Tuesday, March 31, 2009

An Actual Quick Quickie.

This is my latest, and mercifully succinct, thought regarding not only the bail outs, but the idiotic carping and caterwauling the Obama Haters have been spewing, like much too drunk sailors on a legendary bender. Here it is:

Riddle me this. How come when venture capitalists invest money with strings attached, including management decisions, they're the good guys, but when Obama does the same thing he's a socialist dictator?

Too Many Sociopaths. Maybe We Should Focus on the Victims, More.

Time and time again, I point out that certain people are sociopaths or sociopathic. Hell, I have been calling Sarah Palin Sociopathic Succubus for months because she, to my cynical mind, is a perfect example of one. (And the fact I was once much too deeply involved with a woman who is a Borderline Psychopath might have something to do with my fine-tuned radar, but honestly, that caused me to do my homework, so that is only an indirect cause.) But a thought occurred to me today, while doing a little reading to prepare for a basically refresher post here on what makes someone a sociopath or a psychopath. Instead of doing that, I should look at the thing from a different angle, and instead focus on the victims, more.

What is is about people that makes them prey to sociopaths? Firstly, since sociopaths basically do not stand out from the crowd, the same way as a someone with some neurological tick, the pool of potential victims (and at this level, that means all the rest of us) have no ability to spot them and peg them as such, even face to face. We instead have to get to know them much better, and hopefully put together enough of a case file against having any more contact with these people, before they really screw us over.

But that is at the most general level. Let us go just a little bit deeper. And some people tend to be more guarded and un trusting than others. And some people believe that most other people are basically decent, and because of that, they are more trusting, and therefore an easier mark for a sociopath. That is bad. That is a really, really bad way to look at the world and the people in it. That is bad because the person who for all intents and purposes looks at you with the same detached lack of empathy as a hawk looks at his next meal, scurrying around on the ground below, is not going to look all that different from the truly kind and decent person. Thinking you can tell the difference based on superficial data is dangerous as the sociopath is the master of superficial appearances.

"Psychopaths play on the fact that most of us are trusting and forgiving people," adds Seto. The warning signs are always there; it's just difficult to see them because once we trust someone, the friendship becomes a blinder. "

And that quote brings in the next level. Actually normal, meaning relatively emotionally rounded and grounded people do have this built in sympathy and empathy factor. People might brush off some of the earlier tells they are dealing with a sociopath because not only do they start off with the belief that people are basically decent, but once they think they know someone better, they might start making excuses for them. Everyone has bad days. Everyone has baggage, Everyone has history, and family issues. Yes all that is true, but if you are dealing with someone who is a world class and habitual manipulator, any tendency to be that forgiving makes it that much easier for the sociopath to screw a person badly.

Now we are getting to the deeper part, and I will have to make reference to the school of Psychology known as Rational Emotive Therapy. I am not going to go that deep into the theory of it, but a key element of the theory is that people's mental discomfort is often due to repeating and maintaining bad, as in wrong thoughts. It is a simple idea, but the more you think about it, the more it seems just to be true. Anyway, I am going to now show some examples of bad, meaning wrong thoughts that make victims easier prey for sociopaths. In fact, I could lump many individual examples of this as (for lack of a better word) the "People like me," delusion.

I'm a dog person. Dog people are nice people. Jane is a dog person too. She must be nice.

I'm a Christian. Christians are nice people. Jane is a Christian too. She must be nice.

I'm a Libertarian. Libertarians are good people. Jane is a Libertarian too. She must be good people.

I could go on forever making such examples, but I hope the flawed logic is clear enough already. I set the examples up as four part constructions. In each of them, the only part of the reasoning string that is true is the first part (unless the person doing the reasoning is so demented they don't know that they really are dog people, or christian, or libertarian.)

And it is thinking like that that makes us vulnerable to the sociopaths of the world. And it is not that generally people are running through life like some reckless nut speeding on a motorcycle with out a helmet. The sort of thinking I have highlighted here are just normal human thought processes. But that is how the sociopath gets over, initially. They are betting on people to follow the usual pattern.

So what advice do I have for people? As far as things to truly avoid, I specifically say people who do engage in the "People like me," delusion really need to stop that shit. Cold. Now. Don't make excuses. Just stop doing that shit.

And beyond that, don't assume people are decent folk. Don't assume people are honest or caring. You don't have to be as distrustful a cynic as I am, but beware of anyone who is trying to sell you something, particularly when they are selling themselves. Ask yourself what does this person want from me? And don't trust them until they have proven grounds for such. And even then, be miserly until you really think you know the generally true nature of a person.

And if we are talking not about people in your real life, but in politics? Assume you are being played. I mean, what profession is more perfectly suited for glib, shallow, manipulative people?

Ya, being a pastor. But the point is don't put too much stock in a pretty package and a sales pitch. I mean, you do know what the politician wants from you -- control over your life. The question is are there sufficient grounds to trust that the politician will do an honest enough job of the job they are running for, or whether they want control just because that is what they like . . . having control?

Monday, March 30, 2009

And Some Folk Wonder Why I Call Alaskan Evita a Sociopath.

Her new pick for Alaska Attorney General, Wayne Anthony Ross, is a vicious, nasty, hateful homophobe.

We are not saying that he is merely one of them 'not in favor of them people getting special raits' sorta homophobe. We are talking ugly, nasty, slur throwing, calls them, "Degenerates," kind of homophobe.

Sick shit. And you know she knew. Yew betcha! It was no secret up there in Alaska, where he has been quite public with his hate:

During a fight several years ago over gay rights, Mendel helped organize Anchorage lawyers in support of an anti- discrimination ordinance. Ross wrote a nasty letter to the Bar Association newsletter, using words like ''immoral, '' ''perversion'' and ''degenerates.'' The language went way beyond reasonable disagreement, Mendel and others said.


Not that I have to live in a place where either Alaskan Evita or this shit bag have any say over my life. But remember my reason for constantly dogging Alaskan Evita; at minimum I want to keep that as the status quo, that she has no say in my life what so ever. Monsters. They are entiled to their opinions, but that is a level of viciousness that can not be rationalized or forgiven, unless the person in question repents of their hate. Seriously. That shit is beyond the pale.

No, It Really Ain't Socialism. It's a Life Preserver.

