One More, But I Really Need to Get Out of Here. Soon! This Wing Nut Motherfucker.

Ya, I pulled out the big daddy of insults. I only got less than 1/2 way through his motherfucking bullshit as I have fought wing nut motherfuckers on this shit many times before. I can only put up with so much of it before I start shouting motherfucker. As you can tell. So . . .

His name is David Cohen. I don't encourage anyone waste their time on it, but it is here, where the wing nut (unoriginally) re hashes the tired old saw where politics and religion are put in the same category.

Fucking tiresome. Usually the way I have see it argued (when it was directly argued to me on account of my total disdain for conservatism) was to have people accuse me of being a bigot, on account of my total disdain for conservatism. Under those circumstances I would point out that there are clear definitions for bigot and bigotry, and politics is outside of them. Politics does not have to be so viciously partisan that people hate each other on sight, like members of the Montaque and Capulet households. But irrationality is a given with politics, and the sense of superiority is really built into the thing.

My team rawks, your team sux.

That's politics, in a nuthsell.

And later he employs one of the variants (and I have had this shit thrown on me too,) and that is the,"They hate MORE people who are conservative and . . ." fill in the blank.

Now I will pretend to speak directly to the motherfucker.

Listen up, motherfucker. I have such contempt for conservatives that I do not give a fuck what sub group of conservatives they are.

To re write and spin it on it's head, the quote from that movie "Jerry McGuire," "You LOST ME at I'm a conservative."

That's why I stopped reading the piece. Granted the whole Herman Cain x Jon Stewart shit has that high up on the wing nut batshit crazy attacks list. But honestly. Wingnuts. I think all ya'll are fucked up just because of your politics. I have seen motherfucking wing nuts argue that blacks would vote GOP in significant numbers merely because there were black GOP candidates, and/or the same for women, or Latino candidates. Not only is that cynical thinking, it's patently racist, and/or sexist, and offensive thinking.

However, to accuse someone of being particularly dismissive of a conservative because they are conservative plus? That's at least as cynical. It's not exactly racist or sexist in of itself. But it's a particularly evil way to play the race or sex card. And those motherfuckers do it, shamelessly. The 2012 election is more than a year away. And those motherfuckers are going to get more shameless and evil. That's part of why I can call them out using the big daddy insult. But I usually hold back. As I sorta said, it's going to get worse. I have to reserve that word. Use it sparingly. Let's not devalue it, quite too soon.

Back to Some Wingnut Law Professor. He Found a Negro Palin-Head.

Astounding! Not.

"The sum of all their fears."

Talk about a perverse delusion. Granted, white GOPers outnumber black GOPers by what? 63% to 2% of the whole party, according to Gallup. So if there are (an itty bitty tiny amount of) blacks in the GOP, the mere existence of one who likes Palin is just a yawning event.

And forget Palin. Hey Professor Wingnut. Did you happen to forget the negro man running in the GOP Primary? Ain't that the more important thing? And he's not the first.

Speaking of 'not the first,' if you follow the link to Professor Wingnut's page and look at the first article he links, you get to read the incredible story about how this black lady got all into Palin because her little daughter saw Palin on the TV. The little girl is said to have said something like she did not know a girl could become President. I call this incredible, and by that I mean doesn't pass the stink test. Um. Hillary? Remember her? I read that the first time and just glassed over on account of the vapidness. On my second pass, I deconstructed it and came to the conclusion that I don't give a fuck what anyone else says. That looks like scripted bullshit to me. Nanook of the North level scripted bullshit.

Oh. And the following song just popped into my head:

Blimey, Ms. Althouse! MSNBC Analyst Mark Halperin Calls P. Obama a Dick, and You Take Offense to Joe Scarborough Saying,"Oh My God?" Jesus Christ!

Front-loading the following. I was going to put off the Mark Halperin = dick incident (yes, I deliberately used his insult on him, there,) till later, but then I saw Ann Althouse's alternative reality take on the thing. And I have some, well not exactly unique, but in America? I have some restrictive views on religion. And I haven't gone there in a while. And that might be more fun than politics, for a spell. So here goes. Oh. And this is not so much about her. She's just the match to the firecracker. Are we all set? Then let's go.

As the title suggests, some douche nozzle by the name of Mark Halperin called President Obama a dick, during the broadcast of "Morning Joe." And when Ann Althouse chatted about it on her blog, she took the incident in what I (and many of the minions in her commentariat) thought of as a strange direction. She said:

"Am I the only one who takes more offense at the blurted phrase "Oh my God" (by Joe Scarborough) than the use of the word "dick" to explain the President's behavior? I think insulting the President is rough political discourse, but saying "Oh my God" is taking the Lord's name in vain."
Ann Althouse Misses the Point, on the X and Y Axes.

Suffice to say, many of her commentariat did not consider that to be taking the lord's name in vein. And as a half-sidebar I used blimey there, as that's one of the old "blasphemy" covers. I recently googled to find it's meaning, and that's something on the order of,"God blind me." I already knew, since taking my high school Shakespeare course, about "Zounds" and "S'blood." Zounds is the cover for, "By God's Wounds." "S'blood," is cover for "By God's Blood." So why am I recounting that? Well, and I don't mean to demean any one's particular religious beliefs but all that shit is stupid shit.

Was a time when Europe was universally christian (mostly Catholic, specifically.) And one could face a very bad penalty for being caught in blasphemy. Even during the earlier days of America, blasphemy was a punishable crime in the state criminal court, as opposed to ecclesiastical courts. Back in the days of pre schism Europe, they wielded power over nearly every aspect of people's lives. I would call those days, the bad old days.

And even if I created the tag before I started typing, Ann Althouse's tangent got me thinking about what I would call "Religion as oppression." That's the case even if she did not go so far, go all bat shit about what she mistakenly thought of as "Taking the Lord's name in vein." Some people really get their holy roller noses bent out of joint over that shit. I take the, "Get over it, and yourself," view to that shit, as you could well guess.

I understand that the "Western Word," used to be nearly uniformly agreed that christianity is the way and the light. I understand that as of now, in America, it's said that more than 2/3rds of the nation identifies as some flavor of christian. Never the less (and I am going to curse and curse badly to make my point) but I really wish religious people would stop being such fucks. I mean really. You pick and choose what religion floats your boat? Goody for you. Don't fucking expect me to respect either the choice you make or the fucking dogma, rituals, or any of that shit, save if I am invited into your places of worship and or homes and I agree to enter. At that point it would be plain fucking rude of me not to at least go through the motions. But outside of those limited exceptions you have no reasonable expectation for me to pretend to show the tiniest bit of respect for the nonsense that you say you believe in.

And I have had that conversation with with people, in the past, and it has been heated and totally disrespectful on both sides. And I have had the conversation in a more reasonable fashion. Point is. If one is someone like me, so deeply an agnostic that the best I can say is, I can't prove there is no real God. As in, Father and Creator who will sit in judgment of us all in the end of days. Then one can not honestly show respect for the very idea of religion. Agnostics and atheists reject or at least greatly doubt the core idea of religion: the very existence of all-powerful beings who deserve to be worshiped on account of being all powerful beings.

To us, a choice for practicing one religion over all others has no more objective meaning than a choice of one hobby over another. Presbyterian or Anglican? Stamp collecting or coin collecting? Paper or plastic? Over or under, for the toilet paper? They are all rather mundane choices. Personally I get the reality of the fact that many people take the matter of their chosen religion to be of the greatest meaning and seriousness of anything in their lives. But I still don't get why. (And you can't make me.)

Here's the part I really get. I get it that historically religion and oppression go hand in hand. I know that a bias (if not bigotry) against all others is sorta built into the idea of the institution of religion. But here's my take on the proper base line regarding religion in a purportedly free society, where matters of religion are to held as matters of individual conscience. Everyone is allowed to believe in whatever they wanna. And that means as well, everyone is free NOT to believe in whatever they wanna. That means if someone wants to believe that saying "Oh My God," is bad, they are allowed. And if someone is like me, and finds such a belief to be batshit crazy, that's allowed too.

Remember it's about individual conscience. That's the key. That's the part not only where reasonable people agree. That the part that defines reasonable people.

You Don't Need to Use a Foghorn Leghorn Voice to Make Herman Cain Look Like a Fool.

Just ask him a specific question, and try hard to get him to get specific, or alternatively let him do his 'Tambo and Bones' routine.

Eliot Spitzer chides Cain: ‘Generalities Don’t Solve Problems.

Granted, the same goes for most of the Wannabe Klowns. They spew dogma and ideology, but try to get them to lay out any thing specific? Ya might as well try to get milk from a rock, for the futility of it. Cain was particularly odiously repellent, and ignorant, and ill informed here. And at the end, where he refused to answer a question about cutting the budget now, and he replied he wasn't going to answer that . . . because he would have never let it (the crisis) happen in the first place?

Ya. That was such an ignorant answer he might as well stripped naked, jumped up on the table and played with himself while singing "I Feel Pretty." Ok. I grade hard, but his answers were so bad, Mr. Cain is profoundly unfit to be Commissioner of Public Works of a small town, leave alone POTUS. If he has no clue how much like a fool he appears when he answers all those questions with things like, I don't know, I will have to wait until I (win and) get all the data, I haven't read the report, I don't know any specifics, he clearly is not POTUS material (hold off on the Bush jokes. He had the money people on his side to start.)

