Want Some Cheese to go With that Whine? Ann Althouse's Latest Silliness. Ever Heard of a Press Pass? There's a Good Reason for Them, Honey.

Now this one sub part of the issue was in my mind, as I was heading downtown for the rallies, on Saturday. Particularly as the right wing has a history of sending stooges down to events, with cameras to deliberately gin up sensational or at least contentious vid, and some independent "activists" do that shit on their own, the following thought crossed my mind.

"Don't talk to anyone for an interview unless you recognize their credentials, or otherwise have an ENG camera worth more than a few thousand dollars."

And I know gear. It might have been years since I hefted a good $10,000.00 cam at a convention, however I spent most of my life seeing real media crews up close. I know the real stuff with out really needing to see the station/network id on the microphone. Let me be clear. Having worked in TV studios and around proper media folk, and as well, having been to a trade show where I got to play with the real stuff, I am not going to start blabbing to someone with only a top-end consumer market camera from Best Buy, never mind, some twit with a phone cam.

Turns out that the one time I got close to a legit reporter, for local station CBS 2, I just walked by. I wasn't there to get interviewed, but I did think for a second or two . . . if asked I should have a remark pre loaded.

Anyway, reason I am posting this is that Ann Althouse is at it again, with her alternative reality, fantasy land thinking. Let me give her and her husband the minimum props they have earned, first. Yes, kudos to them (not for the quality of the reporting and the images gathered at the Madison protests this past week or so) for dragging their cam down there and shooting vid, and posting it. Even if I really hate amateur shit and haven't been bothering to watch it, as a result of my can't standing amateur shit, thanks.

But at one point over the past couple days, her husband was denied instant entry to the statehouse by a cop, and was told to stand on line and wait like the rest of the non-media. So here's the bullshit line she and her husband are whining:

"He's New Media!"

Call me a card carrying, press credential worshiping snob (please do. I never was in the IBEW or had separate press creds. I was in IATSE and had a CBS employee ID at the same time, back in the day.) But there is a logical reason why we don't consider every jerk-wad with a cheap-assed crappy camera as legit media. And that reason is, that every jerk-wad with a cheap-assed crappy camera would be free to try what Althouse's husband tried to pull. He thought his claim of being media would get him entry when he clearly did not have any more right than a street corner ho junkie, to cut the line and go where he wanted to. And from a fairness point of view, never mind security pov, never mind keep the assholes in their place pov, we need to keep the number of line/barricade jumpers down to the minimum. And it is more important now than ever, as so many Americans run around every day with a video capable cell phone, and could claim to be New Media, or Citizen Journalists.

So I'm not sorry Ann Althouse, and husband. Get some genuine credentials, or accept your status as ordinary citizens. Stop whining. I'm not impressed.

Now I could add and end with any number of anecdotes here about me. But instead I will go with one concerning a fellow stage worker from my show biz days, Sylvia. I remember the one time Sylvia said, whenever she had to go down to the big professional theatrical or TV production supply houses, or one of the professional audio suppliers to pick up or pick out something for the venue, she needed to leave her credit cards home. It was too tempting to be around all the really good gear, and not want to pick something up. That's because the professional level gear is much better (as a general rule.) And at those prices, it better be!

And It's Not a Particularly Political Book.

I've been reading the latest novel by one of my favorite cop story writers: James Lee Burke. The title is "Rain Gods." Reason I am mentioning it, is there have been, so far, at least three great quotes/exchanges that reminds me of the leadership and the pundits of the current GOP/right wing. (Hell, I have to go so far as to say the same thing goes for too much of the rank and file. I warrant.) More's the point, they remind me about how awful, and ignorant they are.

Here goes:

"I've got a gift. I can always tell a coward. I can always tell a liar too. I think you are both."
--Preacher, to Rooney.


"You come to conclusions without looking at the evidence. Then you find reasons to justify your shoddy conclusions. It's like inventing a square wheel and trying to convince yourself you like your wagon to ride a little rough."
--Preacher to Bobby Lee.


"I never met a cruel man or a bully who wasn't a coward."
--Hackleberry to Preacher.


And on a slightly related vein, that Fox Reporter who claims to have been hit by a WI protester? I call bullshit. Seems to be the meme of the week from the desk of that likely felon, Roger Ailes. Stay tuned for more of that sort of shit from the phonies at FNC, my guess.

Oh. And Sat. Was Double Rally Day.

The Worker's, WI Union Solidarity Day thing was the first one. The Women's Health Rally followed that one. And the Worker's rally ended up blending/bleeding into the Women's Health Rally.


Here's a pic of me, getting my protest on.

Best sign, according to me, was, "More Weiner, Less Boehner."

And Rep. Weiner's opening remark was an exercise in Freudian slips, maybe. He said he stands for women.

He remarked on the remark, but that part was garbled. I think he took back the Freudian part. Though.

Before I go to the Worker's Solidarity Rally . . . Why Anti Union People Suck, and . . . Are Full of Shit on the Facts.

From Paul Krugman's blog, quoting David Cay Johnston, setting the record straight on how union concessions really are working against the workers.

"[s]tate workers are not being asked to simply “contribute more” to Wisconsin’ s retirement system (or as the argument goes, “pay their fair share” of retirement costs as do employees in Wisconsin’ s private sector who still have pensions and health insurance). They are being asked to accept a cut in their salaries so that the state of Wisconsin can use the money to fill the hole left by tax cuts and reduced audits of corporations in Wisconsin."

Lies, Bullshit, and Anti Union Agitprop.


These facts tend to show how ugly and untrue the anti union people's rhetoric has been. It's all wrong, and basically evil. Again. This is why I say the GOP/Right Wing is basically evil. It/they are evil based on the shit they believe, and the bullshit they spew (even if they don't believe it.)

Sen. Sanders Will Explain It All To You.