Firstly, I am going to throw a bone to the "he's a Marxist, or socialist, or commie" Chicken Little, 'the sky is falling,' brigade. I am going to say it is not a matter of the sky is falling, but it already fell, and you all were likely too busy trying to regulate women's bodies or which adults get to have sex with other adults to notice.

But before I get too far down the road of speaking around the issue, let me say this. I sorta get why otherwise reasonable people could possibly fall for that stupid shit, particularly as we now live in a country where the private sector has fckd up the economy and the markets so badly that the U.S. Government has no better option than to go beyond being a mere creditor (like loaning money) and to a greater extent, act like owner managers of certain business. But remember kids; this is for failed or failing companies. Businesses that are solvent, that are well managed are not up for "grabs." Only the businesses that have been so badly managed they are failing and in danger of (well let's be honest, in many cases have) largely negatively impacting the greater economy, are being subjected to the cruelty of being saved from total implosion.

Here is my analogy. Imagine the USA is a large ship, and these corporations are drowning people. The Obama administration is making a deliberate choice to impact the corporations ability to be masters of their own fate to the maximum extent, by tossing them a life preserver.

And the naysayers? Fault me for being a little excessive, but it seems to me the loudest and most partisan of the naysayers are like some pesky drunks standing at the rail of the ship as the rescue is in progress. Instead of helping, the oafish drunk is spewing nonsense like,"Hey don't interfere. Let them drown. You're messing with God's will. It is not fair to help. Let them help themselves."

Something like that.

Honestly, I am not happy about the the amount of money the U.S. Government (meaning we the people) are on the hook for, here. But I well understand that something needs to be done, and there are no real good alternatives out there. We can niggle about the sub parts of the plan and tweak as we go (as ya can't realistically expect a perfect plan from the start.) But we are a modern nation in this modern world, and must do something to stabilize things. And as soon as possible, we need to make the changes to the markets to prevent this kind of thing from ever happening again . . . like we did in the 1930's . . . . and some dumb bastids were all gung ho to change those laws.

Sidebar: Have you noticed how Phil Gramm is the invisible man, these days? As one of the chief architects of the dismantling of the old laws to prevent this shit from happening, at least he seems to sufficiently ashamed to stay off the grid. Granted, if he did come out of hiding, it might get bad for him, real fast.

Anyway, before I forget, I said I was going to throw the socialism is taking over, Chicken Little Brigade a bone. Ok. Here goes. Socialism is when the Government takes over the means of production, meaning industry. Now if you don't have the ability to think analytically, you might think that the Government having a temporary ownership and or managerial oversight role in some banks and financial institutions is similar to a socialist takeover of those businesses. That is false. It is false on one level, as it is not a total takeover. It is partial, and it is meant to be temporary, and as soon as these banks and other financial institutions can give we the people our money back, they can go back to being free (but more tightly regulated) free market institutions. But more to my point, consider the really important part, as far as the definition of what makes socialism socialism goes. These businesses are not producers. They are not industry. There is no means of production being seized or removed.

These businesses were (the ones that are/were failing/failed) market manipulators. They, under the best of circumstances, generate revenue if not wealth, for themselves, mostly, but do not create anything but records of their transactions. That is not industry. They are not producers. They, the managers, and the traders, and the fund managers, have far more in common with the guys who hang out at the racetrack or betting parlors, looking for the long shot win.

So let's stop with the socialism-fear-mongering, Chicken Little, 'the sky is falling,' stuff. After all, the sky actually fell years ago, when the U.S.A. made the shift from being an actual industrial economy to a service economy. And do you know what that means? I am no Paul Krugman, but my guess is that even if we can lead the world in some new technologies, we are never going to go back to being a nation with enough genuine industry left for a proletarian revolution to actually lay it's grubby prole hands on. What do people think is going to happen? A mob of pitchfork and large scale wrench wavers are going to march on Wall Street, and seize the manuals that show how to put together a credit default swap?

But that is not my real point. My real point is that for the most part and for the foreseeable future, too much of our economy is going to be dependent on these non-producing types of businesses. So not only do we need to save them from going under (as that is too big a part of what we have holding up the economy), but we really need to have tighter control over the finance industry and the markets.

That is not socialism, that is self preservation. If you really are scared of the communist socialist bogeyman, you should be more willing to be behind the Obama Administration. They are all that is standing in the way of the US defaulting on all it's debt and leaving Our Nation to the mercy of the Chinese Communists.

And as a last matter, someone remind me, what is the Republican plan to keep the Nation from defaulting on it's debts and being at the mercy of our Chinese Communist creditors? Oh. Ya. Let the failing businesses fail. Cut taxes. Go broke, and then become a jail house punk for Chinese Communists. Ya. That is so much better than trying to stabilize markets, market sectors, and over-sized, mismanaged, way too damn powerful financial businesses, and have an orderly restructuring of the industry.

Having, instead, dozens of multi-million and billion dollar Bankruptcy cases scattered across the whole country, is going to be the salvation of the financial markets, and then economy? I do not think so. Anyone with a minimum understanding of finance and corporate governance can see that. Well, to be clear, anyone with that little, at least, knowledge who puts reality before ideology can see that.

Sunday, March 29, 2009

Wisdom, From a Commercial.

"Doing the right thing says a lot about a person."

Ain't that the truth.

Oh My God!

I was watching McLaughin group.

Now Monica Crowley, partisan parrot she is (as many free market ass sucking freaks) was decrying the government for putting a jack boot on the neck of private enterprise, totally missing the fact that it is private enterprise that tanked the economy. That was totally expected.

But the surprise was Pat Buchanan calling out for more regulation, holding out the regulated (normal) Met Life Insurance Company as a sound and healthy company, on account of the having to follow regulations, and then criticizing AIG for playing fast and loose with the unregulated financial products division.

Sweet Heaven. That is how far reaching this economic crisis is; a former Nixon staffer and ultra con calling for more regulation of the finance markets.


Oh. And Monica double-downed her bad ideological bet, practically shrieking her complaints about Geithner's plan to get the power to not only take over failing banks but failing non-banks.

Now how the fwk did she not understand the FAILING part?

She is a perfect example of what I think of as deliberate, self-reinforcing ignorance. There are people who are so married to their ideology that they will cling to it, even when it has been conclusively proven to be wrong, bad, and false.