Anyway, I will take a cheap shot. His own actual accent? Kinda bad. He does have some suthern cuntry pronunciation going there, and when he get a little excited it becomes more pronounced, and makes him seem less articulate. And that shit is not good. It's not very credible to criticize people for making a caricature out of oneself, when one does most of the work for them.

Shorter Ann Althouse. Help! I'm Being Oppressed!

(Tiny woman there is Justice Bradley.)

Aw hell. I had to do research. Want to get it right.



940.203 - ANNOT.
Only a "true threat" is punishable under this section. A true threat is a statement that a speaker would reasonably foresee that a listener would reasonably interpret as a serious expression of a purpose to inflict harm, as distinguished from hyperbole, jest, innocuous talk, expressions of political views, or other similarly protected speech. It is not necessary that the speaker have the ability to carry out the threat. Jury instructions must contain a clear definition of a true threat. State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, 243 Wis. 2d 141, 626 N.W.2d 762, 99-1924.
940.203 Battery or threat to judge.

And the reason I am front loading this (end note? Explanation of a) criminal statute is because there's been some ruckus about some freaky deaky shit going down at the WI Supreme Court. I am not going to go long on the back story here. But in short, one justice, Prosser, a taller male, is accused of choking and/or otherwise putting his hands around the other, Bradley, a tiny female justice's, neck. Another telling of the tale says the tiny female shook her fists at him first, coming at him, seemingly, as I recall it was said (versions are blurring in my head, I confess,) after she told him to get out of her office. I presume he did not get out of her office. And legally that's a potential complication. (What is the extent of the rights one has to chase another out of their office, on state owned property in WI? I am not going to research that.)

I am saying that much up front as to my mind any defense of the male here is batshit crazy. I say it is batshit crazy because I have seen many a bar fight in my day. I was just having a conversation with a neighbor who used to tend bar, about bar fights we have seen. And here the thing. Bar fights do not start with people waving their clenched fists in the air like some cartoon character. Bar fights start either with pushing and shoving, or sometimes the good old fashioned sucker punch.

Shit. I still can't get that image out of my mind, of this tiny women shaking her fists at the larger man, like in a cartoon. In other words, I am saying that under the facts as far as I know them, now? An argument that the tiny female judge reasonably resembled a "True Threat," is disturbingly, comically insane. Put a weapon in one of her hands? Ok. But under the current fact pattern, the argument is batshit crazy.

Sorry that is a long set up. Now Ann Althouse has been all over this story. At least two journalists have referred to her posts in their own Internet postings about the matter. And she does not like it.

Maybe Althouse has something of a point there. However . . . and as said in some of my past posts about her, she does have this annoying, if not intellectually dishonest tendency to play devil's advocate. Perhaps now she will figure out on her own what I have been saying. And that is when one plays that idiotic game, one never really seems to articulate a clear position on the matter. So one should not be shocked, shocked, if one's meaning gets lost. Or if one ends up misunderstood and or misquoted, as one has not been clear about one's meaning. Actually.

And here's the part (one at least, as I see it) she seems to contest. Accusations that she's a Prosser (the larger male justice) supporter. Again, that devil's advocate garbage is certainly partially at fault for that impression. And I now redirect your attention to the comical image of the tiny female waving her little balled up fists at the larger male. And as well, I direct attention to the statute and it's requirement of a "True Threat." It should be obvious by now, but in order to clearly express my argument, here is the core of my argument. Any slack given to the larger male, under this fact pattern and under the applicable law, is batshit crazy, and likely to be viewed as supporting the larger male. Because under this fact pattern he's with out anything resembling a reasonable defense. And that's the part Althouse is missing. She was over the course of several posts quite unclear (or less than willing to be specific) about who's side she was taking. And to make matters worse, she's seeing a defense for the male here that does not really seem to be based in the ordinary reality of the world we live in. Or the facts. Or the law.

But I have to admit. Seeing her defense of her prior posts was quite entertaining. I have been trying again to ignore her here, but this was too much fun to resist.

Edit to add:

Althouse has a (I'll try to be kind) quirky thing she does, when she will take one of her minion's comments, and showcase it on the main page of the blog under it's own heading. Usually these comments are jejune, vapid, or just plain stupid. This one is just a mistatement of reality.

"Journalism has become a form of litigation. It's not about finding the truth; it's about advocating theories and presenting facts in a way that ensures that one "side" wins."


No Irene (the minion/poster.) And no, Prof. Althouse. That is not true. Litigation's got more rules. And a judge. And an appeals process. Althouse should know that. The analogy is dead on arrival merely based on that. But drilling down deeper, it would have been wiser, and closer to reality to say/argue that journalism often resembles advocacy. And that's nothing new. As long as there has been journalism, it has been used as a form of advocacy.

More on Stewart vs. the Fox Fux.

Ok. So I have now watched Jon Stewart's reply to Fox's cynical attack on the Herman Cain angle. Again, since they have up on their web site, Bernie Goldberg's 'Let's just lie about it,' essay, the nerve of the attack on this line is so obscene, I am having trouble describing it beyond cynical and obscene.

Anyway. The link I am providing below is to Mediaite. One of the Editors there is a hairy flaming wingnut. Really badly so. And keeping in mind that, she sets up the clip with her own wingnut commentary. But even if she's a wingnut, I kinda don't get it. That's to say I don't get her effort. I am linking her page instead of embedding the clip because I want to show her silly, smarmy comments, too.

As far as the Fox Fux go, I have already described what I think of as the essential and obvious jealousy the On Air "talent" over at Fox has for Stewart. I did that a few days ago, talking about Chris Wallace's twisted attempts to put Stewart on the same vocational grid as where Wallace works. And as Stewart himself says in the clip you will find on the linked page, below, he gets to use the dildo wheel in his show, and the Fox peeps would get fired for that. So there's that whole thing.

But I guess the other part, and this is were some random wingnut might come in, is that even if Stewart really is not an advocate for a political party or ideology, he's a paragon of East Coast Urban Liberal Elites. It's not so much about what he does on TV to help the Democrats. And it is partially on account of how good he is at skewering the GOPers. They really hate that. But beyond that, there's some symbolic value they place on Jon Stewart. And that's why they (not just Fox, but the minions like Martel) feel driven to attack.

And Jon Stewart loves it. Cause he knows what I know.
Don't Fight the Clown. The clown will always win.

(I'm talking about professional clowns here. People who make their living acting funny.)


Edit to Add. Rev. Al's view of the matter:

Calling Bullshit on Beck. Calling More Bullshit on Bernie Goldberg

Turns out Glenn Beck is either way more delusional than we thought, or is an accomplished liar. Well, he could be both, actually, but anyway, his recent allegation about being attacked in NY City's Bryant Park is the nastiest, rankest bullshit.

Turns out some one merely accidentally spilled some wine, apologized for it, and helped Beck's wife clean it up, according to the most recent account.

Here.

But according to Beck he was targeted for harassment and all that crazy paranoid shit he said on the radio. Now as of late, I have been saying there's no excuse for being a republican. But this guy? Medication? Incarceration? Either way he needs a lot of remedial help. Or to be put somewhere where his toxic shit can be better contained.

And in other freak a zoid news, Bernie Goldberg has decided to go ballistic on Jon Stewart, over the (as they are calling it) 'Amos and Andy' voice he used making fun of Real Life Minstrel Act Herman Cain.

Bernie. Listen up. I have been given shit by GOPers for accusing the GOP of deliberately misusing the word racism to deliberately muddy the meaning and power of the word. And you, you incredible ass, do that deliberately and knowingly. Thanks for proving my point.


And I quote:

"I told Juan Williams who was sitting in for Bill, that conservatives should do what liberals have been doing for years – they should play fast and loose with the word “racist.” They should promiscuously call every liberal who criticizes Herman Cain – or any other conservative black man – a racist. Not because it’s true, but precisely because it’s a lie."

Here.

Bernie, Bernie, Bernie. Never minding the ignorance of your premise, that liberals are deliberately playing fast and loose with the word racist. Your practical admission in that piece that that is exactly what you are doing to Jon Stewart, and your call to other conservatives to do so as well, is just prime facie evidence of your depravity. That is evil. To do that deliberately. No matter how deeply you believe the other team is doing it. Shit, more so if you really believe the other team is doing it, that's more of a reason never to do it.

Did I say that is evil? Shit. Oh. And Bernie. Using of the phrase, "A black man who has strayed from the liberal plantation," might not be evidence you are a racist. But in using that phrase as part of your argument you have insulted the intelligence of the overwhelming majority of Blacks in America, and as well insulted every Democrat. Way to go, sport!

Now Bernie, you might have a hard time getting the truth of the matter here, but you are despicable. You are despicable for the things you think, things you say, and the things you encourage others to do. Sickening.

And oh. Now can I say that no liberal has ever cynically called someone a racist with out really believing the target was a racist? Of course I can't. Shit. I'll go so far to say I am sure it happens. But when it does, I'm pretty damn sure that's the exception. It's the outlier. I'd argue that for the overwhelming most of the time, the liberal using that word actually believes the target is a racist. For example I can say with a very high degree of confidence, that when liberals accuse Glenn Beck or Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh of being racists, they mean it. Because all those guys are way the hell past the line when it comes to that stuff. Millions and millions of people really believe those guys all are racists, on account of the things they believe, and say, and encourage others to do.