I "met" Bernie Sanders more than 30 years ago. I was a freshman at UVM, and Sanders was running for Mayor of Burlington, VT, that first time. I was hanging out with some friends at the old "Hunt's Mill and Mining Company," back then, a great little venue for live music and dancing. Point is, Sanders was working all the bars and clubs, and the streets downtown, asking everyone he saw to vote for him. So everyone met "Bernie."

Over the years it has been fun to see his progress. Now I don't know my own senators at all, even if one, Menendez, used to be my congress critter. So Sanders is the only current US senators I can say I have ever met. And even if he is not technically a member of the Democratic party, he caucuses with us. And not only does that make me proud to say it, but I will say the following. Since Sanders is often, if not usually, the lone voice of ugly reality about the other team, he certainly puts most of the Democratic Senate Caucus to shame.

I know there's the argument that we have to get along with those evil lying-assed weasels on the other side. But Sanders is the anchor to the ugly reality that for all intents and purposes there are two kinds of GOP politician: those who want to kill the government outright, and those who merely mostly want to destroy most every gain of the progressives over the past 150 years, and roll the clock back to the pre Civil War era (but with a gung ho pro corporations bias.)





US Senator "Bernie" Sanders.

Some Quickies.

I'm just going to briefly mention the Scott Walker phone prank. Nope, it's not looking like this will end his term as Gov. of WI very soon. But it shows us his true colors, and intents. Lying-assed weasel.

Thought came to me (not original, I googled) that the right to collective bargaining has a double First Amendment angle. Firstly consider freedom of speech either broadly or specifically political, in the sense that public employee unions are engaging in politics, all the time, even if it is not electoral partisan politics. (I worked for AFSCME as a lawyer for two years. This I know to be true.) Government takes away collective bargaining rights, and government is basically censoring the union. (Not a great argument, but hey, it's a start.) And there's the freedom of association argument. Whether or not the union in theory can take the state to court if the bill passes, is something I can't say. I like the idea of it. Beyond that, what I am thinking, meantime, is recast the issue. It's Scott Walker trampling on the constitutional rights of citizens of the state. Ya. I like that for a talking point.

Moving on, how about this grasping at straws racism charge against what is it? Three people during one of the protest days in Madison?

That poor black tea bagger. I mean really!

He was only failing to obey police instructions by failing to stay on the Right Winger side of the fence. (Deliberate confrontation for the purpose of getting juicy footage, me thinks.) Now the allegedly racist remarks. Use of "son." Hey, I saw the tape myself. The guy using the word seemed to be using it in keeping with current colloquial, street English. And let's be clear. Son is not the same as "boy." I would have had to flag the play if he said boy. No foul. After that there is the person who said something like get back on you side of the fence. That was clearly a literal statement. No foul. The lady (not even, allegedly now it is said, part of the protest) who asked him if he had children? That was directly tied in with the conversation about teachers. Again, the point was literal and politically on point. No foul. And calling him uneducated? Shit. What do I call right wingers here? Bat shit crazy, ignorant lying-assed weasels. Again, no foul.

It never fails to amuse me, how wrong the right is when it comes to race issues. They grasp at straws, and then wonder why we call them ignorant, and clueless about these things.

Oh. And Black tea bagger man actually says MLK was a republican? Little shit really is ignorant if not uneducated.

Ok. That's enough for now.

No! It's Not Taxpayer Money. Ya Morons!

I have seen this idiotic argument from the anti-unionites, and their sympathizers. I think I saw it on Ann Althouse's site last week. And just now I saw it on instapundit, quoting from some agitprop written by one Michael Barone -- some cretin on the payroll of AEI and part of the Fox News hacks bull pen. (I refuse to link either pages, on principle.)

The argument goes like this. Since every dime made by a public sector union employee is from the taxpayers, the members' dues, which end up down stream as contributions to democratic candidates causes the taxpayers to fund Democratic politicians/parties that they might not want. And that makes it all a scam, a conflict of interest, and a fraud.

How idiotic can people be?

The second the employee's pay is moved from the credit column to the debit column at the office that does that business, the money is no longer the state's, or the taxpayers'. So is this more of a matter of people being that totally ignorant, or is this just another example of right wing crazy shit, bullshit? Could be both. But the argument is not logical, or true.

This is one of the most main of main reason I despise right wingers. They say shit like that, totally lie and bullshit, and then wonder why reality based people call them lying-assed weasels? I mean really!

I feel no need to try to be fair or nice to people who make up shit, to bolster their bullshit, agitprop demagoguery. I'll stop there, on this topic at least.

Narcissism, Contrarianism, & Infantilism

(Like usual, I am starting off with a half baked thesis, and the thermometer in my oven is on the fritz,) but lately I have been thinking about the oddity of people being/acting/arguing contrary, just for the cheap thrill of it. More I thought about it, the more I got to thinking there's more going on there. Now mark me. I am not with out sin, on this point. I used to be/act contrary just for the cheap thrill (so I thought then) of it. But ya know what? I got off on that crap when I was a child. Some time between 8th and 12 grade, I basically decided that if I am going to waste my time and energy arguing, it should be because I believe what I am saying. Granted, I did debate team for a year. Honed my skills, all that. Point is that by the time I was a young adult, arguing for the thrill of it, not because I had a point of view to advocate, was basically every bit as cast aside, as my childhood toys. People should grow out of that shit.

Now why am I thinking about that shit? Several reasons. And I'll list them: Internet message boards (all forms of net texting,) bloggingheads.tv, a culture increasingly permissive of both Narcissism, and Infantilism, and Lady Gaga. And let's face it. She's the poster child for both those last ones!)

Firstly, let me talk about Internet text. I have admitted to having wasted too many days of my life on line, arguing with GOP blockheads. And I have seen a lot of childish narcissistic shit on the net. Hell, I have gone there on my worst days. But every now on then on boards I encounter either the passive aggressive snots who seem to want to pick a fight the slow way, or otherwise seem to be doing that idiotic "devil's advocate" routine. That's fine if your a teacher in a classroom. But otherwise it's pretty much anti social behaviour. And it's childish. It's childish as it's attention getting behaviour just for the sake of that. I mean, really? If you really agree, then agree. If you disagree, let's throw down. But don't jerk me around. That's disrespectful. Ok?