And I am going to do that thing again, and by that I mean when I take some specific thing and pull out to the macro level and say something critical about a large swath of right wingers and republicans. And what I am going to say is this. That sort of thing seems to be too often typical of the right wingers and republicans. Given the natural lesson of reality, and the proven falsehood of their ideology, they will often cling to the ideology. I sort of want to say I have no idea why they do it, but I do have a supposition. And I think that the reason for that is there are just some kind of people in the world who are far more motivated by or interested in embracing some ideological points, no matter how ill conceived or ungrounded in reality. It is sorta like the people who get their thrills from the feeling of being in love, more than the reality of having and working on making an actual reality based relationship with an actual human being.

That would reqires paying attention to details. Being in love with being in love only requires giving into the thrill of the feeling of being thrilled. And I think that is what happens in the minds of these ideologues. They get some sense of satisfaction from the feeling of beliving they have all the right answers, and really have no intention at all of doing the actual hard and real work in developing reality based opinions and knowledge. Likewise they have little interest in being learning-capable, and a flexible enough intellectual creature who can adapt to the realities of a world where there are many variables, and conflicts between what is desired and what is within the real of merely possible, and what is truly probable.

Now I am sure that many who do that believe that as long as they believe hard and deep enough that things will work out the way they want, that they will turn out exactly as they want.

The psychologists and psychiatric professionals have a way of describing that sort of thinking:

"Magical Thinking."

And even if that is not necessarily evidence of being half out of one's own mind, it is evidence of being at least a delusional.

Please pardon my inelegant lack of a proper transition but I feel I should mention that some people wonder why I spend so much time criticizing Alaskan Evita. At the most basic level she is a prime example of someone with delusional magical thinking. But she is worse than that. Not only does she spend way too much time in the Magical Kingdom, but she basically lives in the part of the Magical Kingdom known as Sociopath Village.

I guess Monica Crowley can be her neighbor there? I am only half serious about that. I am not sure yet whether Monica really believes that shit. She is making a hell of a good living doing that act. And as the old line goes, it's good work, if you can get it.

Some Republicans Prefer Their Negros to be Humble, Servile, and Still Slaves. Thank Goodness, Some Others Don't.

Over on the Hannity Message Board there is a vile and repulsive thread started by this one racist shit who took the face of President Obama and superimposed it on the movie character "Uncle Remus."

For those of you not too aware of why that would be considerd extremely racially offensive to not only African Americans but all reasonable people, I think the one poster said it best when he said to the Republicans who were defending the vile racist sterotype of the shuffling, servile and happy slave "Uncle":

"You guys are psychopaths."

That should be enough, but if you are dealing with racists who are in deep denial of being a racist, you can even explain with great particularity why the views they hold and the things they believe are baseless and racially offensive, and they will still cling to those racist beliefs. Often, they will embrace the racist views even tighter, all the while denying that they are racists.

In light of that, I should not be surprised that so many Republicans don't consider a humble, servile and still a slave stereotype of a black man to be something offensive to contemporary reasonable audiences. The number of defenders of the image of Uncle Remus in this thread in question has been fairly large. But to their defense, some of the Republicans have also come down on the side of condemning the use of the racist image of Uncle Remus. Kudos to them. Hellfire and damnation to those who do not get that admiration for the image of the stereotype complaint Negro Slave is an abomination.
Here is the ugly irony here. That lump of shit who 'collected' the Uncle Remus tales was basically pining for the nostalgia-tainted delusions of his idealized and unreal memories of life growing up on the plantation as a child of the privileged slave-owning oppressive class of whites. So that was his damage. However these people defending the stereotype of Uncle Remus? What the hell excuse do they have for pining for the good old days of Pre Civil War Southern Plantation life.

Could it be they would prefer to live in a world where the nigrahs were not only servile, but less than a full human, by law?

One last thing, and it is a deliberate crack against one of the board's moderators, who I know to be a particularly virulent racist (ok. I call those with fixed prejudices and an inability to admit that, virulent racists, whereas I call those who either call out for violence against other races and ethnic groups, if not actually engage in such hate crimes, violent racists.) And as well, it is a call out to anyone else who follows the racism forgiving ethos not to read into the hearts of people based on their actions when it is a potentially racist thing:

Hell no. I don't know what damn planet you are living on but I live on the planet where when someone deliberately uses a ugly racist stereotype, we treat them as if they meant to deliberately use that ugly racist stereotype.

That is the way I view it.

Saturday, March 28, 2009

Now if Only to Be Even Handed, I Should Take My Distant Brazilian Cousin to Task, For That Racist Remark.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, President of Brazil, has said about the current global economic crisis, and I will quote as fully as possible as the quote has already been spindled and mutilated to suit some people with sinister agendas:

“This crisis was caused by the irrational behaviour of white people with blue eyes, who before the crisis appeared to know everything and now demonstrate that they know nothing. I do not know any black or indigenous bankers so I can only say [it is wrong] that this part of mankind which is victimized more than any other should pay for the crisis."

Brazilian President Says Dumbassed Racist Shit about Who Caused the Economic Crisis.

To be even handed about people who say racist shit, I have to take a shot at him for this incredibly dumb assed racist remark, and even more so, for the context. He was not even caught off guard, or overheard, or in the middle of some emotionally charged exchange. Ya, he said it at a joint press appearance with the British PM, for crying out loud. Calling out white people while standing right there next to the British PM. Talk about being with out a clue.

But not only do I have to call him out for the base remark, and the context, and the wrongness of the thought and the delivery, but I have to call him out for giving aid and comfort to the racists who I have described before about having a fetish for jumping on any non white person for saying anything merely within 1,000 yards of being racially charged. Now Mr. Da Silva. Do you really get how badly you have served the cause? You have given them a true and actual racist remark by a brown man, against white folk, in public before a bunch of reporters. You have made their day, and when I say their, I mean the people who are shallowly if not deeply committed to the idea of weakening the charge of racism to the point it has no meaning or value anymore. Bad Move.