See how that works?

(Oy vey!)



Ok. At least I have moved on from Bachmann.



Edit to Add:

Amos and Andy, my black ass! I just was watching the clip of Jon Stewart taking on the matter of the cynical attacks Fox has been making for the past few days, and in the middle of that was the original mocking of Cain bit. Shit. The accent was more Foghorn Leghorn, than anything else. And in re watching the set up, the actual speech Cain gives, I have to say and say again. If he is not himself trying to do the Minstrel show thing. If that is not a deliberate thing he's doing there, he ought to get himself a good drama and voice coach, regardless of his political ambitions. At best he comes across like some jack leg snake oil salesmen. But the way he plays to the audience? Very bad shit, that.

I Go My Own Way.

While fan boys like Professor Wingnut whine, whine, whine, about how mean the media is so mean to Michele Bachmann (one l. Two ns,) I'm paying attention to how much of an easy ride she is getting. She has been bullshitting and avoiding, and doing the side step in these interviews. And they are not really treating her like the flake she is.

Case in point, her recent interview with George Stephanopoulos. The John Qunicy Adams as a "Founding Father," bit? He probed but he did not push hard.

Here.

Be that as it may, George let her get away with not so much a lie, but more of a whopping, steaming pile of bullshit. Still vamping on how the founders worked "tirelessly" to get rid of slavery, she says this shit:

"Bachmann: Well you know what’s marvelous is that in this country and under our constitution, we have the ability when we recognize that something is wrong to change it. And that’s what we did in our country. We changed it. We no longer have slavery. That’s a good thing. And what our Constitution has done for our nation is to give us the basis of freedom unparalleled in the rest of the world."

Um, the thing that ended slavery in America was the U.S. Civil War, lady. Ya might have heard of it. 1861-1865. More than 500,000 American combatants killed. (That's not counting civilians.)

Now it was one thing for George not to ask The Stepford Wife what's her source for the J.Q. Adams info? That movie with Anthony Hopkins? (Love the movie, by the way. But seems to me that's where she was coming from.) But not to pounce on her for basically ignoring (if not being ignorant of) the importance of the Civil War in ending slavery? Whatta gaffe George. And whatta estunad, Bachmann.

Forget about just Newt not making it through summer. If Bachmann keeps up with the shit like she has been so far, she will be a fading star in a few weeks. So far no one in the main stream (and that includes Fox) media has tried to corner her on the actual issues. Yes, she speaks in broad conservative sweeping terms, but she has no plans, no ideas there. So far her platform consists of GOP dogma. Expect her to get pressed harder on that. After all, subsequent reporters will have to (out of being well bored of her canned remarks) start asking new questions. And the further away from her canned bits she gets, the more interesting things will get. And that more likely it is the Stepford Wife will let her freak fly. Or, alternatively, if she keeps retreating to the same canned bits, being known as a flake might not be the worst of fates for her. If she keeps up this routine, she will be known as a brainless parrot. In other words, she will end up being thought of, when all is said and done, as just another Palin. But one who speaks in complete, and rather grammatically correct sentences.

Stay tuned. I'm just hoping the act gets more interesting than not. I am well bored with the pat answers. Come on you journalists. do some real journalizing, will ya!

More About The Stepford Wife.

"Bachmann! Bachmann! Bachmann!"

(You need to imagine Mrs. Palin dressed up like Jan Brady, famously fuming at how her sister got the spotlight, or what ever, to get the joke.)

Ok. Keeping track of the not news taken (given?) for Bachmann news, first there was her not seeming to accept Chris Wallace's apology. Then there was her accepting it. Then there was Chris Matthews saying that hurt her feelings, the flake remark (I agree and will get back to the point.) Then there was the confusion of which John Wayne lived in Waterloo Iowa. She confused the famous actor with the infamous serial killer. Smooth move. Granted, she admitted the mistake. But I think the die might be cast already.

For the second day in a row, when the news cycle is so barren for news that every stupid thing she says or does is instantly considered news, she's in front of a TV camera defending her seriousness. Not a good pattern. If that continues, I think her campaign might not end with a bang, but with a whimper.

Back to "Hurt her feelings." I saw the vid. I saw the flinch that is evidence of the negative reaction to that word. Ya. She did not like that. And I am going to make a point that some might accuse me of being sexist for saying. So I will plead my anticipatory defense up front. I think John Boehner is too emotionally vulnerable to be trusted with the nuke code Football as well. So there! But can we really say a person so emotionally vulnerable that they visibly flinch when they are confronted by a term that they should well know their critics have been saying about her for years and years, is fit to be POTUS? I mean really.

She can't be that cocooned. She's only a congress critter. And not a long timer with real power in her party caucus, even. Her small staff can't keep her that isolated from the truly disparaging remarks her words and beliefs have generated. So why that huge level of shock? Did she expect nothing but ass kissing from Fox News? Even so, and even if she quickly booted up the boilerplate bio file and spat that out . . . a fair cover, but not really the home run a good ad libber could have pulled. It wasn't presidential. It was just an average political sidestep.

And I can't be the only person thinking that. And as one reporter/blogger I read today basically suggested. She's now the entertainment for the political media machine. I can not guarantee how bad the shit storm's going to be, but she is ripe for the full media scrutiny. It's not so much that I think she can't survive the scrutiny. But as I predicted already, her ad libs are not good. She's got that whole regurgitate thing down, but people are going to be playing the gotcha game now. A lot of people. Every time she steps out in public there will be people there hoping to get that next gaff recorded and published. That's the part she should not be able to survive; her own weaknesses.

Is It Just Me, Or Is This

An inexplicably bad picture?



It evokes that really bad night she had when she was looking at the wrong camera. So it's bad for the history of that gaffe. But otherwise, she's looking off in the distance with some sort of goofy if not sort of crazy look. (Click on it to see full size.)

And I pulled that from a website run by her camp.
Here.


WTF?

Well her neck looks good. And her smile and teeth look good. But the thing with the eyes is likely to creep some people out.

Oh. And I saw this somewhere else, so I can't claim to have thought it myself, but the remark was that Bachmann was a Stepford Wife.

If that gets stuck to her it could cost her a lot of the respect she's been getting as of late. And this picture definitely evokes that whole Stepford Wife image. She doesn't look very warm and fuzzy there. That might be the one thing visually that Palin has over her. No matter how much work she has had done on her face (that's why I have been calling her a cyborg) Palin is rocking that whole "Hot Mess," thing. Fact she doesn't do it for me does not change the fact that lots of folk are fans.

Oh. I checked her camp's main webpage. They are finally getting it together. They are using a smaller version of that pic for the masthead (for lack off a better word.) Oy vey!


Edit to Add:


The story about the flake remark is itself still news, even (and I suspect as intended) today that she's double triple officially announced her candidacy.

Here.

I urge all to follow the link and watch the vid clip. It seems her handler was more annoyed by the question than she was. But she really did not want to be dealing with the flake flap on her coming out day. That rather detracts from the looking serious part if one still has to defend that point. I loved the last part the reporter says about "Palin who?"

Oh. And one last thought. The teleprompter jokes again? I mean really! Come on. And remember what I said in a previous post about her ad libbing? Gaffs abound when people go off script. Teleprompters keep folk on script, dear. And that titanium spine bit? Minorly goofy. Not awful, but her penchant for visual show and tell might bite her in the ass, before long. That might endear her to her base, but it looks goofy. And people who still need to defend their seriousness can't well afford the goofy shit.

More about Chris Wallace's "Palinization" of Bachmann.

Again, Professor Wingnut is not the point. He's just a convenient stand in for similarly minded wing nuts. And one of the things wing nuts decry is the way the media treated and still treats Mrs. Palin. He uses the term Palinization. I guess that's the new form of getting Borked. Anyway, here are the main reasons the media ripped on her so harshly.

1. She came out of virtually nowhere. And that leads to a presumption that

2. She did not deserve to be picked as VP nominee.

3. She's a snowbilly.

4. She talks very funny. Worse than a thick Southern Accent funny. She talks crazy person funny.

5. She is a gaff machine like none other that has been on the national scene in any living person's memory.

6. Despite having been a governor, her resume was thin.

7. Because she came out of nowhere, everything about her was dug up pretty fast and made public for the first time within a short period of time.

8. Her family is a disaster/real life soap opera/was a reality TV show before they were getting paid to be on TV.

And Lastly.

9. Even if she might not really be as stupid as some of us like to say, she obviously can not think on her feet and respond well to unexpected questions. So she comes across as profoundly stupid.

And she's got that freaky religion, and her anti elitism not only is a slap in the face to the media (ya, that's smart. Antagonize the press like that,) but it makes her the worst of snobs. It makes her a redneck snob.

Wingnuts will deny most if not all of this. But all that shit is her shit. She makes it very easy for the media to treat her more like a freak show than a serious player.

Back to Bachmann, Wallace, and Professor Wingnut. I sort of remember that he had the update on his post last night that Wallace,"has issued a video statement acknowledging that it was a mistake to have used the term “a flake.”" And the Professor then says Wallace is a class act. Excuse me?