Next, let's consider bloggingheads. I like it. I don't watch everything, but today I caught most of the latest square off with self described "contrarian" John McWhorter against Glenn Loury. Now Mr. McWhorter seems like an intelligent enough fellow, but come on? That whole self describe as contrarian shit should have been out of his system by the time he was filling in his college applications, twenty five years ago.

Here's a good description of what it means to be a contrarian, "What better to way to put one's individuality on display then by coming up with some brilliantly contrarian argument or other?" Link.*

It's not exactly a stinging indictment. Imagine it being said, dripping with sarcasm. I'm pretty sure the writer intended that, Anyway, McWhorter is not the only self described contrarian over there on Bloggingheads. There's that certain hot mess of a Constitutional Law professor I will not name . . . .

But enough about that. Let's jump to Gaga, as she represents the perfect fusion of narcissism and childishness.

Did ya catch the Grammys (or some of the vid after)? Did you see her carried in in the egg? Did you find it so over the top that you had to wonder what sort of egotistical child would do that?

Ok. I confess. I'm running out of steam here. But I think you know what I mean.

I'll say it this way. When I was a teenager, I was rebelling against a lot, even if I was basically a good kid. I had admiration for any sort of freaky expression of individuality that broke social strictures. And I loved arguing for the sake of arguing. But I grew up.

Seems to me some people never do. But if you are not a millionaire on account of your contrary childishness? You are better off getting your shit together, and nerd out. You likely are far far far far for more a tiresome person than you think.

Whatcha say? Nobody ever said that to you. At least no body you wanted to listen to, like your teachers, and your parents, who were always telling you what to do and what to say. Well guess what? As far as that part goes, they were right!


*Read that whole article, I suggest. When you get deeper in, there is a good discussion of why "conservatives" are out of date, fighting a loosing battle (vs reality at least) and are just wrong minded. And yar. I'm a Systematic Thinker. I might have the thinking style test result somewhere, to prove it.

Pardon My Lack of Civility . . .

I'm still detoxing from the wacky world of web forums. Not that there really is any use in trying to converse with hard core republicans. Hell. There's not even much to gain from flaming them. But it was a pressure release for me. I mean, merely saying here that the GOP is evil might be true, but there's less fun in that then explaining why they are evil to one or more of them. Yes. I have whipped out the actual dictionary meaning, and even the famous Hannah Arendt,"Banality of evil," observation/quote. And still their lame defense is they personally haven't committed acts of mass murder or are not serial killers, so how can they be evil?

And that leads right into why it's of little to no practical use to debate with those delusional idiots. If someone is so messed up in the head that they will routinely and frequently substitute their desired meanings for words, instead of the real meaning of those words, it is pointless to try. The words might be English, but they are speaking a different language. It's one where every word means what they want it to mean, when they want it to mean what they want it to mean.

So why did I do it for so many years? It was only a small amount of fun to do so, but it sorta satisfied some darker need. I can't blame my pirate ancestors, but I do like giving hell, time to time. But as it is, the last board I was posting on has all but banned me. I am not stricken of the list. I just can't post in any of the contentious threads. I had been in the gulag -- my own little place to rant, that others could come into and get a taste of my hell giving. However management has pulled the plug on even that.

In the board's owner's mind, calling the GOP evil was hate speech. This is after I had the definition discussion with her twice in a month. Anyway. I should not miss it, but it was something of an outlet for venting. And venting into the void (with out even a seeming virtual audience,) is just not the same thing. And now I need to do something more constructive with that excess emotional energy. Hey. There's that rally I am going to (plan to) Saturday. Yea for that!

Fuck Them Ig'rant Hicks. I'm NYC Proud.

Don't get me wrong, bitches, as as I love me some Reba. And Faith. And Shania. And Keith Urban does some pretty impressive picking, not even for a foreigner. I like modern country music, and even some of the classic shit. I am making more of a sociopolitical point here than American Music Songbook.

I'm a Yankee. I'm a (well I used to be a ) kid who was born, raised, and currently lives w/in 2 miles of Times Square. Granted my state of mind is more likely NYC Centric. But this song will do nicely for my allegiance.



This is a great version of the great song, so I say at least!

Everything Old is New Again. Why Sometimes Independents Make Me More Sick Than GOPers.

I likely have made the point before, if not here, somewhere. Cons/GOPers are fantasy land, delusional revanchists. Revanchists, of course, are backward looking people. They want to regain what was lost, be it raw power, or some fantasy land image of the way things used to be.

Now I could say they want some fantasy land version of the 1950's restored. Wasn't much good about the 50's save that most of the rest of the world's industrial capacity had been bombed to shit, leaving the USA with an artificial advantage in global markets. Oh, and par and parcel of that economic advantage, trade unionism was at it's heights. I say that because here in 2011 a republican dick head of a newbie governor is trying to (and likely will) write a new chapter in the book."How to Bust Unions." (Reagan would be so proud. Ya know who he is. Before being POTUS he was the president of a union. The fuck.) So instead of saying today's con is 1950's revanchist, I will roll back the clock to the middle of the 19th century. If not earlier.

Fuck a duck. What can we do with people that fucking ignorant? I know. I have fought the rhetorical fight against rank a file GOPer for years. These people possess an immunity to cognitive dissonance. Most people are bothered by contradictory thoughts/beliefs that can not be resolved or otherwise harmonized. These fuckers? No problem there. I know some folk might think it unfair of me to say, but I think that is the sign of a shallow mind. I think a mind has to lack depth to pull that trick off.

But now (looking at the clock and thinking I need to play some guitar tonight -- if I plan on finally posting that song I wrote to YouTube soon,) I take a shot at independents/swing voters.

I hate you fuckers.

I hate you for voting GOP.

I hate you for voting GOP in spite of the overwhelming evidence the economic crisis was caused by GOP policies.