But let me break the remark down. As is says in that article,"In reality, he was probably wanted to point the blame of this crisis on wealthy Americans and Europeans." That is a point that could have been made with out bringing in race. Never mind the fact that even if it is not literally true, bankers and financiers often seem not to be entirely human people. At least the worst of them are so sociopathic that they should be considered a breed apart, if only to highlight the fact they have no loyalty to anyone but their own greedy selves. And it is not a causation thing. Yes, most senior level bankers and Financiers in Europe and America are white, but that is because of population demographics. And the wickedness they, the particular bankers and financiers, have caused is totally based on things that have nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality, or alleged race.

So Mr. da Silva, you deserve the Worst Non Republican of the Week award.

Your earning of this title does not in any way shape or form exonerate or justify the equally harsh and racist remarks that have come from the more over the top critics, though. Like I say, these people have a fetish for the stuff. Never mind they run around saying things like other people need to lighten up. Even if da Silva's remarks were not even couched as causative, or a blanket attack at white folk, the way some people are acting, you think he was condemning the entirety of the Caucasian peoples of the world.

And that is why I call it a fetish. Calling out individual racist acts and statements in context is what I do. And I think that's a very necessary thing to do, in combating racism. But what some of these people are doing, clearly, is trying to preserve what ever last remainder of institutional or social race based privilege that is left to them. They really don't care about racism as a social ill. However, they are easily upset when ever someone gets close to their identity. Their hypocrisy would be astounding if I did not know any better. And I know better. Some people can literally whine like a baby, over the fact some one else is whining like a baby, and be so underdeveloped an adult and so lacking in self awareness that they actually do not see their own hypocrisy.

So again, Mr. da Silva. You really did the cause a great disservice. Mierda.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Worst Republican of the Week.

Where to begin?

Michelle Bachmann, for just about every thing she said, but her call for revolution is well, insane, if not criminal.

Glenn Beck. For being himself.

Anyone who called Pres. Obama either a socialist, Marxist, McCarthyite, or the new one, Dictator. Particularly on that list are Hannity and Newt.

Limbaugh, for various odious remarks, particularly calling Obama Ogabe, comparing him to that monster Robert Mugave. Or, my next choice? Using the potentially greatly catostraphitic flood conditions in North Dakota along the Red River as an excuse to crack "dike" I mean "dyke" jokes.

Sarah Palin (and Todd too.) Not that the ethical violations are new, but for continuing the farce, and particularly for Alaskan Evita's use of the official office of the governor's web site to call the latest filing against her 'bogus." No Mrs. Palin. It ain't all about you, so much as it is getting your stank ass out of government, because you are pathologically corrupt.

But the winner? Tammy Bruce for calling the Obamas trash.

Takes quite a nasty piece of ass to rise to the top of this scummy group. So kudos to you Ms. Bruce. Ya know what they say. The scum rises to the top.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

Continuing About Alaskan Evita's Arctic Cat Gate Corruption Case

Well I have read some of the lame defenses that people are tossing up about Succubus Sarah's awful judgment in letting herself appear in public like a corporate-rented billboard.

And it seems that one of the favorite lame-o excuses is some variation of the following theme:

"So is she supposed to cut the logos off of all of her clothes, and walk around wearing what amounts to a glorified doily?"

Alaska Democrat Wants Sarah Palin to Take it All Off.

No, you imbecile. What she should do is not wear corporate logo clothing at all, no matter if it is from a business partner of a family member, and/or a direct or indirect vendor of the Government of the State of Alaska, and/or any real or legal person who could potentially seek or reap any benefit or gain from Alaskan Evita's wearing (or use) of such gear.

Here is my presentation of the case. If Alaskan Evita and her husband really were ethical people, Todd would not necessarily have had to give up his hobby, but he would have had to give up larger sponsorships. That is the real keystone of the ethics problem here, the fact that Todd's hobby is one where it is routine for people who participate in such pursuits to basically rent their body as advertising, in order to get money or stuff to help them do the activity. That is at least a quid pro quo, under normal circumstances.

Now it is not required to have sponsors and rent the body out as a billboard, but that is the easy way to get funding. So even if she never appeared as a rented billboard herself, her husband's relationship with these people is a conflict of interest.

And what makes the situation worse is when she puts on the gear, she becomes a rental advertising space too, in addition to being financially or otherwise materially intertwined, either personally or through a family member, with some corporate or other kind of business or favor seeking interest. Either way you slice it, it is unethical.

Now if there was some way that Todd could have either self-financed or perhaps gained support for his hobby where the individual contributions were so small that he was not truly beholden to, or in the semi-employ of anyone in a way that could have caused a conflict of interest or quid pro quo? Then there would not have been any problem. But if he could not have done that years ago when Alaskan Evita won her office (as by now, the damage has been done; at this point it is closing the doors after the horses have run out of the stable) he really should have given up his hobby.

He would not have been the first spouse of a politician who had to make a sacrifice for the other's career. The fact he did not, and that they did not figure out he needed to, just shows these people are basically corrupt.

This one ain't a hard call. This is a genuine conflict of interest, and there has actually been quid pro quo, and the Palin family has materially benefited from the corporation, and the corporation has received benefit from Alaskan Evita. Oh, and she did get the bitchin' gear. Hell I saw a pic today of one of their kids dressed up in Team Arctic gear too. Did the company send coats and snow suits and other gear for the whole family? I can't honestly say,"Yew Betcha." But I am guessing, it is likely that there were a few boxes of Arctic Cat swag and gear delivered to the Palin Household, down there in the Mat-Su Valley.

More About Sociopathic Sarah's Personal Corruption.

Turns out that in my previous post, I linked the Alaska Governor's official website, where, on official Alaska government paid-for resources, we see her personal editorial comments, calling the investigation bogus.

Now that is really something, ain't it? It is sorta if not clearly doubling down on the ethics violations. I am arguing that, at least. But anyway, here is a link to the actual story.

In the story, it is shown that Succubus Sarah tied in the wearing of the Corporate Sponsor Logo gear to her wearing of things that support local Alaskan artists and sports teams.

Here is one person's response to that:

In an interview, (complainant) Biegel responded: "I'm pleased to see that our governor supports our local artists and sports teams but I believe she's missed the mark when it comes to what this ethics violation is all about." Arctic Cat financially supports Todd Palin's snowmachining, benefiting the whole family, Biegel said.

And the article continues:

Palin did not specify in her latest financial disclosure how much Arctic Cat's sponsorship was worth in 2008. The company provided a "Discount on Snowmachines," the disclosure said. In 2007, the sponsorship was worth $7,500.