The Professor originally laid out the case that Bachmann was being Palinized, and then calls Wallace a class act for merely taking it back? Like I said last night, The Professor is pretty stupid if he does not understand that that was no accident. Wallace likely pre planned that question, as a bit of deliberate theatre. He had his own reason for taking the shot, never mind that the other well known Tea Party Queen is still an employee of Fox News. He got the effect he wanted. He gets to say, hey. I can punch at the republicans too. And he gets to apologize for it, after being pressured. It's still a win for him. Not classy, that. It's cunning, though.

Wallace is likely the smartest person on the payroll there who's "on air" talent. I suspect he's not only gaming the system generally, but he's gaming his bosses.

No wonder he's spent so much time trying to equalize himself and Jon Stewart. He keeps forgetting that if his act is really that, an act, it's still supposed to be a secret. He's in showbiz in his own mind. And he's playing the part of wing nut journalist. But he's still being graded under and classified as a journalist, not a performer. Ok. That's my take on it.

And a couple things before I find the door. Wing nuts like the professor just don't get it. They don't get it, that not only is politics a big game, but Fox News, for all they like to be the right wing partisan network, basically holds their audience in low level contempt. They try to game the game as well as they can, and that means they game the audience on a regular basis. And make a shit load of money that way. Just look at that all knowing smirk on Chris Wallace's face for the tell.

Oh. And one other note. And this might be how Bachmann falls off the wall like Humpty Dumpty. Even better than Palin, Bachmann can work well enough with prepared remarks (as long as she doesn't have any of that stupid shit in her pre prepared remarks.) But as well I suspect she will fail the improv test. Back in the days when she was saying all sorts of stupid assed shit, if not totally bullshit and lies, she likely was speaking off the cuff.

But she's been well rehearsed lately. We got to get her on the fly and try to make her think on her feet. If she's been well enough coached, she might not take the bait though. We need to give the shiny thing something she can't resist as a shiny thing, lure. Then we will see the real crazy person. She's not buried that deeply. More so in the interview she did with Bob Schieffer than Wallace, she started to let her freak fly, when she started talking about her religion. She held back some, but just like Mrs. Palin she's done some testifying before the congregation. And when she lets her freak fly its almost as freaky as Palin's tape was. If I find it again, I should post it.


Edit to add:

Letting Her Freak Fly. Kooky Shit.

And I finally watched the Chris Wallace apology. He was very easy on her. But I guess he did not know that the answer to the flake question that he described as "good" was her campaign, boilerplate bio bit. She said the same shit on Bob Schieffer's show. Same.

Hey Professor Wingnut. I Tell People I Can't be a Monster, Because I was Already a Darkling.

That shit likely doesn't make sense to lots of people. Fans of Lady Gaga are known as monsters. Fans of the lesser known yet devoutly loved (and way more interesting, edgy) Shirley Manson are known as darklings. My excuse for not being a Gaga monster is my being a darkling before Gaga blew up on the pop scene. And I love her look and sound and all that shit more. Sorry. The Gaga act really doesn't put the lead in my pipe.

And in that vein, law professor wingnut? Don't you fucking get it? Maybe Sean Hannity considers Bachmann his honorary Congress Critter. But for the most part, expect Fox not news to stay stiff and drippy for Palin (even if she is not in the race, and they are being passive aggressive with supporting Palin, somewhat in some circumstances.)


What a Fool Believes.

Chris Wallace may have been pursuing his own agenda. He did, after all, use his attack on Bachmann as evidence for his being balanced. Following his being so soundly bitchslapped by Jon Stewart last week. And Geeze Louize. For a republican to eye fuck he picks Sarah Palin's rival? As a fem con with prezzy nomination ambition she's an easy target. She needs them more than they need her. Word!

Hey professor. This time I am going to say yes you are that fucking stupid if you can't see what is going on here. Palin is the filly in the Fox Stable. Bachmann is the insurgent, the challenger to the title of Tea Party Queen.

Are you really that fucking stupid not to get it that for now, Fox has decided on who is the wing nut beauty queen?

Fuck a duck. Wake up!

Got to Admit it. Bachmann Got Game.

As opposed to Mrs. Palin, who can still manage to look and sound like an idiot with a friendly interviewer, Bachmann can handle the dreaded CBS Liberals. Today it's her against Bob Schieffer. He's not in hyper attack mode. But he's trying. She is staying poised, and polished. She knows how to do the effective side step.

And even if right now she's singing the anti gay bigot shit, she's doing it in a serious person's serious way.

And now the God speaks to me crap. That shit goes over well with evangelicals, but seems kooky with normal people.

Now for her wacky false statements, as chronicled by Politifact. And she sidesteps. Bob asks her about her outrageous lies about off shore drilling permits and she manages to vamp on energy policy. She denies misleading people with all her "pants on fire" lies, and she trots out Obama's prediction about the stimulus. As if trying to predict the future and not being perfectly prescient about it is the same as either deliberately misstating facts, or just being too lazy to check.

But I again admit. She did not come across as the freakish clown those of us who have been following her for years, knows well. Did she just mature or did she get herself a top coach? Well we know she's got some experienced, talented handlers and advisers. Hmmm. Maybe she won't be falling off the wall that soon? Well that might have to come from the other wannabes instead of the media.

And will someone for the love of god find out what is the truth about whether or not she's been lying about a post doct. degree in Tax?

Let's Pick On Another Wingnut Fool - Blogger.

But before we get there, I have noticed myself that this thing I've been doing is something more of a alternate form for my blogging. Instead of jumping right in with the issue of the moment, I'm taking on commenters from the other team. And just like comedians tend to tell more jokes about GOPers as there are more of them saying stupid shit, I am doing the same with GOP bloggers. And no, I am not trying for blog war. So much. I am trying to work on my aggressiveness. That's way the blog is a good tool for me. For me, as I am a tiny pimple on the huge ass end of the Internet. Blogging for me is about expressing myself and voicing my opinions.

I did message boards for years and years. I know all about performing for an audience. And I don't need that shit as much as I need to say what I want to say at any given point it time.

Ok. On to this fool.

To summarize, firstly he's a known item on the wing nut blogosphere. Not one of the big boys but a contender, based on his cross linking to some better known blogging wing nuts with more juice. Anyway, this post is particularly bizarre for his . . . how do I say it? For his asymmetrical, fruity bonkers over reaction to the other blogger he demonizes. Well he says she's evil, and the bangs on her forehead are likely hiding the mark of the beast. Demonizing. Literally in text.

Demonizing her for what?

Ok. Some crazy man in New Hampshire set himself on fire (om the courthouse steps, some such) to protest his ex wife and the system he thought screwed him. The other blogger, a better know one, Amanda Marcotte (she's appeared several times on blogging heads. Is well known in them circles,) published a tweet that was not at all sympathetic to him. And that is why the wing nut has cast her as evil.

Ya. Because being unsympathetic to someone who instead of choosing a nice quiet (even if messy) suicide did it on the county courthouse's steps, wasn't trying to fuck with people on his way out, one last time.

Now I can be sympathetic to even such manipulative and vindictive and vengeance driven suicides, in so far as I have no idea what sorts of snakes and lizards and tiny elves with hand and power tools have been busy at work in his mind, tearing shit up and making him or her more . . . what's the word? Crazy. But I can also recognize the fuck you gesture in the way they choose to go out.

Suicides are choosing how they go out. That's a built in part of the whole suicide thing. Unless someone is so psychotic or otherwise chemically disabled that what they do is not really the product of choice, they are making a choice in how they go, and or how they are found. Sleeping pills and a bottle of Vodka says, "I wanted to go quietly and some what happily." Shot gun barrel in your mouth, pull the trigger says, "Fuck you." Burning self on the county courthouse steps says, "Fuck all ya'll."

So Amanda Marcotte called this guy out for his clearly intended and delivered message, "Fuck all ya'll." And that makes her evil according to this guy. That fucker needs to look into a mirror if he needs to be calibrated to what evil looks like. It's not the cute lady with the bangs. It's his own wingnut delusional, reality avoiding ass that is evil.

Ok. I exaggerate. But still? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is as fucked up thinking as employed by that wingnut law professor. But as opposed to the law professor, who chooses the passive aggressive Mean Girl Troll approach, this fucker is as least straight up with the insults. As that is all that is really going on there. We have a well known liberal blogger saying something that for all intents and purposes is objectively rational, and the sort of thing many people say under these circumstances, and is considered to be a normal opinion in that context.

And the nasty fucker goes into extreme insult mode. Seems to me he just was looking for an excuse to do it. And even if her statement doesn't even come close to the time zone for that, never mind the ballpark, he choose to pounce.

Says a lot about his soul, or lack thereof.

More Intellectually Dishonest Shit from Some Wingnut Law Professor.

Dude. It's one thing to cling to your ideology and dogma and biases as tightly as your guns and your bible. Shit, it's one thing to do so to your ideology about guns. It's another thing to go all passive aggressive Mean Girl Troll about it.

Geeze fucking Louise.

Professor Wingnut still can't just come out and say something like a direct insult to someone who dares hold a different opinion than him. He has to go all chicken shit and insult the idea and not the person. I know that is how it's done when one is writing the dissent for a SCOTUS decision. But this is the real world, fool. See how I did that? I just went right ahead and called him a fool. No fucking around with shit from me. I will call a fool a fool and not give a shit about it.