I Hate you for shallow, vapid thinking like (and I believe Ann Althouse said this on bloggingheads) voting GOP to vote for "change." (Change from fucking what? From 2 years of the other team trying very hard to fix the shit bag of problems created by the GOP? The solution for better guarding the hen house from the foxes, is to put the foxes in charge? Fuck a duck! I mean hen!)

Looking at the shit that Walker and his fellow GOP minions are trying to (and will likely) pull makes me very angry at the swing voters. Those evil fucks would never get back near the levers of power without you swing voters making it so.

So fuck you very much.

On Wisconsin

Should it surprise anyone that the budget crisis in WI is a scam?

Wisconsin's GOP Governor is an evil, lying assed weasel.

It doesn't, me. Rachel Maddow had a great bit about this yesterday. Let me link that, as well.

Link to video.

Not that union busting is something new for the evil GOP. But this might be the first time a governor has manipulated the budget and the laws of a state to bust a public union.

It is so very evil.

I just took a look over at Wisconsin's most famous blogger, Ann Althouse's page. She's big on pictures of the protesters and links to other's reporting. Make that blogging. There is a huge difference between the two. But is their anything there about how this really is about a contrived right wing attack on unions, for political and ideological reason? Nope. Not a peep about that stuff.

As painful as it might be to endure, I am hoping for her to be on bloggingheads soon. I just hope who ever they square off her will not let her get away with her own weaseling. Well that's what I am expecting, based on prior performance.


Edit to add: Yup, she got around to the story about the scam.

She seems to believe she is being fair, but to my mind she's weaseling. That's the problem with trying to be fair, in what is a very sharply polarized argument. If one can not decide what one thinks and articulate it clearly, one comes across as weaseling. This is not to say I don't believe she can't make up her mind which side she's on. I can well believe that. But in avoiding to take a side she is basically weaseling out of taking a side. Right?

"Has Anyone Paid You Money to Tell Jokes? No?"

"Then take that as a clue."

By now, and particularly based on recent posts, ya'll should know I think that the right wing, idiotic, crazy shit, immature understanding of free speech is nothing but bullshit. With out checking if Ann Althouse is whining about this guy's basically being fired for a really nasty-bad joke, I will report on it, here and now.

Asshole fired for truly ugly joke about Lara Logan.


Just for the record, and in case you haven't heard yet, CBS Foreign Correspondent Lara Logan was brutally assaulted during the "celebrating" following the victory of the protesters in Egypt, there in Tahrir Square. And it was reported as being a sexual assault. And ass hole man basically lost his part time gig at NYU on account of the ugly joke about her, he twitted. (Ok, the proper usage might be twittered, but here, twitted seems a better fit.)

I, as a general matter, believe in accountability. I believe that one should own one's own shit. And if one posts some really ugly shitty joke on their twitter page, and offends people, they have to own that. If they lose respect, friends, and even gigs, based on the stupid shit they say, that is a perfect example of the world working as it should. Remember. Folk are free to say any ugly, stupid assed shit they wanna. And the rest of us are free to take offense and otherwise judge the asshole in question, and harshly, if that's our feeling at the moment.

I repeat: that is the world working as it should.

But regarding deliberate jokes, and not even dealing with the right wing, libertarian, childish view of "free speech," I am definitely a hard ass. That's based on my past life career in show biz. Now I never did stand up, but I did do some emcee work back in college. So I get to say I did get paid to tell jokes (among a lot of duties I had for that one gig.) And what I said there in the title and the first line of this post is the set up and punchline of a real life joke-remark I told to a friend of mine, back when we were in law school. He had a rare, if not odd sense of humor, and his jokes kept blowing up in his face. Instead of telling him flat out, stop that shit, I couched that message in vocational terms.

But if I am not being sensitive to people's feelings I tell them flat out. Go ahead. Ignore my advice. But firstly, you ain't that funny. But no matter what you think, no one else has to like you attempts at humor. Expect them to reject you. It's their right. Leave the joke telling to the professionals. And you are no where near that level.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not literally saying that the only people who can tell jokes are professionals. There are many gifted joke tellers out there. My ex, from years ago? She had a way with delivering some ordinary joke that made it even funnier. But she never wrote her own material. And that is were people tend to fuck it up. It really is not the telling the joke part that causes people to lose respect, and friends, and gigs. It's the really lame if not ugly jokes their warped little brains make up, that usually are the cause of the fuck up. And that leads to people judging them harshly, not so much for the delivery, but for the warped joke and the warped mind that thought that ugly shit was so funny.

Slow News Day, Edition. Birthers, Normalizing the Insane, GOP Racists, and Ann Althouse.

I am not even going to link it, but Ms. Althouse is proving she is as least the 'mess' part of my description of her as a hot mess, by a post regarding birthers . . . as not being as crazy as troofers. Let me explain a bit more. Some poll recently released is saying a bare majority of GOPers are birthers. (I call the phenomenon of this absurdity,"Normalizing the Insane." To borrow and warp the commercial slogan, this isn't your father's GOP. It's the crazy shit version of the GOP.)

Now her lead in, her post title is,"Birthers aren't like Truthers," and to an albeit, tiny degree, I agree. But her argument is so shallow, vapid, ill informed, and ill supported that in the end, she is so mostly wrong she's just plain wrong, even when accidentally right. First, the accidentally right part.

Ya, there is a big difference (and perhaps some minor ones) between birthers and troofers, but the similarity is that both approach their fantasy conclusions from what ever bias they had, before the issue in interest became an issue of the day. I would say that troofers are 'don't trust the government generally,' folk. That's their gig.

