Catholic Church Lady Swings and Misses.

The blogger I refer to as Catholic Church Lady often is so unintelligible to me she might as well be speaking Attic Greek. Part of that (never mind growing up Catholic) is that the entire phenomenon of faith, of religious belief is alien to me. In fact, way my mind spun it yesterday, is that I want the provably true answers. I don't want convenient answers that objectively are nothing more than (often ignorant) guesses. Anyway . . .

Today on her blog, she got on the more pedestrian matters of social and cultural shit, as demonstrated by her comparison of the (she JUST HAD to add in faith based jargon) the "Prophetic" book "A Confederacy of Dunces." Go Here for That.

Here is how she took a swing, and missed. She goes of about how the protagonist resembles too many current denizens of the USA. But chalks that up to urbanism and culture, and politics. And after that she vamps and remarks that the protagonist, if a character on "The Simpsons," would make a perfect brother for the comic book store nerd. Oddly enough, even if she picked up on politics, she missed the fact that the description of Ignatius, the protag, greatly resembled far far more so, the typical Wing Nut Tea Bagger, than any other "type" running around the USA these days.

Now the book is at least 20 years old, to my mind. If you want to use the word prophetic. Knock your self out. However I find it disturbingly humorous (if not predictable itself) that the right wing religious person looked at (an essay about) the book, skipped past the mirror and concluded, hey. That character reminds me of the comic book guy in "The Simpsons." All that mediation, and self evaluation, and not a lick of self awareness. But I should not be shocked. As opposed to Catholic Church Lady, I think a large amount of the disconnectedness that pervades society is directly related to right wing religion. Few things by default drive people apart like religion does.

And let's face it. Particularly those mega churches, but churches are a Reality TV version of community, often. It might seem to be authentic and genuine, but it really is only a placebo. And sometimes it's a damaging form of community. Where's the bright line between a cult or a legit church? Is there that much of a difference?

And How About a Libyan (Related) Quickie.

I'm not all that obsessed with the goings on in Libya, but I am following it, insofar as it is still above the fold news.

What I am finding more interesting are the following two tangents.

One the one hand, it's lots of fun to see how views in favor or against the 'intervention' are not neatly lining up in partisan fashion. (I really think that's cool.)

But on the other hand, I'm amused -- in the way I would be if I saw someone I really despised completely drunk and acting like a total dick wad in public -- by the reaction of some wing nuts. They are taking way too much borderline psychotic pleasure in the fact that many Dems do not necessarily agree with P. Obama's choice to participate in the UN sanctioned intervention.

Stop the Presses! Dems do not follow their Dem President in a Knee Jerk Fashion!


Now who would be surprised to learn that, but for the fucking morons who embrace the lie that Dems always follow their Dem Presidents in a Knee Jerk Fashion?

I Now Know What I Missed, Yesterday. The Wimpy Factor.

Here's what went past me, yesterday, with the phony NPR video (I won't call it a sting. Firstly, it was a scam, and a potential crime -- they tried to pass a phony $5 Million check. And no, they did not actually catch anyone doing anything wrong, actually.)

The reaction by the board of NPR seemed odd to me because I did not know about the board. They are weak, when it comes to political shit flinging! As I learned watching the PBS News Hour, and heard it from the NYT Media Reporter, the board is composed of directors of local stations. No. It's not some arch liberal, ex radicals from the 1960s and '70s. And no, it's not a bunch of die hard Democratic Party operatives. The board is composed of serious content providers who are mild mannered and do not see themselves as ideological soldiers in some grand culture war. So when they found themselves under (and I MUST say, PATHETICALLY) weak attack from some ideological soldiers of the right wing, they folded like a house of cards.

Go here for some analysis from the fine folk at Crooks and Liars.

Now I could use a good gig, and I think I would be a stronger leader for NPR. But honesty? Compare any number of random posts from me on this blog to what the fundraiser said, and I am more of a flaming hard ass on the tea baggers and right wing racists then he was. So I don't think the mild mannered board of NPR would want me. I would actually be the perfect ideological soldier. At least I resemble that, far more then the ex CEO. And to their (I grudgingly say, ya) credit, the board of NPR does not see their mission as being political. Honestly, if this non story was spun in a way that was more objective than partisan, one should say NPR proved it's commitment to trying as hard as possible to be a neutral political party here.

Just try convincing the fuck wads on the right wing of that. Ya. Good luck with that.


And just a tease. Among the list of jobs I would want and be smashing at, along with being a TV News Division Ombudsman, there is a hybrid Media/Political job I want. I want to be point man for the DNC on areas where Media and political message intersect. Possible job titles? "Director of New Media Analysis." That one is good and vague, but sorta hints at the mission. Another one: "Media Economist." That is perfectly vague.

Never mind the title. The idea is the right wing has a tightly organized (enough to function well) media manipulation machine. Fox News is the hub, and there are many spokes. I don't think the Dems need to replicate that propaganda machine. I say plainly. I do not want us to replicate that. But we need to be able to fight it aggressively. Asymmetrically, as well.

Speaking of lies the right wing spew? The one about P. Obama bringing Chicago style politics to the WH? Truth is I am sorry to say he did not. If I ever did get the kind of media/politics gig I described, however? I'd happily bring some old school Hudson County kick ass to bear on the opposition. Metaphorically speaking of course.

(Oh. And I was a Philly Lawyer for a while. I got me some cans of that in my arsenal too. Again -- metaphors, kids. Just metaphors.)

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

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

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

How idiotic can people be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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