Now for his stupid shit post.

"A very bizarre attack on federal gun laws (actually the Second Amendment) and Sarah Palin by Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy speaking at Reverend Michael Pleger’s church."

So says Professor Wingnut. So I am once again in the position of having to say . . . do I really think this fool is that stupid? Of course not. But he's a wingnut. And he really has a low opinion of anyone who dares have a different opinion than he does, but he never seems to be able to just spit it out. He does it the pussy way. Calls the attack very bizarre. Fuck me. Calling that . . . argument very bizarre is the only bizarre thing going on here. Again, Professor. Just go ahead and share your real feelings with us. Trust me. I hold you in contempt already. So just let loose will ya?

Anyway here is the break down of the issue and why the professor's remark is bizarre if anything here.

In the vid the professor is posting about acting Chicago Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy makes the argument that racism is part of the reason that guns are flooding urban areas and killing black and brown youth. Actually he was talking about the Federal laws that allow for that. Now it's one thing to disagree with him. Fair enough. But to call that very bizarre is itself bizarre mainly because that's not a new argument. I think I have been hearing similar things since the shit hit the fan in America with the drug trade, back in the 1970s.

Let me catalogue it. Over the years I have heard arguments that the illegal drug trade is a product of racism. Likewise the anti drug laws are said by some to be racist. And that leads (as some have argued) to the argument that our current "Prison Planet" penal system is also racist. And the flood of guns, which is tied in with the otherwise racist drug related shit, would have to be racist too, according to that logic.

And that case has been argued for years and years. Disagree with it if you must, but as far as sociopolitical theories goes, that one has some grey hair by now, professor.

Oh. And I remembered this lawsuit from a few years back. The NAACP basically made the same argument about guns and racism there.

And there is another reason that calling McCarthy's statement bizarre is itself bizarre. Not to a man or woman, but many many many cops are all for more gun control. That might be on account of incidents like McCarthy mentions in that vid. And yes, part of that is on account of the fact lots of those guns are pointed at and shot at cops. Cops don't like that shit, professor. It's bizarre not to see that as normal, even of one doesn't favor gun control.

Oh. One more shot (pun intended) at Professor Wingnut. He's something of a Sarah Palin Fanboy. Now as embarrassing as his recidivist, wingnut, illogical if not fallacious aguments get sometimes, the fanboy shit is really juvenile. So McCarthy was not happy seeing your little sweet cheeks Saint Sarah on TV screeching in her chipmunk on crystal meth voice about the beauty of 2nd Amendment Rights, after yet another day on the job seeing kids shot up if not shot to death. I for one have no problem getting where he's coming from. But anyone who speaks ill of Saint Sarah will have to face your loyal fanboy wrath?

It's kinda sick, and a little creepy, this Palin fanboy shit. I mean really!

This is So Stupid. Even by Bill O'Reilly's Standards.

This could also be filed under the heading,"How Could This Possibly Be News?" But under "So Stupid," works too.

Now Media Matters (which I am happy to link to, here on this very blog) does a mighty fine job of attacking by publicity, the bias of wing nut media. And Bill O'Reilly doesn't like that. Neither does C. Boyden Gray, who got zinged by them once, himself. Which I learned about here. But not on Mediaite, where I first saw the story mentioned.

Anyway, Mr. Gray has a theory that Media Matters should lose it's tax exempt status because it is not living up to it's stated mission of tracking bias in the media?

Excuse me? That has to be another egregious example of what I was talking about in my previous post about how fucking wing nuts will redefine words, or ignore the plain meanings of words, or deny reality itself.

Asshole. Listen up asshole. Ya, you Ambassador Asshole. If I start off saying I am going to track bias in the media, and if I only track bias in right wing media, I am in fact tracking bias in the media. Asshole.

Good luck with your complaint. Asshole.

What is is about being a wing nut that makes people with otherwise exceptional educations, and resumes, and by extension, intelligence, act like complete schumks and say obviously stupid shit?

It's as if Them Wing Nuts Live in a Bizzaro Universe.

Back to trashing that wing nut law professor. He's a Class A Wing Nut. And by Class A, I mean he's light years beyond merely having an ordinary partisan political biased point of view (I resemble that myself.) He seems to not only deny the existence of other points of view, except in showing contempt for such. But to make matters even worse, he does that particularly despicable (if you love language and communicating in an adult world of ideas) shit lots of wing nuts do. And that is either play the redefinition game, or otherwise ignore the plain meanings of words, if not established, objective reality on the very planet.

And since there's a feature here of a silly-assed stupid shit headline, let me make a more accurate one for his post on his blog.


"Liberal Writer Writes 'Personal Account.' Wing Nut Asshole Accuses Her of Being Entirely Self Absorbed."

Go here for the post. Wing Nut Idiots Don't Get the Meaning of "Personal Account."

I read the whole account. And as far as accounts go, it not only is clearly meant to be a personal account of a person's personal experience, as opposed to a white paper on The Lingering Effects on the Intifada, Under a Croatian Christian Nationalist Perspective. Or some other such academic shit. I found her account to be a very interesting read. She tells an interesting story, I am saying. And even if I have a better than average span of attention, I bore quite easily. When shit is boring. Or badly written. Or god forbid, both.


Now do I think he really doesn't understand the meaning of the phrase "Personal Account?" No. But I know a lame, passive aggressive insult when I see one.

What I see here (there) is this. This asshole doesn't agree with her politics, and her change from being a knee jerk Zionist to someone no longer a knee jerk Zionist. So he launches a weak-assed insult at her. Now remember kids. This is the juvenile who did a victory dance (well, used a cartoon character in simulation) for what was basically the obvious guess about the result of the Wisconsin court case about the procedural challenge to the Kill Collective Bargaining law. Maturity ain't his strong suit, apparently.

And ironically this stupid (acting as I know he isn't really a stupid person. I'm just taking delight in insulting him) asshole goes off on a mini tangent about the writer's use of that hallowed, revered, Eff Bomb to Top Them All, Motherfucker. This, after his weak-assed passive aggressive insult, shit.

Now I am really not at all inhibited in using the work fuck. I like it. It conveys a lot of emotion in just four little letters. Motherfucker is fuck on crack. I don't use it much, but I respect it's power. I respect it's authority as the Big Daddy of insults. And that is what I am really talking about here. Being honest in being insulting.

Not to say I never get creative about it. Sometimes I will go to Babelfish and translate insults into French because, as that character in the Matrix movie says,"I love cursing in French. It's like wiping your ass with silk."

But still, that passive aggressive shit is so trollish. Remember those posts I made a week or so back about how Mrs. Palin (and many wing nut women) is a passive aggressive troll and a Mean Girl? Ya. This is exactly the kind of trollish mean girl shit I was talking about.

Now I can't make anyone stop acting like a Mean Girl, passive aggressive troll. But I can point out the fact that that is some motherfucking weak shit.

Michelle Bachmann Sits on a Wall. Before Long She'll Have a Great Fall.

That's my prediction. Now that Weinergate is a brush fire that's burned out. Now that Mrs. Palin's "Americana" Promoting Bus is back in the shed, the people who make a living telling us what is not news is news, have to fill columns and air time. So we are living in the summer of Bachmann. Ho-Ray! Shiny Thing!!!

Let me do a quick dance around the GOP Field. Romney's mostly boring. Huntsman's watch the paint dry, boring. Santorum will say stupid shit, time to time, but still, we know his lame-o act so well, it's boring. Ron Paul? We've seen that movie before. It's twice as boring now as it was last time. Herman Cain is only remotely interesting when he says racist shit, or otherwise acts like a minstrel in a bad Tambo and Bones skit. Otherwise, boring. (At least "Ambassador" Alan Keyes was mad crazy insane. He would bug out every now and then. And that makes for Must See TV.) But beyond that, he's the boring token black. And then there's Newt. Newt is so accidentally funny. But at the rate he's going he might not last the summer. Shit. He might not last the week.

So we got Bachmann.

Quoting from Huffpo:



According to Taibbi, "Bachmann is" the following:

"a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions"
"one of the scariest sights in the entire American cultural tableau"
"the T2 skeleton posing for a passport photo"
"grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy"
"frenetically pacing the hallways of a vast sand castle she's built [inside her own mind], unable to meaningfully communicate with the human beings on the other side of the moat, who are all presumed to be enemies."
Taibbi on Bachman.

How's that for Must See TV? But I am pretty sure she's going to blunder. She has this solid history of saying incredibly insane things, on account of the fact she really, truly believes in insane shit. And I don't just mean "The Rapture," insane stupid shit. She believes all that crazy conservative christian shit. But she also believes in an alternative reality where all that dogma is reality.

So she is going to fuck it up and fuck it up famously. If we are lucky, in the next debate. It's not even July yet, and I am well bored. I need to see someone fall off the wall. Spectacularly.


PS: Got to say this is my favorite line of the month: "Late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy."

"We're On A Road To Nowhere."

I did not start off intending to use the title from the Talking Head's song, but it just came to me.

Skulls Palin, Cyborg, Arctic Decoy Unit is putting the bus tour on "hiatus."



Granted. This does not mean we can now comfortably guess she's staying out of the race. Ya never know with her. She seems to just do shit randomly. Granted, that would be a lousy trait to have in a POTUS. But you know there are some batshit crazy wing nuts who would argue that point.