However, there are at least two lines of bias behind the birthers. Firstly, in the GOP there is a lot of hate for anyone who resembles the label "liberal." So P. Obama has that going against him (remember how bat fucking crazy the loony Right Wing went when Clinton was elected?) But above and beyond that, is the racism factor. And accuse me of doing a high wire act without a net, but honestly. Has the birth certificate issue ever come up, before it was a black man? I wish that were enough, but I think I need to flesh out my (informed, actually) speculation. Here in 2011 America has evolved as (meaning only) far that most white GOPers get this much; being called a racist is bad, and one can not longer disparage a "nigger" merely for being a "nigger," anymore, save in the company of admitted racists. (I am not saying most GOPers only get that much. Too many only get that much. Or, too few get more than that.) So where does that not yet eliminated racism go? It goes into proxy complaints. It goes into such criticisms as disparaging "multi culturalism," and/or "urban people," and/or strange foreign religions, and anti-immigrant sentiment (some shit never changes,) and it goes into the birther's crazy arguments.

You can not directly say you are unhappy that the POTUS is a black man. But (if you are that self delusional or generally delusional not to know you really are not fooling the rest of us) you can take ass-holey shots at his foreign name, and whine that he wasn't born in the USA.

Now as far at Althouse goes, she seems to have missed even considering any of that. She instead argues that the birthers have one issue and one question. Excuse me? Talk about assumes facts not in evidence. This is the very same kind of self serving, shallow, borderline magical thinking that makes people believe and say stupid shit like celebrities die in threes. (Dummy! They don't die in threes. You are counting in threes!)If you narrow down the entire universe of motivation and causes of the birther's insanity to one cause, you are editing things to suit your argument. That's not only intellectually lazy, and intellectually dishonest, it's pure bullshit.

After that, Ms. Althouse goes truly off the deep end, by quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37. For you non lawyers out there, it's one of the rules regarding discovery of evidence. Her citation of that is likely more unhinged than either what the birthers believe, or even trying to defend the birthers, as a general matter. The reason it is unhinged is as follows:

Court's have jurisdiction over matters as granted under the US and various state constitutions and laws. And they are honor bound to follow precedent and applicable rules. Doubting birthers are totally without restraint. To make an analogy between a court of law and the birthers . . . to equate the two is to raise the rules of a simple and silly child's playground game to the holding of a per curiam (by the court, as an institution, speaking in one unified voice) decision of the US Supreme Court. (Gawd, I so fucking hate idiotic, far off analogies.)

But sure. People can decide for themselves what is good evidence and what isn't. But when people depart reason and rationality and substitute crazy shit instead? Well we should call that crazy shit. I have gone long, here, but again, this is a mere example of the deevolution of the GOP or if one prefers, the Conservative Movement. The more crazy shit they accept, the crazier they seem. It might not be the paranoid flavor of crazy, so much. Ms. Althouse makes a sorta marginally, yet likely less than half accurate point there (cause let's be real. Racism is the product of irrational thoughts and beliefs, often including paranoia.)But it is crazy shit, and it is an offense not only to reality and reason to define down normal in that way, but like all bullshit, it is dangerous to all of us and all of society.

Said simply, if every point of view is sorta equal, all sorta valid, than all are equally meaningless.

Get it?

* Note: I found the graphix after finishing the composition. Now I am not going to say that the mere fact the majority of GOP birthers are from the south = proof of racism. But I am not in the least fucking bit surprised by those metrics.

Althouse Watch (this might become a semi recurring thing.)

Today's silly shit from Wisconsin's most famous blogger. She's bitching and moaning about a how a tenured law professor at Widener U. might get stripped of his tenure and fired, for (among other right wingy ass holey things) repeatedly using the Dean by name in hypos where she gets shot.


Talk about bullshit.

But I need to go to sidebar, here. The best gig I had was as a staff attorney for AFSCME. But I was not just a union lawyer. I was an employment lawyer. I would routinely tell my peeps to treat each and every email they sent through the state's servers as if they were being read by their bosses.

Seems like the asshole in question needed to hear and follow some similar advice, specifically assume your boss will hear about you making violent jokes about them in the workplace, eventually. I can not imagine any scenario where I would say it was ok for a worker to even joke about any sort of violence happening to their bosses. Same goes for co-workers. Tenure will only protect an asshole's ass, so far. And that is how it should be, people. There needs to be standards, and if someone can not tell the difference between engaging in "free academic speech," and breaching standard work place conduct limits respecting respecting co-workers and bosses, that asshole should not be in academia.

If you wanna have no fucking limits on what the fuck you say, say it on a fucking blog. And that doesn't mean you will never get judged (I am sure my lousy spelling, sloppy editing, and careless posting will bite me in the ass, eventually.) But tenure does not equal license to be a flaming ass.

More is the point. Tenure does not negate ordinary workplace law, rational judgment, and human decency.

Oh. And if I was not clear (and if you did not follow the link,) the asshole in question is a conservative. What the fuck is wrong with these conservatives who think that "free speech" as an idea negates being judged for one's deliberately violent, carelessly violent, or just plain stupid shit and/or bullshit? Where the fuck is it written that anyone gets a pass from being weighed, measured, and found lacking?

Resembles Lots of Right Wing Pundits and What not . . .

At least those who are not noxious, most of the time. Here's the line:

"...hasn’t bothered to understand the basics, relying on snide comments and surface cleverness to convey the impression of wisdom. It’s all style, no comprehension of substance."

This was originally a shot by Paul Krugman against Niall Ferguson. But to my mind, it applies perfectly to what passes for Right Wing thinkers. (And I must confess, I think it applies as well to a certain law professor-blogger beloved of the wing nuts, on her worse days.)

And to think, I ran across this, after watching the vid of Lawrence O'Donnell explaining what a joke Bill O'Reilly is. O'Reilly is a perfect poster boy for this right wing disposition. His only game is snide. He doesn't really have anything else for game.

And speaking of snide, what about Mrs. Palin? The list could go on and on, but that is what those people get off on.

And before I go, let me explain why Mediaite makes me crazy (even if tend to look at it daily.) I think the editors and staff over there try for snarky, miss, and only manage smarmy.

Right Wing Anti Immigrant Racist gangster convicted of murder.