Not that it would be an acceptable defence to the charge of corruption, but Arctic Cat ain't even an Alaskan company. But I have to admit, I saw this whole thing as problematic weeks ago. I hope the investigation is a thorough one, and includes Succubus Sarah's use of state resources to defend her corrupt acts.

And to Add:

As I have not done the full fifty-state survey, I can not say for sure that Alaskan Evita's official gubernatorial web page is clearly the most ego-centric one.

I would not be surprised if that is true, just saying.

And to Add Even More:

I am hoping this story gets even more traction. And even if I got on the band waggon early, I clearly am not the only person thinking about the depth of the corruption here.

And no. It is not big dollar financial corruption (as far as the value of the Free Kewl Arctic Cat gear that Alaska Evita got), but it is notworthy on account of the level of, for lack of a better way to express the idea, the sheer audacity of it, and the apparent witless lack of plain common sense understanding of the wrongfulness of the deal.

When I first got to thinking about this, when I first saw the pic of her in her Kewl Gear, my thought quickly got around to the question of whether or not (and I immediately thought likely on some level) Arctic Cat is a State of Alaska vendor? I have not done that much digging, but it took me all of a minute to find out that the company is at least an indirect vendor:

ITB 2008-1200-7511 – Purchase and Delivery of Arctic Cat Utility Snow Machines and Cargo Sleds for the Dept of Public Safety, Alaska State Troopers in rural AK.

I am not going to predict that this will spin out of control and bring Sociopathic Succubus Sarah down and lead to her lying ass being forced out of office or sent to jail. But if that does come to pass, you can say you heard it speculatively from me, first.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009

YEA! Someone Finally Filed the "I'm a Ho for Arctic Cat" Complaint, X Sociopathic Succubus Sarah.

(I'm on my back up puter here, so I have motivation to be brief. This thing is so slow.)

And if only to prove how mind fwkingly obtuse the woman is, consider her reply to the specifics of this complaint:

"Yes, I wore Arctic Cat snow gear at an outdoor event, because it was cold outside."


She wore Corporate Sponsorship Logo Bearing clothing, because it was cold?

So what will she do when it gets warmer in the summer? Get a Tat endorsing Coors Light beer?

Now I am going to get at least a little snarky with the criticism here. So with that in mind I will say that her "Valley Trash" buddies in the Mat-Su are probably jealous of the tacky Corporate Logo gear as well, that is what some people get off on. Ya, I remember being impressed with motorcycle sponsorship gear when I was a child. I am not a child anymore damnit. And even if I were still into motorcycle racing, I would not be caught dead in public wearing sponsor gear if I were either an elected government official, or any other kind of public servant.
Never mind, the creature has a degree in Comm./Journalism, and actually worked for a TV Station. Yew know what that is? It is a business that is in the business of charging companies and corporations for advertising services. She did that before her political career, and she can actually say in public that is is frivolous to complain that it is unethical for her to be out there at a public event, with the press taking pictures and tape of her while she is wearing Corporate Sponsor Logo Gear?
And some people wonder why I call her unimpressive in any way that matters (like smarts) and have no guilt in calling her a sociopath. And remember kids, that does not mean psycho killer. In brief it means someone so self-absorbed that they are past merely clinically Narcissistic.
Anyway, back to the lack of ethics, part. How much would it have cost for Arctic Cat to have paid for all the exposure it got from her wearing the gear, if they had to pay regular commercial advertising rates, ya think? Remember, for better or worse, she still gets international media attention, if not based on the press pool that is near her, on any given day, but she will make it to the wire services, and the Internet before you can say Yew Betcha!

There is that age old phrase,"Appearance of Impropriety." Sorry Sarah. you might think this isn't a big deal, but that is a great part of why you are such a corrupt critter; you don't even recognize your own personal and deliberate "Appearance of Impropriety" when it is literally wrapped around your own body.

Good Lord. Spare the rest of the world from this woman. If they reelect her as Gov. in Aka, so be it. Let her be Alaskan Evita for life, for all I care. Just keep the creature away from having any effect on my life, even if only as a mere vote in the U.S. House of Representatives.
P.S. Far as I know that is an official Arctic Cat marketing photo. Now I guess if you can use sex to sell a snowmobile you can use it to sell anything. However, I do recall this story, told to me by a beauty from Minnesota. I will not tell her whole tale, but it involved a snowmobile, and well? I will leave the rest of it to your own dirty minds.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

I Spent Much Too Much Time, Reading Active Aggressive as Well as Passive Aggressive Republican Racist Shit Today.

So I am, for now, just going to post a feel-good sort of music vid.

Well, and and mean, it will be a vid of a song that makes me feel good.

Can't speak for you-all.

Monday, March 23, 2009

If We Could Have a Who's Crazier Contest Between Michele Bachmann, and Sarah Palin

I'm afraid Michele Bachmann would win.

Why am I afraid of that? I mean she is obviously out of her damn mind, totally yumpy off her uncola nuts, crazy. But that does not mean she is more crazy.

It means she is more Glenn Beck-flavored crazy.

I think Sociopathic Succubus Sarah is more Evita Peron crazy. And by that I mean sociopathic, Messianic, megalomaniac, and too dumb to realize her own personal limitations, shortcomings, and inadequacies, to the point of being way beyond ordinary self delusional, crazy.

That is a far more dangerous kind of crazy as more people are willing to take an Evita seriously, than some babbling nut case in a Neiman Marcus Career Wear dress.

But in any case, here is the latest loony tunes gem from Ms. Bachmann:

I am Seriously Considering Prank Punking Some Dumbassed Republicans. They Will Believe Anything.

And I don't merely mean the unhinged, mentally disturbed wing of the GOP, otherwise known as the Glenn Beck Audience.

So far, in the past few months, many of them, particularly those in or otherwise part of the regressive right wing Internet Corps, have been too willing to believe what ever stupid anti-Obama or anti-Dem shit that comes down river, and/or are willing to override either plain fact or matters of ordinary common knowledge.

And in that mind, let's consider the common knowledge angle, and the obsession with the teleprompter, meme. Um, there is no evidence out there that President Obama uses a teleprompter any more than the previous several occupants of the Oval Office. But let's not allow for commonly known facts, like the use of a teleprompter for prepared statements for a president is a decades old practice.

