Remember Kiddies. This is the Baseline.

Most Republicans. Suck. Most Conservatives suck. They are Satan's own minions on the Earth (I say that not literally believing in a literal Satan. But still . . . .)

What is it about (too many)gopcon women that makes them suck so double plus hard?

I think it is some kind of passive-aggressive penis envy. Except when it's active-aggressive.

So shit bag story about shit bag wing nut women I won't even fucking waste my time reading. Palin can't play nice. I bet she flunked Kindergarden. Or cheated. JMO.

Silly Person Ann Althouse Does it Again!

It's been two weeks at least. Since I posted about silly things found on her page. And this is just a silly thing, really. But I am tired of actually posting about the hurricane that wasn't (for me at least, lucky me.) I have been at it on my FB page since Fri. Evening. Anyway. Ms. Althouse threw up a bunch of posts about it. But I bring your attention to this one. Here.

Silly lady. The bull is not on Wall Street. Wall Street is several blocks North of the bull. I would say the bull is on Broadway, but to be fair, it's at one of those triangles. There's like a one block street there on the other side of the triangle. But that location is known as Bowling Green. The subway station there for the 4 and the 5 trains is called the Bowling Green Station. And the bull is basically out in front of one of the oldest landmark buildings in Downtown; the Cunard Building. And let's not forget the former Custom House that now is home to the American Indian museum, and the Bankruptcy Court.

Now ok. I confess. I have been working in that part of town for the past couple weeks and depending on which train I decide to take in or out, I will likely walk past the bronze beast, at least once during a work day. But still. Even if not working there presently, I would have said, wrong street, lady.

Speaking of the bull, it still intrigues me how many people pose for pix "fondling" that bronze bull's big shiny balls. What does that say about people, hmmm?

One last thing tying "Bowling Green" and the hurricane and my current gig. I still don't know if mass transit will be up and running in time for the morning commute. We shall have to wait and see.

Charging Bull, on Wiki.

I Almost Fergot How Pretty She Is.

Ran into a friend of mine today. Haven't seen her for real in real time for three years (since Summer of '08, before the shit hit the fan.) I almost forgot how pretty she was! Made my day. It was like sunshine on a cloudy day.

Aww. I'll stop there and just in case someone is wondering why I am not doing my usual, hey.

Shit. Even I get bored of cursing out the scum of the universe -- Wing Nuts! Sometimes real life and what really matters comes first
!

Tea Party, Fuck You, Part Deux. On Again, Off Again, Financial Lawyer Edition,

For the second time in the past year of my life, I am doing scut work on a law case concerning the MBS market. Or call it the RMBS Market. Or call it the CDS market. Flippers and floaters, and swaptions. Oh my!

Point is, going back some 20 years, I, even if I have never even taken a proper class in Macro Econ., am working on big time financial cases, matters. I still have to look up basis points, as I don't live and breathe that stuff. But I know my LIBOR, cost of money, and bond and securitization theory (shit, the one young lawyer who is one of my supervisors on the case said in reply to the preface to my question I asked her saying, I think this is beyond my knowledge of the bond market, with an, oh I don't think I can help you if you don't know it. . . Hey I have been doing this shit on and off for over 20 years.)

Anyway, the most funky financial thing I learned as a youngin, meaning high schooler, was the cost of money. That's the core of modern finance. I am not saying fuck Adam Smith. He's the history and foundation. But Adam Smith explains the historic relationship between labor and those who control the means of production. He was Karl Marx before there was a Karl Marx (unintentionally, mind you.) But if anyone want to pretend to know finance and macro econ they better be able to vamp long and deep on the cost of money, otherwise they are too fucking ignorant to be part of the adult debate.

And that's the problem with tea baggers. Modern finance is about cost of money and spreads. Adam Smith style capitalism is not dead, but it's a quaint anarchrosim. Mostly. Mom and pop operators still follow that . . . framework. Sorta. But it is not a rule. But shit, be real you lying assed evil tea bagger fucktards. The classic mom and pop outlet is at least operating with a line of credit if they can get their hands on it, or otherwise have some loans supporting the biz. Who the fuck running a business runs their business without debt?

Money is made on the margins, bitches. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant, a liar. Or maybe both.

Fuck these balanced federal budget people. Fuck them dry.

"How did it come to this?"

