, Michale Steele, and the unofficial one, Rush Limbaugh? Could this be "Reverse Ugly Friend" theory? Could she be deliberately avoiding sharing the stage, the limelight, with potentially brighter GOP stars? I have to consider that (since it did come to mind.)

Another theory would be she is pulling a Prince Hal. That needs a little more explaining than "Reverse Ugly Friend," theory. In brief, in the Shakespearean play Henry IV, Part I, the prince has a soliloquy where he says:

"Yet herein will I imitate the sun, Who doth permit the base contagious clouds To smother up his beauty from the world, That, when he please again to be himself, Being wanted, he may be more wonder’d at, By breaking through the foul and ugly mists Of vapours that did seem to strangle him."

Ok. That is a colorful and fanciful, if not convoluted way of saying she might be staying at home to make the monkeys want her that much more. I guess an easier, plainer way of saying it would be she could be playing hard to get; making herself a scarcer and potentially more valuable trinket? Hmm. Could be.

But I will end my speculation there and go to the thing that actually inspired me to bother to post about her today, as today is her birthday. Don't expect me to wish her a happy one. I will not wish her ill, however, as I said above, I am hoping that the crimes I imagine she has committed catch up with her, and that next year she is celebrating her b-day in prison, or at least on bail, awaiting or in the middle of trial.

Nota Bene:

While looking for a new pic of her, I saw that sometimes she wears a polar bear pin. Now since it is well known that as Gov. of Alaska she sued the Feds to get the polar bear taken of the endangered species list, is it far to call her the worst of hypocrites? She is celebrating on her chest one of the most iconic animals of her state, but does not want it considered an endangered species, so it's continued existence can be protected and preserved? Again, they use the same words, but these people do not speak and or understand Standard English Language and Usage.

Otra Nota Bene:

I spent some time today digging deeper for a new pic, and found, saw for the first time this pic from a campaign event where, as you can see, one moron showed up with a giant sized fake lipstick.

The colossal stupidity, the utter and complete witlessness that woman has inspired is all by itself reason enough to hope she gets locked up ASAP. Ok. That is a bit of an exaggeration. This is American Politics. It is not all that fair to judge so completely the candidates on the stupidity of their followers. We really have to say, then, that the reason we want to see her locked up is that we are sure she is enough of a corrupt person that she deserves it. And the reason beyond that why I hope she never gets to hold national office (or even get to Congress) is because she is a member of an Armageddon Death Cult, a Creationist-Dominionist, a 19th Century throwback, a creature from the shallow end of the gene pool, an anti-intellectual, shallow thinking, non curious sociopathic likely felon, who can't be trusted to hold and wield power in the national interest or otherwise come even close to fulfilling the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. And she is a liar, and she is mean, and she is dishonest, and dangerously attracted to violence. Yea. All that and more, I am sure.

Using the Same Words, Not the Same Language; Religious Crazies Edition.

If you are a frequent, or if only recent reader here, you should know that one of my recurring themes is how Republicans use the same words from the Standard English Language, but really do not speak Standard English. That is the case because they tend to rewrite the meanings of words as it suits them (they could not even appear to their own warped minds to make a point in a debate with out cheating that way), and as well, they employ alternative conceptualizations for ideas that Standard English would never support. So like I said, they cheat. They lie. They repeat the lies so often they start believing their own lies to the point that when and where confronted with the actual real meaning of words and concepts and ideas, they tend to go basically psychotic (not necessarily violently so, just detached from reality, so.)

Case in point? Mr. Huckabee's recent choice to bear the standard for the Maniacal Hoard of the "War on Religion," Army. Now, what is their current complaint? It is just a variation on one of their old themes. They are upset that (in accordance with already set, usual Federal Gvt. policy in compliance with the 1st Amendment of the USConst.) there is a provision in the Stimulus Bill barring Federal money from being used on a, "School or department of Divinity."

According to him, and the other psychotics, that equals being "Anti Religious." Now before I get in to the analysis and examples, I will say why I am now calling this sort of thinking "Psychotic." I call it that now, because someone who is an adult in and lifelong resident of the United States, of at least average intelligence should know the following to be true, and the opposite to be a falsehood, in order to be considered firmly attached to reality. And to be specific, I say it this way:

No matter how much one does not agree with the idea of it, one should know that the Federal Government acts in accordance with the idea of Separation of Church and State, as a way of describing compliance with the 1st Amendment prohibition on "establishing" religion. That means the default rule is no Federal money goes to supporting Religious Instruction, or for the continuing operation of religious buildings and institutions to continue to engage is such religious activities.

I call people who act surprised that this is the reality of life in America psychotic, as people who are detached from reality are called psychotic.

Moving on, here is my way of explaining further how idiotic, and detached from reality (and that they use the words, but are not speaking Standard English) this argument/position/belief is.

Imagine you and I are sitting at a table. Next, imagine I pull a dollar bill out of my pocket. We both agree that I have no obligation to give you that dollar. And I do not give you that dollar.

Does that mean I am being anti you? No silly. It only means I am not giving you a dollar that is not yours, and that you have no right to have. But let's say you ask me why I am not giving you the dollar that you have no right to have to begin with. And I reply,"I don't want this dollar spent to buy what I suspect you will spend it on." And you reply,"Ah Ha. See. You are anti-me." My reply to that would be simply to point out that you are free to spend any other dollars you get your hands on in any way you like. I am free not to give you my dollar.

It is not a matter of being against what you do (or who you are). It is not even really a matter of not being for it, either. But it is a matter of not actively supporting it, financially. The mere fact I, or more to the point, the Federal Government is not directly financially supporting an activity does not mean it is against it. It only means it is not directly financially supporting it.

This is not a matter of a difference of opinion. The difference of opinion is over the matter of whether or not it is good or a necessary thing for the Federal Government not to give money to religious institutions to financially support their religious activities. That is one matter, and it is a wholly separate matter from the one about whether or not one is against something merely because one is not paying to support it. Just ask the people at your local PBS or NPR station that one. They will be happy to give you the stats (I am guessing) of the disconnect between watchers/listeners, and those who actually directly financially support those stations.