This case is notorious (around the left wing blogs) for being way under reported. But the jury did their duty, and convicted this steaming piece of evil shit.

Now I first read about the conviction, likely on crooksandliars.com, last night. They have been watching this one, closely. But I am pleased to find the story reported on HuffPo. Maybe it will get picked up by the MSM? Hey. It could be an otherwise slow news day.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

And a follow up to the Sherrod lawsuit. Turns out her lawyer is from the firm of Kirkland & Ellis. I worked on a case for them (along with another firm, that was running the gig.)I am not going to sing their praises as if they are the best of the best, but they are big time, top shelf attorneys. Do not confuse these guys with hacks.

Just for shits and giggles, I'll tell ya'll that John Bolton is Of Counsel to the firm (in the D.C. Office.)

Recovery from the Weekend.

I could wax longer about the hate fest that is CPAC. Or I can just enjoy the gamesmanship of Shirley Sherrod's lawyer for serving Breitbart there.

That's the way it's done!

Note further. I read somewhere else that AB has a written statement on his website babbling about how he intends to utilize the full and broad rights of discovery.

Asshole actual put that on the Internet in text. I think it will be fairly easy for Sherrod's counsel to get some nice, tight protective orders based on that thinly veiled admission of intent to abuse the discovery rules. Well, that and likely the first written discovery requests.

Anyway, here's to Ms. Sherrod and her team. Show no mercy except where tactically warranted, and crush that piece of shit. Metaphorically speaking of course.

Weasel, Dirty Dog, Lying Assed, Hypocritical GOP Congresscritters.

Those lying scumbag GOP hypocrites. They take over the House. They change the rules saying that all new bills have to specify the part or parts of the const. that authorized the law. To be particular, the requirement is not to state that congress has the authority as a process to introduce bills. That is mere process, not policy. The aim of the new rule is policy directed. It has to be. The rule makes no sense if it can be met merely by pointing to the part of the const. that mentions the process of legislating.

So, here is how it went down. That new attack on women's reproductive rights, HR 358 (The Protect Life Act), was in sub committee, and Rep. Weiner of NY called them lying scumbag hypocrites out for not meeting the new rule on that bill. Turns out the bill merely relied on a self serving statement that they were overturning an allegedly unconstitutional law. Weiner dug in. Saying it is unconstitutional is not the same as citing the specific part of the constitution that authorizes the bill.

The (GOP) Counsel for the committee tried to prop up the insufficient bill by saying that (there during the committee's hearing) a statement that the part of the constitution that authorizes congress to legislate, as a process.

Sleazy shady stuff.

Eventually the lying scumbag GOP hypocrites got a statement from the rules committee saying that the only time to object was when the bill was first introduced.

Again, sleazy shady stuff.

This is what happens when you let people who hate the Federal Government to run (part of) the government.

I am merely linking my source. The video is long. And one needs to be a real government junkie (or professional) to sit through this. Hell. I haven't even made it all the way through yet.

Video at link.

Revolutionaries 1, Mubarak 0. The Soccer Match is Over.

But a new chapter in Egyptian society and government begins.

And I can only hope they end up with a more responsible, less corrupt, and more (conventionally, in western enlightenment philosophical terms) free and freedom loving society. But I am seriously anti any thing that smacks of violating Jefferson's Wall of Separation, no matter the religion being in any way exalted or supported. That's the way I roll.


Moving on, kids. What's the difference between a wing nut and a Dem where mentally ill people are concerned?

A Dem finds someone acting or talking crazy, and we want to get them some proper medical treatment.

A wing nut finds someone acting, talking crazy, and they want to give them a radio and or TV show, and or put them in front of congress to testify, or vote them into congress.

Ok. There are two (maybe three) stories driving that bit.

One, I watched that Don Imus thinks Glenn Beck is scary, but loves him, video.

Two, I read the story about Paul the Elder's star witness for a hearing being some insane, Lincoln hating neo secesh trash racist.

And for a third reason, everyone (mostly) at CPAC who is a self described conservative.



Notes: I know Imus is not considered a true wing nut, but he sorta swings that way.

And the source for the video I saw is actually mediaite. And I despise that virtual Yellow Journalism blog, and do not want to endorse it (even if I look at it daily. Go to keep my eye on them bastids!)

Quickies . . .

No, you wing nuts. It's not a double standard when Dems do not go bat shit when people insult Clarence Thomas. We don't like him!

No, you wing nuts. It's not invidious discrimination that causes the imbalance in higher ed academia. It's just that not only are liberal, Dem leaning people more likely to seek a career in academia (pay sucks, even if the benes are not bad.) But any political pov does not rise to the protected statuses, such as race, origin, sex/orientation. Nor should it.

(The presumption is political party is no more worthy of protection than being a "Real Housewives," fan.)


No, you wing nuts. All ideas and speech are not equal.

No, you wing nuts. You don't have a right to an audience.

No, you wing nuts. Right to free speech cuts both ways. If you say your stupid shit, expect to be called out on your stupid shit.

No, you wing nuts. The actual meanings (found in the dictionary) matter more than what you think the words should mean.

No, you wing nuts. If you use the words, don't be surprised if people take you to mean those words.

No, you wing nuts. Violent speech is violent, actually, even if you did not mean it literally.

No, you wing nuts. Believing in magical fixes is not a basis for governmental policy.

Lastly, no, you wing nuts. We know you all are full of bullshit. We know your message, as a whole, is nothing but bullshit. We are on to you. That is why we don't take what you think or say, as serious things. But we do know you tend to break the government when ever you get control of it. So we do know, you all might not be bright, but you all are dangerous.

Remember What I Said About Un-Gaslighting Beck? Same Plan for Caribou Barbie.

Apparently Mrs. Palin and Mr. Delusional himself, Rick Santorum got into a name calling match. Well, Mrs. Palin was the one calling names, in a classless, nasty, passive aggressive manner.


Passive Aggressive Sow. Hey. Sow is the proper term for a female bear.