Just for the record, when I am running down the GOP Wannabe field, exclude Huntsman from the broad brush. He's rational. He believes in science, not Unicorns. He's not "eating teabagger corn dogs." He's not talking about his biblical world views, and being president in the name of Baby Jesus. He's an empiricist, not a dominionist.

He hasn't got a snowball's chance in Hell, getting the GOP nom. The village full of idiots that is far too much the current GOP (otherwise, what I lump together as the wing nuts) hates (a) anyone smarter than them, and/or (b) not willing to pretend otherwise.

To borrow the line from Good King Theoden,"How did it come to this?"

Go Ahead. Accuse Me of Just Dialing This One In.

Some stupid, republican asshole said/did something that proves they are a stupid, republican asshole. But I was too busy to pay attention. Opps!

Even More Religion.

Usually reliably level and liberal headed Kirsten Powers has written a basically over the top rhetorical defense of evangelicals, based on the attention The Stepford Wife has been getting for things like:

(a) saying she was submissive to her husband, and
(b) later defining the word to mean just about anything but what the word means, actually.

Go Here for the Article.


My comments (as posted on the Daily Beast FB page -- typos correct here, thought):

When ever someone needs to define a word they have used way past the dictionary meaning, they are on thin ice, as far as their own veracity goes. Beyond that, and I admit I am a fan of Kirsten Powers, but she's not really being persuasive here. Two, three, four hundred year old a history of that word being consistently taken to mean "not really submissive, actually," would have been good proof of the point. What was given was just contemporary spin from modern day evangelicals who to a great extent make up their own meanings, as they go along.

Painting this a bigotry is really intellectually foul. It's more than rhetorical overstatement. Now personally I say I respect every one's right to believe what they want. But I do not have to respect what they believe. Anyone who thinks otherwise, that they can make me respect beliefs I do no will be sorely disappointed, because I will resist that as fiercely as an attack on my person. Oh. And if I was not clear, I do have a right to judge people on the things they say they believe in. To argue against that is to argue against reality itself. Now would I write someone off merely because they are a believer? No. Now how many Americans would not vote for an atheist or an agnostic, merely on account of that? You want to identify bigotry, there's your obvious bigotry.

Quickies.

On many levels, last week wore me out. Less so on account of the news from around the points of the compass. But it was something of a bizarre week. Any week where wing nuts still roam the earth has that potential, but I am going to try hard not go off on a they fucking suck tangent. Been there, done that. Don't have any new material as yet.

Let's get to it.

Rick Perry. Used to be a Democrat. Still has (during his term as Gov.) the random rational thought. He had to walk back one of his actions, taking back his making of that anti cervical cancer vaccine mandatory (unless parents choose to opt out.) That's not too long after having to flip flop on first saying if them New Yorkers wanna have gay marriage that up to them, to change that to endorsing a bigoted Fed anti gay marriage constitutional amendment.

The man is clearly morally unfit for office. And I don't wanna rank on him for his grades. Mine were all over the chart. But at least I earned As and Bs too. And I get to say I was a mediocre student from a tier one school.

Anyway.

Why is Michele Bachmann still in the race? She's an accomplished liar, with no real achievement as a politician, she's likely medically unfit, she's a hard core anti gay bigot, and lies about that, and she's a soft core racist. And the reason she looks crazy in pictures is yes. She's crazy. I have know that for years. But this is what the GOP is nowadays. It's a refuge for extremist nut jobs.

Indiana disaster. I used to do that shit for a living (IATSE Local 919, Charter Member.) And when I saw the vid of that thing falling down, my first-make that second thought was, what the fuck with that roof? Who's fucking brilliant idea was it to put a roof on an outdoor stage in tornado country? A roof resembles and as the vid shows, behaves like a wing in a fast wind. Fucker's going to want to fly! Some one's head should roll over that. Oh. And for not postponing the show until the weather alert was past.

P. Obama on the road. I mean I get sorta why he's out there. But I think he ought to be meeting with folk trying to come up with ways to create more jobs, than talking to folk about it.

Granted, I want to see some sort of encouragement with force of state to get those bastid corps to stop sitting on their money and instead use it to expand and hire.

That's what I would like to see.

I'll stop there for now.

Back to Religion.