Anyway, where are those people who were predicting she was outsmarting all the critics? Where's the people who were saying Mrs. Palin was breaking all the rules; that she was going to redefine how campaigning for POTUS is done?

Hopefully they are off getting psych tested. Neurological testing, too. Pays to cover all bases, all that.

Jon Stewart En Fuego!!

Granted, I saw (heard) the slight exaggeration in Jon Stewart's slam about how stew-pid Fox News viewers are. His mistake was not one of deliberately lying. He failed to act like a lawyer, or politician, or PR flak, and cover his ass by saying MOST instead of ALL. No big deal. But the peeps over at Politifact fact checked him (must be a slow week if they are fact checking comedians.) Nevertheless, he acknowledged the error. And then he used Politifact's own data to show how many deliberate lies Fox News has told, and never apologized for.

Oh. Here is an example of what I was talking about. I said,"How many lies." Actually, it was only a small fraction of the total lies. There just have been so many that it's hard to imagine it's just the tip of the iceberg. Shit. There I go again. For some people it must be hard to imagine. For peeps like me, not hard. Not at all.

Anyway, enjoy. This is a brilliant example of what I was talking about yesterday about how comedians can cross the line from Entertainment to commentary willy-nilly and with out damage to their reps. Then again, that's always (well for a long time at least) been included within the job description of comedian. Just don't waste your time trying to convince some shit head Fox new "journalist" of that age old truth.

I Meant to Post About this Last Night. Good Thing I Waited. Jon Stewart's Doubler Take Down of Fox.

By now the news is being spread throughout the land, and across the Internet, that Jon Stewart took down Fox New's Chris Wallace in spectacular form, this past Sunday. The killer moment was when he got Wallace to admit that Fox is,"Presenting the other side," as opposed to, as I would say it, trying their best to present the most objective and professional news reporting, that they can.

Here's Stewart's own post interview recap. He doubles down on the mastery of the event here.



Various orgs are likewise touting the original interview as a serious win for Stewart. I'm mainly just saying what lots of folk are saying here. But for the following.

I have had this argument with wing nuts on message boards. Yes, they are so intellectually dishonest that they can, within the same argument, say Fox is "Fair and Balanced," and say they present the other side. To a deranged, unhinged wing nut, there's no contradiction. I can see (hear) Wallace did the same intellectually dishonest thing during the course of that interview that the morons do on the message boards. Thing is, I give Wallace the benefit of the doubt that he knows that is in fact a bullshit argument. He knows the game he is playing, and in order to remind himself why he should not care, all he has to do is look at any slip of paper or digital display that shows what he gets paid.

That not something to be proud of, on a matter of personal ethics. But hey. It's just show biz, right?

The preceding line was meant more as sarcasm, but it dovetails into the last point or points. If I had posted what I was thinking about yesterday, I would have asked the rhetorical question, "Why does Fox seem so hell bent on denying Stewart's profession and status as a comedian, and try to put him on the same level of a journalist?"

Well the answer came to me earlier today. They are jealous. Given how many people trust Stewart's comedy as a source of news over Fox, he's a source of jealousy for them. And the other part of it is since Stewart's clearly rooted on the Entertainment side of broadcasting, as opposed to News, he is free to cross over into current events and commentary without the least bit of loss of professionalism or cause for criticism. However, when news orgs or journalists drift over to entertainment content, they are the ones acting unprofessionally and degrading their professional. All that shit.

Personally I despise the current state of things, where we have these three or four, how many ever cable news outfits which blur, to varying degrees, The Wall of Separation Between Entertainment and News. Let the comedians have that. Stick to trying to objectively and professionally provide top quality news reporting, will ya please?

By the way, and before I find the door. Yo! Chris and the rest of you wing nuts who think the "mainstream" media has a liberal bias. It's not really that simple. There is a huge difference between saying that most people in that field have a liberal world view, as opposed to them pursuing a liberal agenda. That's a difference on the order of not liking cats, vs going out at night and hunting them.

Ya dig?

Superficial, Self Deluding GOP Thoughts About Racism, and Who's a Racist.

Over at Lawyers Guns and Money, a teaser about an upcoming essay, The New Racism, by Erik Loomis (a History Professor.)

I find the teaser interesting, and I am sure I will agree with a lot of his points. He does raise in his teaser the definition issue, meaning, how do we define racism in the post Civil Rights Era?* My main point of departure is the UN definition for racial discrimination, and the natural and logical inferences that definition leads to, for a working definition of racism. But what I think is more to the point, particularly when talking about tea baggers and other assorted right wing racists, is how do they (wrongly) define it?

I'll rehash the old, as in have said it many times here before, way of saying it, and then I will add the newer, updated, snazzier version.

Old version.

There are a lot of right wingers out there who's understanding of the issues concerning racism (beyond you can't use certain racist insults anymore,) doesn't go much further than,"Racism = Bad. Being called a racist is bad. I am not bad. Therefore I am not a racist." That's the denial with out self analysis definition that lots of right wingers operate under.

In short, Not Me.

New version (which is not really all that new, but I have been thinking lately that more, if not many many right wingers actually can process the matter at least this far in their definition of what is a racist.)

"See that guy over there? He's way the fuck worse than me. That's racism. He's the racist. I'm not as bad as he is, so I am not a racist."

In short, Not me. Look at that other guy. He's the racist.


(* As an aside that's a truly lousy way to describe it. But yes I know it's a form of short hand for Post Struggle for Civil Rights Leading to Enactment of Federal Civil Rights Laws, Era.)

Hey Lady! I Use More Energy to Roast a 4 1/2 Lb Chicken.

Shit on a shingle. I take one night off the Internet, away from my usual stops, and the natives go batshit. And of course I am talking about that law professor who's so eccentric to my mind, that I can't resist the "Rubber Necker" pull of her blog.

Today's (or make it yesterday's) freak-a-zoid post involves cooking pizza.

Yes. That's one half of it. The NYT Dining and Wine page published a recipe for pizza that required preheating the oven to 500 degrees for an hour, as prep for less than 10 minutes of cook time.

Feel free to shrug your shoulders now, and if you use your oven to roast things, do a double shrug.

Here's the other part of the bizarre equation. She tied that in with the NYT being in favor of green things generally, if not more efficient lighbulbs, specifically. Her argument was the NYT was some how hypocritical if they could on the dining and entertaining side endorse preheating an oven to 500 degrees for an hour, for less than 10 minutes of cooking, and on the other end, endorse more efficiency in lightbulbs.

And just to note it, and even if I am a notorious fan (and offender) of gratuitous use of the Eff Woid, her comment,"Shut up about my light bulbs. Just. Shut. The. Fuck. Up,"is not only unhinged from anything remotely resembling earth-bound reality, but using the 'shut up' remark, makes her the hypocrite. She's the one who preaches what I call the Gospel of Free Speech. She would call it the culture of free speech. Point is, I have even been trolled by her husband over my comments about her free speech bullshit. I told her husband (at least said in that thread) I think my right to tell people to shut the fuck up is a superior thing than any (culture of) Gospel of free speech.

It's deliciously ironic to see her play it my way. But still, I must call her out for hypocrisy in behaving consistently with my values instead of hers.

But that is not even the point. The free speech hypocrisy angle did not come to me until I started typing this post.

So let me link the shit now.

Free Speech Hypocrisy and an Irrational Slam Against the NYT Over Pizza.

And now we get to my non partisan, non political, non ideologically driven counter argument to her unhinged, illogical argument. When I read the part about preheat 500 degrees for an hour, and then the bullshit about that being such a waste of energy, my thought was,"What the fuck. I burn more energy roasting a 4 1/2 lbs chicken." And I checked my (god knows 50 year old) Good Housekeeping Cookbook. For a chicken weighing between 4 to 5 lbs, the roasting chart recommends 43 minutes per lb, @ 325 degrees.

That's almost 3 and a half hours cook time for a standard, small roast chicken.

So again I say, Ms. Althouse . . . What The Fuck is your Point?

Naturally, her minions in the commentary section were all stiff and sticky over this post. And I have gone longer with this than it deserves, but I will make the comparison to the mindless shit that I experienced when I was still wasting my time arguing with wing nuts on message boards. Some people are just so fucking stupid and so eager to land/score an imaginary point against their partisan, ideological rivals, they will sink to any depth of illogic and witlessness in that quest. Now I can not say I have had this particular shit thrown at me, but in the quest to score an imaginary point I have seen wing nuts ignore the commonly understood meanings of common vernacular metaphors on the level of,"It's raining cats and dogs." Now what Althouse is doing here is not exactly the same, but it clearly is a 'What The Fuck do you pretend to mean there' moment. Running an oven for an hour makes someone a green living hypocrite? What the fuck!


Edit to Add:

From one point of view, and that would be the one Ms. Althouse is/was totally blind to, one should view this recipe more as having a total 1 hr 8 minutes cook time than an 8 minute cook time. Puts the thing in proper perspective if you accept that the time it takes to get the oven up to proper temperature and heat state is every bit as important as the time the food is in the oven. But that would negate her silly argument, wouldn't it?