Oh, and if Obama's performance on "The Tonight Show," is a good yardstick, I think the man can do a very fine job of going off script. Now does he rely a little too much on what speech experts call "verbal pauses?" Yup. If he ever bothered to get some coaching, that could have been eliminated, but apparently he never did. (As an aside, I wonder why more Pols don't do that. But then again I have a degree in Theatre, and I respect what a good diction coach can do for a body.) And before I leave off on this topic, I want to take a well deserved smack at the oftentimes themselves barely literate rank and file regressive Republicans for making every possible excuse under the sun for George Bush's torture and mangling of the English language, only to then judge Obama by the standards usually reserved for A list stage actors. What bullshit.

Speaking of bullshit, here is the Republican gullible idiot story of the day. The regressive Republican blogosphere is abuzz with the story about how Obama sent a letter to former French Prez. Chirac, and in some way that means Obama doesn't know he is not president of France, and somehow that is a snub of now president Sarkozy. Some people will not only believe any stupid shit, but will forget even the most recent of history to take a shot at Obama.

Firstly, Sarkozy was one of the first world leaders to congratulate Obama on his election win. That sorta kills the snub and forgot who's boss meme. But beyond that, when you check the facts of the Chirac story, you learn that Chirac sent Obama a letter, partly as head of his own peace seeking international foundation, and Obama's reply was in that context.

In the same vein as the title of my post, a couple back, are they That Partisan, because they are That Stupid, or are they That Stupid because they are That Partisan?

I could go further and with more points. And I know that it is a game of "gotcha." That between the two teams, each is looking for some gaff that they can conflate, if there is nothing that is really, objectively a doozey that needs no hype on the table on any given day. But this bullshit? I mean either they are taking some innocuous fact, and wrapping it up in multiple layers of lies (like the teleprompter story), or just going so far with the bullshit that they might as well made the whole story up out of thin air.

Well it does smack of the desperation of petty minds who have no better objections. I am thinking of that line:

"Is that all you got?"

Of course actually waiting for a real blunder to happen is out of the question for these chuckle heads. Perish the thought.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

I Rarely Post Olbermann "Worst Persons" Vids, But

I have done so occasionally, when they were particularly interesting, to me at least.

The reason I am posting this one, is more on account of his Bronze and Silver winners, than the Gold winner.

Bronze went to Congresscritter Boehner, caught in a staggeringly blatant lie about deregulation. (I want to say the whole Republican Leadership is starting to resemble that pathological liar character that Jon Lovits did on SNL years ago. That might be a wee bit of an overstatement, so I will only call Boehner that, for now.)

Silver went to Brit Hume, of Fox News. Instead of a staggeringly blatant lie, his award was for a staggeringly blatant bit of truth. He admitted, at some hoity toidy dinner, that instead of doing news, objectively, as someone who allegedly was supposed to be doing objective news, that he had been taking and using talking points from Brent Bozell's Media Research Center. Just to properly categorize the depth of the unethical violation of a so called legitimate news operation being so intertwined with such an outside political group, let me first say what the Media Research Center is. From it's own website:

"The leader in Documenting, Exposing, and Neutralizing Liberal Media Bias"


In short, they are a conservative advocacy group. That is saying it as objectively as I can. But cutting through the bullshit, they are a conservative propaganda mill. Now again, how unethical was it for Hume to rely on them to any degree, leave alone as much as Hume admitted? Imagine that Dan Rather made some public expression of thanks to . . . well there are so many to choose from, let's use for example the AFL CIO, Moveon.org or the NAACP for . . . . PROVIDING or otherwise helping with CONTENT? If that were to ever happen (not that it would as far as I know they do not play that fast and loose) that would have been the key piece of evidence to prove what the extremist regressive right wingers have been saying for years, about liberal media bias. But will we hear any hue and cry from those sad sick people about how Hume just right there then admitted to being part of Hillary's Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? Don't hold your breath. "Do as I say, not as I do," has been one of the Republican mottos for years. And if you see them accusing others of misconduct, particularly when evidence of that misconduct is thin, if even that? Well I personally would bet that someone would be telegraphing their own mis deeds. That is how Republican hypocrisy plays out, historically.

So that accounts for my posting of the vid. Gold went to Twitter, who apparently is letting people set up phony accounts, and did not take down a phony account in Olbermann's name, when requested to do so. But it appears that some dude connected to Fox News is running this phony account.

Now I get Keith's umbrage at Twitter, but he had as much cause for being mad at Fox News (and it's affiliates and what not.) And to be sure to be clear, I am going to make my last point sarcastically:

Sure those Fox News people are really honest, if you ignore it when they are acting dishonest.

Saturday, March 21, 2009

Are They Racist Because They Are Stupid, or Are They Stupid Because They Are Racists?

Not that it matters, really, exactly how a stupid racist gets created, as the problem remains, you are stuck with having to deal with the reality of the existence of stupid racists. And the reason why I am back on this bandwagon (I did say it is my pet peeve topic) is this stupid political argument I have seen time and time again, advanced by the garden variety kind of racist Republicans. It is the old argument about the how and why of minorities overwhelmingly voting Dem.

The specifically patently obvious racist version of this racist Republican argument is that minority people are too stupid to know that the Dems do not serve their interests well. And the less offensive version of it (according to the racist Republicans, not by me, though) is that they have been bamboozled by the Dems into believing the Dems are serving their interests, when it is a fact plain to see that every Republican can see, at least, that the Dems do not in fact serve the interests of minorities well at all. (As an aside, there is this book out there written by a black Republican titled: Bamboozled: How Americans are being Exploited by the Lies of the Liberal Agenda. Your garden variety racist Republicans love that -- whenever they can find some token minority who talks down to their own minority group like that. They often will use the own-group-disparaging tokens insulting language, as either a shield or some sort of free pass to say things that would be clearly racist coming out of a white person. Again this is some sort of racist fetish thing, I have observed.)

But here is the main point I am getting at. And I have argued this to no good use time and again. The mere fact that someone is prone to thinking in those sorts of ways, by making racially flavored generalizations, is a clear indication of a tendency towards being a racist. The more offensive and insulting the generalization, and the more likely it is that the person in question is a deeper and truer racist. That is a no brainer. But people will cling to their perceived rights to be ignorant and disparage folks from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds as fiercely as anything else they value.