Took a time killing trip over the the Hannity Forum. Now I rarely even rubber neck there, and particularly not in the Religion forum, cause some of those people are really fucked. Meaning. They take the shit they believe way the fuck too seriously, and seem to get upset that other people don't respect their actual beliefs, actually.

That's where the insanity kicks in, I say. I find the belief on anyone's part that I have to respect any of the particular things they believe in, 'cause of their religion, to be inexcusable, and oppressive.

Never the less, the following remark by a non believer, in a religion inspired thread, not in the Religion forum, but instead, General Interests:

I always appreciate when people give me gifts to celebrate their imaginary friend's birthday.

I'll stop there. For now.

It's a Primary Debate. Not a Freaking Prom. Morons.

Sorta weirdest story of the week. But when dealing with wing nuts it's dealing with morons. Oftentimes.

And some of them were upset with the tough questions Chris Wallace was asking the wannabes, last night. Go Here.

Granted, when confronted about that on "Fox and Friends," he made the NFL analogy instead of my fave, there's no crying in baseball. But the message is the same. This is politics, and that a rough sport (even if not one with actual physical contact, in the USA at least.)

Now I linked to Mediate. And the "editor," Ms. Fran Martel (so I hear it, she's almost a home girl for me,) makes a very specious argument. But she is a true believer wing nut. Anyway, she argues that," Wallace’s assertiveness and frankness in his questioning helps undermine other media outlets’ criticism that Fox News merely acts as a “mouthpiece” for the Republican Party."

And that's some ripe, nasty bullshit. Firstly, intramural GOP politics is every bit as much a vicious blood sport as the GOP vs the Dems. Republicans eat their young, there aged, and any game that can be taken down and chewed on. Implying otherwise is a big fat lie. Therefore either covering or hosting a GOP Debate has to have some adversarial content. As much as the wannabes might want to run against P. Obama now, they have to shred each other to be declared GOP champ, earning the right to be the one to challenge the Democrat Incumbent.

Next, only a fool would think that there's no commercial value in hosting a more pugnacious debate than one that so full of softballs it's like Sean Hannity interviewing a favorite politician.

Next, never underestimate that Fox Mgmt. might be subtly behind someone already and the rest of the pack are just there for dramatic filler.

Lastly, Chris Wallace never seemed to me to be a wing nut. He knows who signs his paychecks, and all, but he's the rare true hunting hound over there in the Fox Kennel. I don't want to continue the metaphor, so I will just say he's one of the few real journalists with his own show, there. And that is the role he plays. He's Mr. Legitimate. Even if his frequent smirks belie the fact he's well amused by the bullshit game his networks got going, there.

So trotting out the "Not a mouthpiece" editorial comment is really bullshit, not because that is a lie, but again, that's Wallace's role there. And during a primary, he gets to play. Good for him! But that does not change the fact that Fox News is the cable TV equivalent of one of those old time biased local papers that routinely side with one party against the other. This is an ancient game, Fran. Don't pretend it is more than that.

Thor's Day Quickies.

Mittens has been caught on camera saying corporations are people too. Typical. Granted the "heads up their asses," conservative rank and file might fall for that shit. But it's no big secret that lots of big corps are sitting on huge piles of cash, not hiring people, and not expanding, and not cutting dividend checks for the shareholders. So fuck you Mitt. The money is not going to people as you said it. It's being stockpiled.

And it seems Mittens is singing Duet with Grover Norquist. At least he's singing Grover's favorite tune, "No new taxes." 'Cause those corps sitting on cash not hiring anyone now are ONLY going to continue to do as they have been doing, sitting on all that money, if we tax the the profits they already are sitting on. Actually.

I don't think I have mentioned UK riots yet. That shit fucking sucks. It would suck even if I did not have people over there. But I do. And I won't go long on the "That's what austerity on top of decades of neglect," will get you, theme. But I will play the card as I just have. Chickens/roost. Whatever.

I'm running out of steam here. It's been a boring week for one so full of economic sturm und drung. I will finish off with the non-story of the week: Bachmann Crazy Picture Mania. Even Ed Schultz is taking her side. Hmm kay. Again, I stand by my post yesterday. Get real people.

Oddly enough (or not, as I will explain) it seems funny that the one person not whining about this is The Stepford Wife herself. But I bet she doesn't think there's anything wrong with the pic. She really doesn't look all that more crazy than the one on her official campaign site, so (shrugs shoulders) eh!