Similarly, just over the weekend, I was visiting family and I heard about what happened on one of those cooking contest shows that I usually miss. It was about the one with the ordinary people trying to cross over to professional status. Anyway, the contestants had one hour to cook a whole chicken. One of the contestants who advanced to the next round employed the following trick. First thing she did after they started the clock was to turn the oven up to full. That's how she guaranteed she would have a fully cooked chicken within the time limit. I think they call that technique blast roasting.

Montag Quickies

Depending on who you listen to, either Michelle Bachmann isn't insane anymore. Or she's never been insane. Or the Media now see they were wrong about her. Or they are building her up just to tear her down. And or they are doing the "Ohh . . . shiny thing," thing, because Skulls Palin, Cyborg, Arctic Decoy Unit is laying low until the next leg of her bus tour.

I'm voting for the last two. I heard/read the second to last one on Huffpo. Last one came to me as I was typing.

More racist shit is coming from the GOP. They had some extreme wing nut conference this past week. Some idiot booked an Obama impersonator. He cracked some really tasteless racially based jokes about POTUS and FLOTUS. The audience loved that. Then he cracked a joke about Tim Pawlenty. The audience did not like that (BLASPHEMER!) So they used the old Vaudeville Hook on him for that (metaphorically.)

Turns out that Tommy Christopher of Mediaite stopped just short of making a full and proper mea culpa for the Weiner and the underage "Betty and Veronica" twitterers story. Turns out he got punked good on that one. They were fugazies. Fakes. Yes, some people were really, as in actually deliberately trying to ratfuck Weiner. But yes, I stand by my last post regarding him. The silly man made it way too easy. Mere fact he might actually have been target of a conspiracy to discredit him does not take away the poor judgment he displayed before and after the shit hit the fan.

As far as what's happening in the world right now? Other than the memoriam? Eh. Something will come later.

Now on to the memoriam. RIP Clarence "Big Man" Clemons. I never got to see him or the whole of the E Street Band playing. And for years and years I have been saying I need to take a trek down to his restaurant/club. Not sure it's still there, actually. Anyway, I at least got the chance to see him up close the one time, and "Big Man" was a fitting name. He looked big to me and I'm 6'2".


Now I really don't believe in Heaven, but I like to employ the Music Heaven conceit. So I will say, Sorry to see you go Clarence, but at least my uncle Billy gets to trade Tenor riffs with you, there in that great club in the sky.

I Posted This Yesterday. Pulled it Down an Hour Later After Doing Some Deeper Research. And I Have Finally Found The Pleading.

(Not that I give a rip for Internet conventions. But I will acknowledge my error and correct the thing, at the end. With my explanation. Now here goes the repost of what I put up yesterday.)



Con law is her gig, and hell. Closest I get to dealing with actual legal issues lately is the procedural rules regarding discovery. Well, I am . . . what's the word for reverse exaggerating? But still. Point is, I haven't had to do constitutional analysis for years and years. So when I saw Ann Althouse's flip dismissal of the substantive challenge to the Wisconsin union busting law, I thought to check it out first, before accusing her of putting her politics above her education and profession. So I get to say . . . gotcha!

Yes, there's no suspect class here, with Wisconsin discriminating against one group of state workers by job classification, vs others (but that might be hard to defend on a truly rational basis. Particularly when the facts support political payback/vendetta. Nothing rational there.) But beyond that, the lawsuit is not only based on Equal Protection. They are claiming violation of First Amendment rights too. Freedom of association, and all that. So . . .


"A law attacked on equal protection grounds will be upheld if it survives rational basis review, unless the classification is drawn along suspect lines or infringes the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights, in which case it must survive heightened judicial scrutiny. FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307, 313 (1993); Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 10 (1992)."

City of Indianapolis, et al v. Armour, et al, No. 49S02-1007-CV-402, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind., May 10, 2011).

And never forget the obvious. No matter what Walker says about the why of it, that he was deliberately going after the collective bargaining rights of only some of the workers, that was exactly what he was doing. He was going after the (First Amendment) collective bargaining rights of some of the state workers.

I don't want to go too far out here. Based on what she posts on her blog and her performances she has made on Bloggingheads.tv, I know she has that annoying habit of talking about shit without doing the minimal level of work. Here, I think she just relied on a bad article that missed mention of the First Amendment Claim. But ya know? The First Amendment Claim is sort of a no brainer. Particularly when the person making the mistake preaches that "Culture of Free Speech," nonsense, guessing about the First Amendment Claim should be easy as pie. After all, collective bargaining is about the right a bunch of individuals to collective speech.

Either way, it's very embarrassing.

Well, at least we will finally get to the merits of the case.


(Update and acknowledgement of my errors.)

Honestly, I had been looking for the complaint, yesterday, and did not find it until early Friday morning. At least the one AFSCME site I visited did not have it up, and the District Court has a stingy website. Without a PACER account, you aren't getting much info on the docket, what not.

And as it turned out, I was not totally sure about collective bargaining being proper grounds for claiming a fundamental right. And it turns out the current case law says no, it isn't, but right of association is. So they pass the giggle test there. But the Fed Courts are doing something of a tap dance about where freedom of association ends and collective bargaining begins. But the drafters of the complaint found a clever way to avoid that shit. Yes, the complaint's cause of action under the First Amendment mentions association, but also claims that the unions' (and by logical inclusion, the membership's) political speech rights are being impaired in an unconstitutional way.

From the complaint:

"92. As set out above, unions may lawfully expend membership dues, and all of the plaintiff unions here do expend such union dues, on political advocacy and other forms of expression protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Where a union is able to secure an agreement with the employer to permit the union to collect dues on behalf of members who authorize payroll deduction or dues check-off, such an agreement facilitates the union’s ability to finance its lawful and protected political advocacy and speech."


Clever. I suggested first time, the core Equal Protection claim is based on Gov. Walker's obvious payback against his political detractors and reward to his political supporters. So this casting of the First Amendment claim is really quite a good way to not only pass the fundamental right requirement, but it really gets to the heart of Walker's intent. The unions he went after are the traditionally Democratic unions. So making this about political speech rights is not merely clever legal drafting, but it's really getting down to the core of the controversy. And what really is going on here is a group of people are being singled out and punished by the government for their political speech.

So I now do my limited mea culpa. I had the right idea, but guessed wrong about specifically which fundamental speech right was pleaded. Whoops! My bad. But it's still about speech.

Damn. I do wish I were working on this case. It's very interesting stuff.

Oh. And I was spot on in guessing they would argue that there was nothing rational (or legitimate) in stripping one class' bargaining rights and leaving intact the other's bargaining rights. And it really was a politically motivated thing.

But I won't spike the football. Low hanging fruit, all that.





The Complaint.

Let's Pick On A Different Law Professor for a Change.

Don't remember his name. Don't care. Anyway this guy is a conservative, and we all know there is no excuse at all for that kinda shit! None!

Anyway, I guess he's popular in that strange clique of right wing law professors.

Now the reason I am bothering with this for a post is I am ignoring Weiner's resignation. For now. But seriously. He posted some weird own back-slapping post about how he predicted the result in the WI Union Busting case.

Ok. Well kudos to you. (That's meant as sarcasm.) Given the politics of the situation, and that lots if not most people would have bet that outcome, doing the Smurf dance over that one is sorta disproportionate to the alleged victory.

Anyway here's the sick little follow up. Here.

I call it sick because after the first self back-slap, he got a comment from some visitor tsk tsking him for "spiking the football," and in doing so, not coming across as dignified as one might expect from a law professor. His reply to that was adding the stupid little dancing cartoon critter vid. In of itself, that's not really sick. But getting all excited over that guess (since it really was a low hanging fruit kind of thing, really) is as excessive a thing as an elaborate End Zone dance by a pro football running back who plowed through a line of Pop Warner kids, to make the score. Shit. I am pretty sure I have seen such a thing (by analogy) in some comedy movies. Or episodes of The Simsons. Likely both.

Now if he had picked the trifecta for all three legs of the Triple Crown? Ya. That would be impressive. Shit. Even picking the trifecta for one of the legs would generate genuine kudos. But this shit? Let me try another analogy. It's like stealing candy from a baby and then declaring oneself to be a criminal mastermind.

It's sorta pathetic, actually. Even if meant as funny. Still sorta pathetic.

But hey. I did say he was a conservative. I am not going to say all of them are like that. But most seem to have complicated alternative realities. Seems.





And YES. I have seen that Weiner is out. I am sorta sad to see him go, mostly because he was so effective at sticking it to the GOP pig-dogs. And of course, that's why he was targeted by the pig-dogs. And since he did not really make any friends there in Congress, seems he had to stand alone. Guess that's a harsh reality to have to own up to. So now that this thing (seems to be) is over, I will admit this much.

I over played the "they are ratfucking him" line, early on. Little did I know then, that he had made it so easy for them to get him (a Clinton sized ego for a lesser man, seems.) It was as if he placed the "Kick Me," sign on his own back, for crying out loud. He made a series of mistakes that rate up there with Gary Hart!

But I am particularly saddened that the GOP pig-dogs get a congressional scalp, not for official misconduct, but for what is essentially the non-crime of being a hetero male with a pulse, a twitter account, and a fancy phone, and the bad judgment that often goes with that territory. Ya he lied. But most people are dishonest (or at least not exactly forthcoming) about their sex lives and drives at some time, if not most of the time. That's part of being human. I wanted to forgive him. But he was hurting the party. So good luck in your future endeavors, Mr. Weiner. And like they say at the bar at closing time, you don't have to go home, but ya can't stay here.

