Congratulations VP Harris. And a Criticism of Republishers of Conspiracy Theory. This Includes You, O.W.L.

 I am a Yellow Dog Dem. I always want to beat the GOPers.  With that in mind, congrats VP Harris, on being the presumptive nominee for the Democratic party this year.  I have been on Team Harris since she ran in the primaries  five years ago.

I fear that actually winning the election, under ordinary math, is just going to be the beginning.  But moving on . . .

Conspiracy theories.

At what point does one go past merely acknowledging  that there has been conspiracy theory chatter, and cross the line into dissemination and legitimizing?  I herby accuse that person I call the Owl of crossing that line.  Lately on her blog, she is posting shit about the conspiracy theories surrounding not only the near miss, failed hit on bozo.   But also about the Biden/Harris switcheroo.  Something I have not only been predicting since the debate debacle.  But I had to have a memory flashback to recall. That is what I was voting for in my mind, four years ago.  At least hoping to see.  

Anyway.  The Owl has not only been posting chunks and links to other people's twisted conspiracy theories.  She is adding her own twisted remarks.  She might not be offering full throated endorsement of the other people's brain farts.  But she is at minimum giving support to brain farts, as a legitimate form  of thinking and communication.

It's shit on the order of, we are just asking questions?   Previously I have accused her of the delusion she can read other people's minds, and get to what is really going on, remotely, outside of her and everyone else's view.  

That is magical thinking.  And idiotic.   

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/22/business/media/where-is-biden-disinfo.html?auth=login-google1tap&login=google1tap

No I am Not Going to Mention What a Certain Blonde Law Professor Said

About "Herb" Cain's appearance on Meet The Press. Well I will, but I won't mention her name this time. Nah. I will. It's Althouse. Like a broken clock is mostly wrong most of the time, we are back to "most of the time" with her. My opinion.

But moving on to the real topic here, she posted her opinion that Cain Nailed it, on MTP today. Was she watching the same show I was? The show where Cain, in a measured but crazy, sociopathic way, attempted to shoot down the criticisms of his 999 plan with obviously delusional, magical thinking? The show where he (metaphorically speaking) kept on digging away at his asshole, pulling out fresh nuggets of shit, waiving such in the air, and declaring them to be diamonds?

That show?

If anything, Cain, in pulling a Palin (clowning for the crowds, but trying for serious with the serious journalists,) proves how sociopathic he is, by doing that act, on MTP. And he proves what a clown and a fraud he is. Who or what the fuck is he, really? Is he this jigging and jiving low-rent amateur-hour reject, or is he this zombie who sticks to his delusional magic thinking no matter how many incontrovertible facts are on the table? More's the point, who in their right mind would want either chump to have the nuke codes at his disposal? Either way you slice it, he's not fit for office.

His supporters say he's an entertaining candidate. What the ever loving mother fuck is that shit? Since fucking when are potential POTUSes supposed to be entertaining? Has the reality TV mentality gone that viral that people expect their White House to have the same low brow cringe factor as Survivor Island, Jersey Shore, or any of the horrible Housewives shows?

Fuck a duck!

Anyway, that's my take on it. But I will add the following. As I posted over on my FB book today, it's time for the MS News Media "Take this clown down. It's time for a concerted ridicule campaign."

Oh. This is the tiniest bit of slack I will give that blonde law professor for totally misreading the interview like she did. David Gregory, to his credit or his failure, managed to confront Cain with fact after fact after fact, tearing apart all that Cain had to say. But he did it so respectfully that that sort of treatment could give the false impression that Cain is not some sociopathic nut case who needs to be put in pre hearing detention and tested for possible involuntary commitment do to mental illness. His being on the set and being treated respectfully, in an ironically bizarre way, legitimizes him in a way he does not deserve. I would rather see Jon Stewart interviewing Cain. If you want to talk about things that would be very entertaining!

(And shit. I know it's unlikely Cain would be found dangerous to himself or others. But man I would love to read the report, after testing and evaluation were completed.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get it?

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