Oh. Tonight's the latest GOP Wannabe debate. I hope she gets asked about her newly (old, actually) discovered racist thinking about slavery, the pre Civil War South, and why she thinks negroes were better off as property than they are now, or were before they were dragged to America in chains. Enough with the fucking picture, I want someone to put her on the spot and make her wiggle, squirm, and hopefully lie in a spectacularly obvious way.

My Satirical, Hopefully Comical Musical Comment on Tea Bagger Crybabies.

And what I honestly think about them bastids.

Wing Nut Crybaby Moment of the Week, Cont.

Ok. Sides are being taken in the Michele Bachmann Crazy Picture story. First, my biases. I can't stand her, and what she believes in, and have nothing but the lowest opinion of her as a human being. So I really don't give a shit if Newsweek went the extra mile to make her look bad. Goes with the territory. There's No Crying in Baseball. If you choose to get on the Gaming Grid, you accept the risk of harm. Get over it.

Now I was sorta surprised that NOW came down on Newsweek, and particularly believe their reasoning was bullshit. It was not so much the crazy looking pic itself (and I say that once you get to thinking the person's crazy, you are always going to see the crazy there,) they took offense to, but the caption,"Queen of Rage." Way I saw it was they were saying that did not pass the "Would a man get the same treatment," test. Cough. Burp. Fart. Substitute King or Prince for Queen? Follow me?

More surprising was Jon Stewart taking the anti Newsweek side. Granted, his routine on it ended with some eminently logical and liberal seeming POV that if you want to show how crazy she is, do it with her own words, line. So it's sorta weak for a defense. But I will get to analysis why that was a waste of time (and Jon. Go for the joke always. My man, you do it so well. But don't encourage or condone Wing Nut Victim hood. Even if there is as you said a grain of truth there. If there was a mountain, ok. But give those fuckers a grain, and they will not stop whining about their mistreatment for years. Remember that. Look ahead, not just in the short term. Hmm kay?)

Now on the Catholic Church Lady. I semi sorta agree with her. I agree that the thing is not so much the picture was sexist. But I think even she goes over the top with the it's unprofessional shit. Go here for that.

Now for the analytical reality check. I have studied most communication fields, worked in some, and at least was employed by/at a multi media communications corp. And as I have argued before, no matter what the medium, editing is as much what the process is about as is "creativity" and "creating." I would go so far as to say editing is built into all such processes including the sub processes employed by the artist/artisan. And when we get to photography, editing is done from the choice of camera, lens, aperture, film (if going old school,) lighting, angle, and such. And that is before you get to the darkroom/work room and play with your image to prepare and edit it for publication.

Now don't get me wrong. I think people can take the editing and tinkering far too far. But let us never pretend that the photographer and the editor, and in some cases the Editor (mgmt.) are not engaging in some form of editorial (journalistic) editing, in addition to the practical editing that is routine for the medium, when ever they are mocking up a cover shoot.

Do I think Newsweek went too far here? No. Again, I have the insider's pov. I get it the editing process, as a practical matter, is done on one level in order to communicate some idea. I have heard/read Tina Brown's tweet. And even if it sounds sorta bull shitty, it does convey the core truth that I have been talking about. They are trying to communicate messages in the cover art. They are NOT trying to be neutral. Don't ever believe that shit. Now if you want to believe they should try to be neutral all the time? Go head. It's your time you are wasting.

And in order to communicate my actual contempt for that idea, if you believe it, I dare you to hold your breath till that is the default in all magazine publishing. Let me know how that works out for you.


I originally thought to end it on that snarky note. But since starting this essay I have had in mind that iconic photo of Adali Stevenson, showing the worn sole of his shoe. Imagine if the editor decided to crop the shoe out of the picture. Good thing he didn't. I'd say. In that instance we are talking about the difference between an ordinary image, and a Pulitzer winner. Just saying.

Michele Bachmann is a Racist. No Need to Pussyfoot Around it.

Stick a fork in her. She's done (metaphorically speaking.)

"In 2002, then-state Sen. Bachmann’s campaign posted a “must-read” list of books on her web site. Included in the list were the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers, and a book titled, “Call of Duty: The Sterling Nobility of Robert E. Lee,” authored by J. Steven Wilkins. The Lee biography includes this apologetic passage:


Northerners were often shocked and offended by the familiarity that existed as a matter of course between the whites and blacks of the old South. This was one of the surprising and unintended consequences of slavery. Slavery, as it operated in the pervasively Christian society which was the old South, was not an adversarial relationship founded on racial animosity. In fact, it bred on the whole, not contempt, but, over time, mutual respect. This produced a mutual esteem of the sort that always results when men give themselves to a common cause."