Didn't I Just Say I Need To Stop Talking About Her? Ann Althouse Doesn't Get It. I think.

Never can be sure if she's doing that devil's advocate shit, or if she's really that (and I want to be kind. I am grasping for the right phrasing here,) jejune, but I am perplexed by her question. If it's not her doing the devil's advocate thing. (Which is sorta intellectually dishonest to me. Outside of the classroom, that is.)

Anyway, the question followed her post of a link to a scathing review of Spiderman, the cursed Broadway musical. (As an aside, I do have a weak spot for cursed shows. Can't say how soon I will try to get to see it, though.)

Anyway, she asked out loud, why do people go to see live theatre when we have movies? Here.

Ok. I really don't want to do this the cheap shot way, but the cheeky sarcastic reply to that question is the following question: "Why do people still have real sex when they can cyber and sext?"

Now to get serious with the answer. Because it's so different an experience that it is a different experience.

I'm not going to repeat one my why I go to the Opera or the Ballet stories here. That would be a waste of keystrokes. But I will recount one episode from my time in summer stock. We were doing that year, along with a couple other shows in repertory, Shakespeare's Much Ado About Nothing. I had one of those throng parts. Soldier in Don Pedro's Army. No lines, but still part of the show. And to explain, the theatre building was the university's former gym, built in the early 1900s, and had this massive vault of a peaked roof. And that was home to at least one bat. So one performance, during the scene that is taking place before Hero's tomb, as if on cue, our resident bat came down and did a few loops of the cast on stage. I think the bat got close to me, as I was holding my torch. I don't think bats like lights, but compared to the stage lights, my sterno can flame did not seem scary to the bat. I guess. Oh. And Mr. Bat only buzzed the stage that one time, that season, during a performance.

That's why people still go to see live theatre. Not because of the unintended appearance of bats, but because there is a element of uniqueness to each performance. Each performance is a new work of art, and a new shared experience. Again, it's not about being static. It's a fluid and properly dynamic experience.

Ok. Just to point out the other side, I remember being in high school and dying to see The Empire Strikes Back. I saw it the week it came out. And over the next few weeks I saw it two more times. Now the first time, I was totally blown away. During the second time, I still enjoyed the brilliant special effects enough to think, ya I can see this again. And during the third time, my eye was good enough to start deconstructing the gags. Ya. Cause there was nothing new to see, except the parts I wasn't supposed to. As an aside, I guess I have/had the eye for that kind of detail. I did go in that direction for my first career. Anyway.

The point is, each time you see a movie, it's supposed to be the same. Relentlessly the same. But a play? It's supposed to be mostly the same. But only mostly. Nuances matter. God. Right now David Tennant and Catherine Tate are doing MaDo in London. And those two have a year of doing Doctor Who with each other already. So their timing and their reparte as the comic set of lovers in MaDo has to be producing some great moments. Really great actors who really get on well can put on some interesting, different performances night to night. Even if they never ad lib on the words, there are moments that change, night to night.

Oh. And it's a tribal thing. Live theatre is as old as human communication and living socially. It's in our genes. Much more so, than sitting in a large room watching flickering lights and images on a wall. That's only about 100 years old. And even if watching a movie in a theatre can be a shared group experience, it's just not the same. Not by a long shot.

I'll stop there. I have rambled enough, I recon.

Wednesday Quickies (Not that Wed. is the special quickie day, or anything.)

Item One: Eric Bolling. Not really anything more to report on him. specifically, except he was getting hammered by decent people on line, yesterday. But he is likely happy about . . . .

Item Two: That horrible Racist Ad being run in California. Granted, the evil shit running it, just like Bolling, is singing the "I'm not a racist," song, even if his ad is so repulsive it makes Bolling's cracks seem tame by comparison. Now you might be wondering why I'm not cussing my head off, if it's that bad. Yes, it is that horrible. But hey. Even I get worn out sometimes. Anyway, under the wing nut definition of what is a racist, and that would be as long as you can point out someone worse, you get to believe, no matter how bullshit, that you are not a racist, Bolling wins out. I think that who ever did that Cali add needs for someone to pull a Dr. Laura soon. Short of something involving Neo Nazis, the Klan, or a violent bias crime popping up in the news cycle soon, that guy is now the benchmark.


Item Three: Palin Emails. Despite the twisted cries of Palinistas cheering the lack of a major smoking gun, there's the other two stories. There's a gap in the chunk delivered, and we all know that not only did the Arctic Cyborg Decoy Unit use a non state account for state business, some of her staff did as well. So that makes the people cheering Palin's (passive) actions here look doubly stupid. I saw that law professor I need to stop talking about calling Palin a genius over this shit. As if Palin did anything to cause the current admin. in Alaska to take this long, do such an amateurish job they did in in hard copy, and do the data dump in June of 2011, the (almost) Summer that started with the media's newfound obsession with congressional cybering and sexting. Ya. Either she's some Sith Lord, or she did not have anything to do with the story. Recently. Oh. And since I am a professional forensic data jockey, I will say that I saw some of that privilege log. And it's really shitty. If that were submitted in actual litigation, a team of lawyers would be needed to generate the challenge letters. But you would not need to crowd source it. (Hey, I just used contemporary jargon. Yea me!)

Item Four: WI Supremes overturn injunction about Union Busting Law. Now I wasn't that surprised. I did not read the prior orders. But I suspected that it was going to be shot down mostly because I thought, politics, and at best the argument seemed a mite thin. I saw (once I got to thinking about it and honestly, I did not analyze it all that much,) the issues as a clash between two ideas. First one is the idea that laws are supposed to have meaning and be enforceable (but I did not dig out my Equities Horn Book. I just had that one loaded up in the old head.) And the other idea is whether or not the trickery pulled by the WI GOP senate actually rose to the level of serious enough to warrant equitable relief? The bare majority said no, to that last one. Basically, they ignored the first one. And they, Prosser, particularly in his opinion, were overly harsh on the lower court judge. In her defense, I say she did punt the question about the disharmony between conflicting cases to the upper court.

Oddly, they did not really act on that question. That's because for some really fucked up reason that really is not made clear in the opinion, they did not hear the case under appellate jurisdiction but under original jurisdiction. Well, I am about to go all lawyer here and 'splain why they did that. (Not really knowing WI jurisprudence, but knowing the general rules) appellate jurisdiction would have been a narrower scope of review. The Majority would have been constrained with the findings of fact from the lower court, and only could have ruled on the law, and whether the judge handled the matter properly. In bypassing that and invoking original jurisdiction, they allowed themselves to review the matter under what is called de novo level of review. That way they get to make new findings of fact.

Sounds like judicial activism to me, kids.

But enough of that. But to say the major dissent was an interesting read. It's author was very sharp in her criticism of the majority. Got to wonder what a party is like, with that bunch? Hatfields and McCoys?

Ok. I'll stop there. As always I reserve the right to change, edit, delete or wipe or add what ever I wanna, when ever I wanna.

Apology Not Accepted. The Fucker Needs to be Fired. But FOX Won't Fire a Racist for Being a Racist.

After all, that fucker Eric Bolling just thinks and acts the same way as the Fox audience. And I was just looking at his facebook page, and people were cheering him on, before his apology, that is.

To explain, Fox Business host Eric Bolling decided last Friday to double down on the racist attacks on P. Obama. Now to remind you all, Bolling was the dull witted racist piece of garbage who described P.Obama's having a pint, down at the pub, while in Ireland as "Cracking 40s." But last Friday he got weirder and stranger, with some tortured analogy between the occasion of the visit of the President of Gabon and gangsta culture, referring to the hoods in the hizzy and calling the (Obama) White House the White Hizzy.

And he has since, as of yesterday, apologized, saying he went to far.

Apology not accepted. Not by me, at least. Firstly the apology did not go far enough. He did not acknowledge why what he said, why the shtick he was doing was blatantly racist. Nor did he say that he would never go there, never even attempt to play that shit again. And lastly. He knew what the fuck he was doing from the get-go. Even with out the previous incident, the fuck was deliberately playing the bad association game, the white racist edition, by equating Obama with Ghetto.

And like I said above, the audience at Fox loves that shit. That low level racism is what brightens so many of those sad and sick individuals' days. Some try to pretend it's not a deliberate association. It's just trying to be cute or clever, as if we do not live in the day and age where that racist shit is not supposed to be considered cute or clever any fucking more. But I do recall the more honest right wing racist I saw over at the Hannity forum, back around the time of the 2008 election. That woman came right out and said she feared that the election of Obama would take the whole nation ghetto, like what (according to her) happened to every city that elected a black man as mayor.

And that people is the game Bolling deliberately and knowingly played. Fuck him and fuck his apology. Granted, I will never be happy with either Fox News channel on account of their politics and the lying. But the thing that makes me so very mad at those fuckers is they tolerate that shit. And I have to wonder if hosts over there are deliberately encouraged to push the line on that shit. I mean really. There is a perfectly easy to understand reason why that shit does not happen on any other network. Any other network would not only fire anyone who said shit like that, but security would have them out of the building and outside the property line before the show came back from the next commercial break. So the fact that kind of blatantly racist shit happens on Fox can not be a series of accidents. Occam's Razor, all that.