If one did not know better, one might wonder why the wing nuts are nutz for Mrs. Palin. But those sick puppies get off on that shit. Passive Aggressive shit has to be one of the most annoying character traits, on the list of repellent behaviour. And I can see the argument that what she did there was only superficially passive, as she pulled her punch. Either way, she's a repellent creature.

But here's the part I mean to say. Perhaps if we can keep the pressure on her, she will continue to say even more obviously nasty things (pulling her punches or not.) Hopefully, before long the real sow bear that is Mrs. Palin (notoriously, even if not yet caught on tap) will reveal itself, in all its nasty excess.

What do you expect from a woman who deliberately takes a sow bear as her preferred image?

Speaking of American Right Wing Bigots (or them kinda shitty people.)

Dialogue from that book I've been reading:


"Bell looked at the gem merchant. "You don't miss much, Mr. Riker."


"I told you. My father taught me every trick in the book. What got you so riled?"


"I will not abide hatred."


From "The Spy." Clive Cussler and Justin Scott.


Accuse me of taking a cheap shot at the GOP there, as there is no political edge to the scene. But my target is as much a particularly dull witted mode of thinking I find more active with the right wingers, than my team.



And current right wing racism has evolved from that of 100 or so years ago. We live not in a day and age where people feel perfectly comfortable embracing their racist beliefs. However, we live in the age where racists know there is a place too far beyond the pale to stay. But things short of that extreme? That's where the racist's live. You can't call them dirty foreigners/others dirty, but you can nit pick at them ad nauseum and still (at least to the satisfaction of other racists) labor under the delusion that your drive, your value system, your core belief system is not thoroughly that of a basically racist person.

America still has a racist heart. Not totally. And maybe not even half, (if we should be that lucky.) But that blackness is still part of the American heart. Well to be honest, more so the Right Wing heart.

I only hate them bastids or worse people. And there are worse people. Violent racists, particularly.

Everything Old is New Again.

I'm in the middle of reading a novel set in 1908, America. Back when the second to last (as Ike wasn't all that bad a dude) GOP POTUS who wasn't a near total piece shit, Teddy Roosevelt, was the man at the WH.

Not the point, though. Point is at some point either the "narrator" or protagonist mentions "Yellow Journalism." I immediately thought of FNC. Next, I thought of my line of patter, when I remind those less steeped in US (or media) history, that biased, even bigoted alleged news publishers are nothing new here in the USA. FNC is just more powerful than even Hearst ever was. Hmmm. Makes me wonder of Unka Rupert has a authentic portrait of WRH in his home, and routinely looks at it and does the Aussie version of a "Nanner, nanner!"


But that was a one time mention, in the book. However, a recurring theme is American People's willingness to buy into the worst of racist stereotypes and scare stories. For the purposes of that story, it's vicious anti Asian racism. Never the less, I immediately thought of FNC. And the GOP. And those Tea Baggers. And the fuckheads in AZ.

Speaking of AZ? I saw a headline that the anti birthright citizenship bill has lost (or other wise has low) support. Now even if Pearce in the legislature is the proud papa of this racist bill I address my comments to Leatherface Jan.

No wonder your state is sending medicaid patients to their deaths. You are wasting too much money declaring war on the Fed Gvt., for racist reasons if not merely ends.

Seems to me (and I hope) people are on to you. But as I have predicted elswhere if not here, AZ is where the white racists are most likely planning to draw the main battle lines. This is not over.

The Impossibility of Not Covering Again, Old Ground.

I have had a certain thought in my head. And I would have posted about it (again) but there's the dilema. If I have not explored that idea here, in the past, I am sure I made the argument as what I would call a "throwaway." That's what I call it when I toss off/out the bare bones of the argument, while either bolstering a main line of attack, or otherwise going all shotgun/scatter shot about it.

Anyway, the thought in my head was how twisted the GOP is nowadays. It resembles more the traitors who made war against our great nation, back from 1861-1865, than the Republican Party that fought that war to preserve our Perpetual Union. Not a terribly original thought. But some days the noise level from them people just highlights that fact moreso, than other days.

Anyway, some other thing has been crashing around in my head. And that would be that silly argument Ann Althouse made in that bloggingheads.tv performance I linked, over the past few days. (Either way you are going to get something partially recycled from me, today.)Personally, I find that libertarian, Pollyanna view of non-judicial, extra legal, not constitutionally protected free speech, to be flat out childish. And at some point today, it occurred to me, that is not only merely bullshit (as I said last time visiting the subject,) but it is a logic loop of stupidity, to say it is anti free speech to express the idea that some people need to shut up (get off the TV, what ever) with the shit they spew.

Mind me. First you have the offensive shit spewer. They are engaging in "free speech." Then we have the critic who takes offense or otherwise rejects the first speaker. That's "free speech" too, even if the speech is,"For the love of all that is decent, shut the fuck up with that mindless shit!"

But now we have the libertarian, "free speech" extremist, bullshit child mind's "free speech." Perversely, they do essentially the very same thing speaker number two does, and that is deliver a message ,"You should not say what you did just there. STFU with that!" But oddly, if not hypocritically, they engage in the very same sort of (allegedly) anti free speech, at the very time they claim to be defending "free speech." It's as consistent a matching of ideology and behaviour as to be in the middle of the act of beating your dog with a pool cue, while waxing forth about the evils of animal cruelty.

Analogy aside, it's just plain stupid.

And no matter how much longer the the chain or argument goes on and on, we still have lots and lots of "free speech" flying around. But the perversity of criticizing some one's speech for their criticizing of an other's speech is just it's own level of bullshit.

And again, I am not a free speech extremist. I would rather see less pointless bullshit than more. And no kiddies. the mere fact you think you have a point doesn't mean you are not engaging in bullshit. The level of sincerity you show your thought is not even relevant. Well, I have to correct myself there. As Professor Frankfurt would say (spoiler alert) and as the last line of his book reads:

"Sincerity itself is bullshit."