Here.

Some people might need more evidence that she's a racist than this. To people of that mind, I would say as follows? What fucking more do you need than the fact she hyped as a "must read" a book that says blacks were better off under slavery than now or when they were in Africa?

That's about as clear cut racist as it gets. Really!

Now she might not be a VIOLENT racist. And I use that word in either the literal or figurative sense. But let's be honest. Not that it is completely out of fashion (have ya heard about the latest southern lynching of a black man? Shit, that shit's still going on people,) but being violently racist is way out of fashion for people who want to pass for respectable people. But the soft bigotry of soft bigotry is alive and well, and running for the GOP nomination. Sickening.

Et Tu, George F. Will?

So I'm still obsessing over wing nut stupidity over the teabagger terrorist rhetoric. Sad to say, as even if I disagree with him, completely, most of the time, but even George F. Will is playing this witless, moronic rhetorical game.

Specifically, he confronted a Dem pundit for employing the economic terrorist metaphor, on Sunday's "This Week." Go here for the story. (As an aside, and evidence of why I hate the "editors" at Mediaite, they at least are blatant about their own sick, twisted, wing nutty bias. Those which are, and not all are minions of evil-wing nuts.)

Cutting to the chase. Knowing the difference between a declarative statement and a metaphor is 6th grade level language skills (ya I checked.) So anyone acting like they don't know that was a metaphor either is actually not as educated in the language arts as a 6th grader, or are pretending to be that fucking stupid, merely to make some actually more offensively stupid rhetorical argument than the one they are attacking. Now if the person in question is a seeming idiot, like Mrs. Palin, one might entertain the possibility she might in fact be that stupid. I honestly don't think she is that stupid, even if I love saying it. However, when someone of George F. Will's skills in and with the language goes down the moron hole, then something is really fucked up with the right wing.

Here is how I say it. You have to be so fucking stupid to believe that when someone says it's raining cats and dogs, you believe cats and dog are actually falling out of the sky, not to understand that terrorism, hostage taker, pirate, or what ever rhetorical slam that has been directed at the teabaggers lately, is a metaphor. And some GOPers are that fucking stupid I am sure. Not George F. Will. That incident has to rate as one of his most shameful and knowingly intellectually dishonest of his entire career. I'll end there. Someone told me it's now the dog days of summer. I need to go out to see if packs of dogs are running wild in the street, yet.

Some Quickies, Starting With the Conservative Crybaby Moment Of the Day.

Of course the picture doesn't make the crazy lady look crazy. Fact she is crazy makes her look crazy. Go here for that shit.

I can't resist the obvious joke:

Is that the political equivalent of the dreaded question, "Does these jeans make my ass look fat?"

Moving along, Megyn Kelly is back from maternity leave. Our long national nightmare (with her her "Single White Female" - movie style doppelganger) is over. But the real newsworthy bit of stupidity is wing nut radiohatehead Mike Gallagher. Seems like he dissed her and the idea of maternity leave a while back. Granted, I still revolt at her delivery, but she had him on the show today and read the fool the riot act. No, make that that Family and Medical Leave Act. Asshole Gallagher doubled down first, then blamed his stupidity (in the past) on drinking. What was his fucking excuse for not coming out of the gate apologizing for being such an idiotic ass today, I still want to know. Go Here for that stupid shit.

And I agree, she's rockin' that new bob-do. But looking good was never her problem. It's the personality and or persona that's very off-putting.

Just fuck Standard & Poors. I am thinking there some political partisan score settling going on with the downgrade. After all, they are spewing Tea Bagger drivel.

And speaking of teabaggers, let me hype the song I wrote over the weekend, delightfully titled, "Tea Party. Fuck You!" I was inspired by all the insane crybaby rhetoric over the rhetorical metaphors terrorist, hostage taker, all that shit, leveled at those fucking pirates and car jackers. I need to do another take before I try to load it to YouTube. I stumble through too many of the lyrics, and need better mic placement to get the vocals on top, properly.