And there is another level of stupidity at work here, and when I say here I mean in some cases. Since we are dealing with an overlap of political opinion as well as race/ethnic things, we should examine the political aspect of it too. Now I am not at all making a mitigating argument here, as I grade hard where racism is in issue, but part of the ignorant stupidity of some of the people who make these racially offensive arguments, is the extreme certainty that their political biases are the singularly right and correct political biases.

Case in point, this one racist Republican who used the 'Bait and Bait' form of argument (as opposed to the old 'Bait and Switch,' which actually requires a switch), that 'they have been bamboozled by the Dems, but I don't mean they are stupid,'argument, over on the Hannity Message Board, recently. This racist dog was so impressed with his use of the 'bamboozle' argument that he submitted his use of the argument for that message board's special Op Ed forum, and titled his post,"It is not racist to say that Dem Propaganda has mislead minority voters." As if his saying it is not racist at all mitigates the fact that he is making insulting generalizations about minority groups, and as a result of that, he is at least on the slippery slope of racism, actually.

Now his argument actually not only hinges on, but for all intents and purposes is entirely based on his bigoted view that Republicans (he might have used the word conservative instead, but you should know my definition of a Republican -- anyone who votes GOP more often than not) are always correct, politically, and Dems are always wrong, politically. With out that as the core of his 'reasoning' he has no real point at all. Not that that is an actual reasonable, meaning based on a rational thought, point. And don't get me wrong. I am not judging him from the POV that Dems are always right, politically and Republicans are always wrong. But I am judging him from the POV that it takes a special kind of ignorant bigot to not only make a generalization that either directly or indirectly disparages the overwhelming majority of a Nation's population of a particular race and ethnic group, but also, to base the 'reasoning' of that racist generalization and insult on something that is basically subjective, like one's own political biased views.

So you should see how and why I came to my subject line for this post. Either way you slice it, you have got Wrong Bread Sandwich, featuring Wrong as the filling.

But as a last matter (and I am a clearly biased Democrat, but I can at least entertain the idea that some of mine or my party's ideas could at least not necessarily be objectively correct, if not wrong), I hope you can agree with me it takes a special kind of stupid to be so proud of a racially insulting argument that is entirely dependent on a subjective political bias, to think it deserves to be considered as an Op Ed.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

I Started Saying it This Way, More Than a Year Ago. Some White Republicans Have a Fetish About Race Issues.

I see some of the white Republicans acting like they feel disenfranchised, sidelined, left out of the fun, if they can't charge others with racial insensitivity the way people who at least qualify as ethnic or racial minorities seem to be entitled to so charge. So they seem to go out of their way to either make a stink over some race tinged issue, usually so minor a one that is doesn't even show on a properly calibrated radar scope, or call someone a racist (usually a black, and that is the 'Whoopee, Gotcha,' moment they are most thrilled with, seemingly.) Almost unfailingly, they screw it up big time, or end up looking like the mindless, ignorant fools they really are.

Case in point: have you heard about the story about the white Dallas Republican councilman who was, it is said, and I quote,"I am extremely offended and hurt by these unwarranted comments," in response to the black Dallas judge for saying,"Black folks have been cleaning up white folks' messes for hundreds of years, so why should we expect any different now?"

White Republican in Former Slave State "Offended" by Statement By Black Man that Blacks Have Been Cleaning up After White Folks, for Years.

Just for context, the judge was making a little joke there about Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins, and what a fine job he (a black) was doing reforming that office.

No one in the right mind would take offense to that (perhaps weak, yes) joke. So I look at the white Republican's whining about being offended as pure bullshit.

Either it is pure bullshit, on account that the statement does not present reasonable grounds for anyone to take offense. Or it is pure bullshit, as it is either directly or indirectly related to what I have discussed before, and that would be a semi to somewhat coordinated Republican attempt to seize control of the issue of race, and render the charge of being a racist or racially insensitive into something that has no power or at least clear meaning, anymore.

Let me go a bit deeper (as this is my pet peeve issue.) Firstly, let's debunk the charge that the remark was objectively offensive. Ok. ask yourself who has the right to be offended by the statement, either declarative, or meant as a weak joke that black folk have been cleaning up after white folk? Well? Would that be the whites who used to hire blacks as housekeepers and other sorts of domestic help? I can tell you this much. It would not be the blacks who's ancestors have had that kind of job (guilty as charged.) We (and to be clear, all blacks) all know exactly what the judge meant. That joke was not only weak, but more so, it was an inside joke -- hence why it is weak, viewed objectively.

So is there any other way it could have been both reasonably and objectively considered offensive? No a chance. Now there are some white chuckle headed Republicans out there who have adopted this weird, any time anyone on the other team mentions race, we will call them a racist and take offense, trend. That is neither reasonable nor objective. So that doesn't even work (but I have to admit white Dallas Republican councilman at issue, Mitchell Rasansky, could actually be that ignorant.)

And even if I have gone long on the matter time and again, here on the blog before, I will explore a little bit more this disturbing Republican trend to render the matter of race into something of less power and meaning. Whether or not this is being done in this particular case, with a clear objective to dilute the meaning of what actually is racially offensive or not, I belive that that end is highly desired by the Republicans. They seem to spend a lot of their time doing just that, and being sorta obvious about damping down the entire subject. And even the end of trying to trivialize race matters, in this instance, is just a by product of this particular white Republican's ignorance, what he did is another example of the purer form of what I call fetish behaviour. There are those white Republicans who just want to call a black man a racist so damned much, they will leap at any chance, no matter how thin the grounds, to do so (and if doing that just serves the ends of trivializing the entire subject of race issues, wooo hoo, that.)

Not that I am a fan of the Rev. Wright., but I saw the same sort of behaviour regarding him, as this one idiot is showing the Dallas judge. At least in the case of Wright, you had a sometimes very angry man, who sometimes lashed out with what he considered righteous anger, against the dominant white culture in America, and America's racist (and recent) history. Now personally I can not cut anyone who was born in America who is below the age of 75 any slack for not understanding the following:

(a) America's history towards blacks is shameful, degrading, and really was an abomination, until the most recent of times, starting . . . I hate to peg a date certain, but not really until the 1970's when enforcement of Federal anti discrimination laws became somewhat consistent, and

(b) every black or African American has cause for anger. Still. Not cause to be angry all the time, or most of the time, or even 5% of the time. But each and every one of us have our personal wounds, in addition to the group wounds.