Last thought. I have been stuck on the overlap between politics and linguistics and rhetoric for years. And I retreat to that meta level of analysis sometimes, just to avoid dealing with the same old partisan shit. And today is one of those days. (And it's not like it is worth it, every day at least, to actually spend my time deconstructing the bullshit arguments the other side makes. And makes. And makes. Talk about covering old ground, again!)

You Can't Gaslight Someone if They are Already Crazy? Right?

I'm talking about Glenn Beck. And I am not talking about some sophisticated plot, some conspiracy to make a sane person crazy. But it seems the bullshit huckster of the unhinged faction of the Right Wing, can't take criticism or any push back. It doesn't so much make him crazy, but crazier.

Michelle Goldberg mentions him and the word "lunatic" on FNC. Beck goes bonky. Bill Kristol disses him. Beck goes bonky.

So world, what will happen if we subject Beck to a constant stream of criticism? Will he have another meltdown (and I mean the sorta famous time he had that shrieking fit on the radio?) Will his disguise fall away and we finally see that much like that "bug" in the movie "MIB," it's been an alien in an human suit, all these years?

Or maybe, if we are so lucky, if we nag his punk ass enough he will slink away and hide under a rock, because he found out that most people really don't like him very much?

I'm not expecting that. I do have hopes and dreams, though.

Speaking of Reagan, and Bullshit.

This is an example of republican bullshit at its most obvious and transparent.

Notice how Limbaugh goes from flat out denial of Reagan raising taxes, to challenging the caller on the source of the data, and tying that into a left wing blog. Then Limbaugh goes all,"You can't understand," instead of answering the simple, but tricksy question. Then he just vamps. And thanks to the shitty connection, we know damn well when the call is either cut, or the volume is merely potted down. And Limbaugh's staff must have verified the tax increase. Because when he is going solo he makes all sorts of excuses for Reagan raising taxes.

What a shitty defense. He admitted more tax increases than the caller baited him with.

Again. This is the purest of bullshit. Limbaugh was more concerned with propping up the naked dead emperor's image, than the facts (that as an icon of the conservatives, they would have to go far for worse.) But since Limbaugh has made millions selling that kinda bullshit, he isn't going to stop anytime soon, I recon. Thanks to Crooks and Liars for the source.

Far as I See it. She's the Ex-Governor of Alaska. Not Former.

I was reading some (more inane than informative) blog on the Times about Mrs. Palin. And I once again go to thinking about the distinction, if real, between using "ex" or "former" to describe an office holder's status. I have long believed that ex had some judgmental bite to it, where former merely relayed the truth of the current status.

I did google it today, and read a few bits. And I landed on this one, that sort of matches my mind. Ex vs. Former. "[e]x-colleague" suggests that you repudiated them in some way."

And that sort of explains why I think of her as the ex-governor, more than former. After all, she did not finish her term in the expected way. She quit. It might be a fair question whether it was truly under the cloud of scandal. However, she herself cited her ethics complaints as part of the reason she quit, so I think anyone arguing against that usage is really wasting their time.

Then again, lots of people are wasting their time celebrating Ronnie Reagan's birthday this weekend. As if he did any thing good for the country instead of what really happened. Remember the crash of the market in 2008? That's his vision, that was the result of Reaganomics writ large for all the world to see. And yet some folk see reason to celebrate the man? Crazy world, with crazy people.

Why I Choose Dr, Harry Frankfurt Over Ann Althouse (on the matter of the value of speech.)

To recap, Dr. Harry Frankfurt is a Princeton Professor of Philosophy, and author of what I consider to be the most import book of my lifetime; "On Bullshit."

Ann Althouse is a Law Professor at U. Wisconsin, a blogger, and a frequent contributor to bloggingheads.tv.


The link is to the argument at issue, here. Professor Althouse seems to be one of those "free speech," extremists. And she is allowed. I can't force her not to think what she thinks. However, and I am not trying to be too critical, but I think that sort of extremist free speech ideology is at best some kind of Pollyanna, Libertarian, unrealistic, pseudo principled crap. At worse, it's bullshit. And when I say bullshit, I mean bullshit, as Dr. Frankfurt would define it.


I will jump to that definition. Dr. Frankfurt takes the time in his book to establish the separate definitions for lie and bullshit. He makes a clear distinction between the two, mainly that the purpose of the lie is to get people to believe in something other than the actual truth. Bullshit, however, implies some conscious attempt to blur the difference between truth and falsity, and bullshitters, in doing so, are not merely misrepresenting the facts, but misrepresenting themselves and what they are doing.

I might not be doing a very good job of explaining this, so let me find a quote. The following, from the wiki article:

"[b]ullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences, and in general are unconcerned with the truth or falsehood of their statements (it is because of this that Frankfurt concedes that "the bullshitter is faking things", but that "this does not necessarily mean he gets them wrong"). While liars need to know the truth to better conceal it, bullshitters, interested solely in advancing their own agendas, have no use for the truth. Thus, Frankfurt claims, "...bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are" (Frankfurt 61)."

Wikipedia -- On Bullshit.

(I have said this here before. Read the book. Everyone!)

Please take note of the quote from the good Professor, as he clearly articulates why I am not a free speech absolutist. There's too much bullshit. And bullshit is bad.

Particularly, it is people like Glenn Beck, and so many of the other people over there on FNC who are not really at all trying to participate in a constructive discussion of issues. Hell, they aren't even engaging in normal partisan warfare. They, primarily are infotainers who follow the one flag, but when it is all said and done, they are playing their own game for themselves.

I need not even get to the partisan points here. So much of what is passing (attempted to be passed off) as data from those people, really is not even argument but just plain nasty bullshit. And we do not need more of that, even if there is a market for that. There's a market for snuff films too.

Oh. And one other thing. Just because some ancient jurist spat out some seemingly to some, attractive sophistry (such as that quote in the bloggingheads clip about more free speech,) doesn't mean it's valid, or universally true. Lord knows, that one (if from a case) smacks of dicta.