Oh, and speaking of me, yea me. That hand me down lap top I have not been able to boot for the last dozen tries? Well I spanked it's bottom today and lo and behold, the beastie booted. Yea me.

That's all for now.

Rachel Maddow Shows How It's Done.

Few journalists/anchors/commenters are so thorough in making a correction. She seems to enjoy it, as far as she is capable of having fun with it. (Oh and as an aside, Megyn Kelly, Satan's Own Shield Maiden is due back on her show next week. She could learn a lot from Rachel about having fun on the show, instead of being a snarling, crook lipped, uptight, angry ice princess. I'd say.)



And if you watch the clip you will see (hear) about Rush Limbaugh's new racist line of attack against P. Obama. "He wants to take away white people's farms . . . .like Mugabe."

Ya I let that slide when I first heard it, as I was stuck on some other witless wing nut rhetoric. But again, kids. I toldja. It was gonna get worse. They were gonna get worse. And I was correct!

Some Things Need to be Said, Over and Over.

I personally, violently despise the "balanced" approach. Give us the facts. Give us objective truth. I do (come to think of it) miss the old days when it was straight news. No feckless punditry, and if the anchor was going to editorialize, they would (pre chyron days?) put a message on the lower part of the screen saying so.

Of Metaphor, Rhetoric, and Delusional Disorders. And Crybabies.

Let's set the baselines.


Metaphor:
A metaphor is a literary figure of speech that uses an image, story or tangible thing to represent a less tangible thing or some intangible quality or idea; e.g., "Her eyes were glistening jewels."



Rhetorical Fallacies
Rhetorical fallacies, or fallacies of argument, don’t allow for the open, two-way exchange of ideas upon which meaningful conversations depend. Instead, they distract the reader with various appeals instead of using sound reasoning. They can be divided into three categories:


1.Emotional fallacies unfairly appeal to the audience’s emotions.

2.Ethical fallacies unreasonably advance the writer’s own authority or character.

3.Logical fallacies depend upon faulty logic.



Keep in mind that rhetorical fallacies often overlap.


We tend to call rhetorical fallacies, "Rhetoric," for short, even if the proper academic meaning of rhetoric encompasses a greater swath of the persuasive arts.


Delusional Disorder has a technical definition, under the DSM IV:
Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening effect.[1] For the diagnosis to be made, auditory and visual hallucinations cannot be prominent, though olfactory or tactile hallucinations related to the content of the delusion may be present.[2]

Suffice it to say, few people really have a clinical delusional disorder. But some people are so stubborn with their rhetoric, they seem to be truly mentally ill. One person's passionate conviction is another person's evidence of a profound need for very powerful anti psychotic drugs.

Now for the real discussion. Following the Tea Bagger Terrorist-caused artificial Debt Ceiling crisis, where such people used the small but effective leverage they had over the debt ceiling bill to advance their minority agenda over the whole of the Nation, a lot of metaphor and rhetoric was thrown their way. And that hurt some of their feelings. And I am not sorry about that. I have said it before. I'm surprised they even have feelings (rhetoric.) Maybe it's not really a matter of feelings per se, but one of subconscious shame (analytical supposition.) Or maybe they are just a bunch of whiny assholes (metaphor, intended insult.) Bunch of crybabies (metaphor, intended insult.)

But their response to the patently obvious metaphoric and rhetorical arguments levied against them, while not meeting the DSM IV's definition for Delusional Disorder, clearly, and from the common man's understanding of it, has been quite delusional, and particularly hypocritically rhetorical itself. Let's take inventory, shall we?

Bullshit wind bag Jonah Goldberg (metaphor, deliberate insult,) went on a tear regarding the anti teabagger terrorist rhetoric, on several lines of attack. First he delusionally (rhetoric,) equated calling teabaggers terrorists and such with the odious "gun sights" map that Palin got raked over the coals for (metaphor.) Jonah. You drooling, post lobotomy patient on crack (accurate description. No. I'm being rhetorical and insulting, and enjoying it immensely.) If you are so stupid you can not tell the difference between violent rhetoric and merely insulting rhetoric, you go to hell (ironically that's how he ends the column in question.) That's the case, generally. Specifically he brings up, several times, Rep. Giffords, who took a bullet round to the head, and indirectly equating her level of victim hood to tea baggers being rhetorically insulted? That's some of the sickest shit I have ever read that was not details of an actual violent crime, or some sick and twisted violent fantasy (true present opinion and belief.) What a crybaby (yes, rhetorical. But it has more than a grain of truth.)

I have likely gone so long here that I should stop now. But there are many other examples of this sort of insane hypocritical rhetoric coming from the teabagging terrorists and their enablers. Let them whine about "The New Civility." Let 'em. My thought earlier this morning -- I was specifically thinking of that over paid college drop out (accurate) Hannity. He's such a hypocrite (truth) that if he were forbidden from ever employing rhetoric on either his radio or TV show, they would consist of nothing more than reading AP or UPI wire stories. Because between his bullshit, his usual guests' bullshit, and his callers' bullshit, there's not much there but for rhetoric. And that my friends is the baseline of the right wing. (Special note here. "Bullshit," is not necessarily a rhetorical device. At least according to Professor Harry Frankfurt. See his long form essay,"On Bullshit.")

Now before anyone says,"Your team uses rhetoric too." I will admit. Yes. Everyone does. But discourse on that other side of the fence is at such a low level that there really is not much substance there. It's nearly all rhetoric, nearly all the time. And that is why anyone on the right who is bitching and moaning about the tea bagger terrorists being called terrorists? All I have to say to them is the following:

Could you be MORE hypocritical? (Sarcastic rhetoric, but not a rhetorical question, there.)

Edit to add:

My follow up, as I watched a clip of some bullshit discussion on Fox from yesterday, where the hypocrite Fox host and the hypocrite wing nut radio host continued with the false equivalence. And oddly enough the wing nut radio head said Allen West was "accurate" with his personal attack on Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (way to prove being a hypocrite.) That execrable performance led me to formulating the following rule of thumb.

The two prongs of the "If Not Going Too Far, Per Se, at Least Worth Complaining About," rule are as follows. Either something should be (1) such a blatant, non sequitur of a cheap shot personal attack, or worse, or (2) some violent rhetoric that is so far outside the plebian lexicon that it could not pass for (qualitatively, comparably) a line in a high school cheer, in order to be considered complaint-worthy.

I am recognizing two important realities about the American Lexicon. All insults are not created equal. And even if violent rhetoric is the worst, by class, some of that stuff is so deeply entrenched in the lexicon, that to whine about it makes one a crybaby. For example, if a rival calls you a crybaby, that’s no foul. And whining about it is per se evidence of being an actual crybaby. If your election rival says they plan to whoop ya, that is not a foul. Whining about that is evidence of being a crybaby.

See how it works?

A Non White Spiderman. I Was Waiting for Some Racist-y Wing Nut to Complain. And Along Comes Glenn Fapping Beck.

Beck Wants a Traditional White Spiderman, Sorta.

I'm not comic book people. When my sixth grade classmates were still reading Spiderman, I had moved on to the NY Times. (Not bragging. That's when I started with the political junkie stuff. And the Watergate stuff was just heating up.) I would not be caught dead at a Comicon unless I was there to work, as paid staff, or there to promote some project in which I participated. So I only know about the whole 'Ultimate" series of Marvel because some comix people explained it to me, and mostly because I read some other article that explained it, yesterday.

But this recent flap just reminds me of the racist-y whining before Kenneth Brannaugh's "Thor" came out. Because one of the Norse Gods in Asgard was played by a negro man. Because some people get all spastic when their notions of race centric cultural norms are challenged. Hey. It's freaking Gods. Some are so powerful they can change forms. Why limit them to one shade of skin, but for some observers' racist brain damage?

Bringing us back to Non White Spidey. The Marvel "Ultimate" universe is a different than the classic context universe. So anything goes there. So it's not weird for Peter Parker to die, and some half Black, half Hispanic kid takes over the web shooters and the spandex-y suit. Anything goes , there. So when I see some (already exposed as a wing nut racist) idiot like Beck whining about the damage to "tradition," all I see is a racist jerk who goes batshit insane because his racist cultural biases were challenged.

And this is not a matter of such importance that it rises to National Mythology. We are not talking about rewriting the Tales of the Brother's Grimm, or anything like that. I't a freaking comic book, for crying out loud! Get some perspective, asshole.

Now I should note that Beck in the audio says he doesn't care if there's a half Black Spidey, bla bla yadda. If that's the case, why have the segment at all? But he comes across as insincere as the person who says, with contempt dripping in their voice, "With all due respect . . . ," and then goes on to say something contemptible. How his deranged brain links this up to Michelle Obama is evidence of some serious cognitive dysfunction, if you as me. Making anything as trivial as a barely if even 50 year old comic strip part of social/national "Tradition," is pretty messed up, with out the racist/bigotry multiplier factor.

Note for Mr. Beck. The entire "Ultimate," line of Marvel Comics is not new, and not part of some PC conspiracy. It's pure capitalism. Marvel made the decision to expand comix sales into new markets. So the anything goes in Ultimate Universe paradigm allows Marvel to potentially reach any niche market, and maximize sales and profits. Ya racist moron!

Oh. Getting back to "Thor" for a minute. The god played by the negro man was Valhalla's guard of the bridge, Heimdallr. He had to stay on post all the time. All day, all night. Did not get to go to the fancy parties. Did not even get some time off to take a Valkyrie on a Battlefield Date. So it's not like he had the most glamorous gig there. But he did have awesome powers!

Follow up re Tea Bagger Terrorist Crybabies.

Beyond my amusement, specifically, at Mrs. Palin's increasingly desperate and buffoonish attempts to be relevant again, it's interesting to note how hyper sensitive lots of the tea bagger terrorists are about being so described. Reminds me of the bullshit euphemism,"Enhanced Interrogation." So what do they want us to call the legislative tactic employed in the debt fight?

Enhanced Leveraged Negotiation by way of Threat of National if not Global Calamity.


But it's not economic terrorism. No not that. Calling it that hurts are feelings.

Mrs. Palin's Whine Fest. More Cult of White Right Wing Victim Hood Shit.

Firstly, remember kids. The proper term for a momma grizzly is Sow. But I am going to pull my punch and not call Mrs. Palin a stupid sow. But I will call her less intelligent than a randomly selected chipmunk. Let me get this straight.

P. Obama sent an assassination team against Bin Laden.


Lets the military send drones over the border into Pakistan all the damn time. And jumped on board with NATO, permitting US planes to bomb the snot out of Lybian Forces Loyal to Quadaffi.

And ignoring all that (and that's just the quick tell of it) Mrs. Palin argues that if the tea baggers were domestic terrorists, P. Obama would want to hang around wth them? Again. I repeat. She's less intelligent than a randomly selected chipmunk.

Personally I am going to use the phrase tea bagging terrorists as often as is practicable. I pull the following from the statutory definition of terrorism I posted yesterday (on my facebook page):

"(1) the term "international terrorism" means activities that - - - - -
(B) appear to be intended -

(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;

(ii) to influence the policy of a government by

intimidation or coercion."

And I know Palin's fighting rhetoric with rhetoric. But it's an idiotic tactic, to respond to allegedly insulting rhetoric with batshit stupid, crazy-pants rhetoric. Judged by an objective standard, at least.


Go here for the crazy shit.

Irony Alert. GOP Congress Critter Upset Over Use of Common, Hackneyed, Clichéd Rhetorical Line . . .

but only when accurately used against him. Go Here.

I want to give some props to Connie Mack for realizing that rhetoric can distort the debate in unproductive ways. (And that we as a society have reached a dangerous level of critical Mass with the raw tonnage of bullshit piling up and being flung around.)

But fuck a lame duck? Stabbed in the back? What's next? Being upset over the use of "Raining cats and dogs?"

But we all know Rep. Mack was not defending productive civil discourse from the corrosive effect of bullshit. He was miffed that he was being accurately even if rhetorically characterized for being the nasty little fucktard he is. So he doesn't get a star. Shit, he doesn't even get a half-star.

NH Missing Girl Story. I Don't Want to Speak Out of Turn, But . . .

This shit seems to fit the usual pattern. I am just saying that:

STEWARTSTOWN, N.H. -- A female's body was discovered Monday in a river less than half a mile from the home of an 11-year-old New Hampshire girl who disappeared almost a week ago, but authorities didn't immediately identify it.


{skip}


According to several media outlets, Cass's stepfather was taken to a hospital Monday morning. MSNBC reported that Wendell Noyes was taken by ambulance after repeatedly laying down in the family's driveway and rolling around, and video showed him dropping to his knees in the driveway and then laying face-down, with his head resting on his hands.

Here, at Huffpo.