Most of us are happy things are better, but they are not any where near well yet. We might be closer to the day when all people will be judged by the content of their character, not their 'skin.' But the reality of the day is this. We are still, and I mean as a society generally, only in the phase where a large number of the population knows that is what we are striving for, a society where 'skin,' or tribe, or ethnicity is not what we should pay attention to. Reality is we still do, and getting any closer to that noble goal famously if not firstly announced by Dr. King requires constant reaffirmation, and dedication to the work of keeping one's mind on the goal of having that kind of society, and away from bad influences, like lazy generalizations and comfortable prejudices.

And I don't want to seem too harsh here. I want to call anyone who thinks that at least half the country not only gets that that is what is required of all of us, but are actually more committed than not to working towards that goal, some kind of optimist. But then up pops another idiot like this white Republican in Dallas I have been talking about here. And that reminds me. We might be that far along. But personally I do not think we as a society are half way there yet. Not by a long shot. There clearly are many many people out there who clearly do not get it, or do not care, or both, and no amount of social pressure is going to make them personally commit to being better people when it comes to such matters. These people have no commitment to that goal, to that society, and have no intention of doing one ounce of the work at all.

But then I remember the part to be optimistic about, and that is the younger generations. They seem to be more 'enlightened' about such things. I dearly hope their seeming enlightenment is more than skin deep.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

So Sad.

What I Want Out of Obama's Judicial Selections.

Only TOTAL WAR against the regressive, right wing ideologues and their make believe, phony, partisan, original intent bullshit.

Now if you have been following me here, you know my peeves. I despise that the Republicans just make shit up. I despise that they have no respect for reality or the English Language. And I particularly despise them for peddling this Edwin Meese-created, phony, bullshit, "We believe in original intent, and the Dems are activist judges," and conveniently, original intent always leads to the same result as enshrined in the then-current Republican Party Platform.

Fancy that!

But the recent history of the Republican's blatantly dishonest politicizing of the Judiciary, to my mind, means the following is long, as in very long, overdue. It is time to take these bastards head on, and challenge their bullshit. Now I admit my own peculiar bias in favor of cutting through the bullshit, and refusing to give any credit to blatant bullshit. So this is how I would like to see, if not the current one, as soon as possible, a confirmation hearing progress. I would like the nominee to be prepared to go to the mat and punch back, and I mean hard, I mean not give the Republican bullshit partisan hack points the slightest bit of credibility. I want to hear a judicial nominee say to some Republican Senator, words to the effect like:

"Senator, no reasonable person who is a lawyer could take that question seriously. Ask me a legitimate judicial question that is not pregnant with Right Wing political hackery and I will be happy to answer, but I refuse to answer that on the grounds it is a dishonest question and completely detached from reality."

As a Yella Dog Dem, I think it is important we have this fight sooner than later. An opening on the USSC could be coming up sooner than later. We, and by that I mean not only Democrats, but people who are more committed to reality based government than political ideology, would be better served, all of us, if we can eliminate the GOP's bull shit rhetoric that they have been using to disguise their attempts to politicize judicial nominations and the Judiciary.

I am not saying that the GOP should be thwarted from raising political objections to nominations. Rather I am saying the following. They can, but they should be forced to be honest with their political attacks. They have every right to try to please their base. Just be honest about it, you bastards.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Interesting, as in Telling Piece About Succubus Sarah.

Now nothing totally earth shaking is to be found in the Conde Nast Portfolio article about Sarah Palin and how she let (allegedly) her own political ambition queer that natural gas pipeline deal. And when I say not earth shaking, I am saying that as one who has used up a lot of keystrokes criticizing her for being no smarter than a bucket full of hair, and who's single notable skill is her ability to promote her own self interest.

Palin's Pipe Dreams.

There is this one great quote in it. Now I have described her as a typical bullshit Republican who just makes shit up, but this is a kinder way of saying that:

“Facts to her are like Silly Putty,” said Larry Persily, former deputy commissioner of Alaska’s Department of Revenue, who later worked for Palin in the state’s office in Washington. “She shapes them into whatever people want to hear.”

That sounds like the politician I instantly disliked on first listen, if not sight. However, that merely shows her to be a typical Republican Politician. The next chunk confirms, and shows her to be as shallow a thinker as I have suspect from day one:

“She just doesn’t think it’s important to know things,” said Andrew Halcro, the conservative who ran against her for governor in 2006. “Issues register on her brain only in terms of populist appeal. She never thinks through the policy implications.” From the other end of the political spectrum, state representative Les Gara of Anchorage, a liberal, said, “She doesn’t spend time studying problems. She’d much rather deliver a sound bite than do the hard work of governing.”

Now that is a perfect way of describing the blithering, babbling, outclassed, not-ready-for-prime time Caribou Barbie we saw in both the Katie Couric and the Charlie Gibson interviews. And as well, it describes the conscious, yet barely thinking, talking point delivering mannequin that so many of the extreme right wingers fell in love with on the campaign trail, who at the same time, horrified the brainier wing of the GOP.

Even more importantly, consider the following observation:

She may not be “a fucking psychopath,” as one very prominent Alaskan told me she was, but Palin does seem prone to what psychologists call magical thinking. At its most basic level, this is a tendency to believe that you exert more control over events than you actually do. It is the irrational belief that thinking is the same as doing, that you can actually cause a circumstance or an event to occur simply by wishing for it.

Now this supports not only my intellectual objections to her, but also to my dislike of her at the gut level. It is not that I despise her personally (I likely really don't hate her), but I despise the very idea of her, or anyone like her, ever having any say over any aspect of my life. She is not sufficiently grounded in earth level reality for me. I have tangled and argued with people about her extremist religion, and why I do not trust anyone who's religion, sect or cult is so out there that even the Assembly of God considers it heretic. Granted, there must be something about her own personality, her own sense of self, that makes her prone to magical thinking. But her choice in religions is at least evidence of that underlying cognitive dysfunction, I'd say. The why of it, in a chicken/egg style question really doesn't matter. In the end, it makes her clinically delusional. That is why I think there really is not that much difference between her and Rod Blagojevich. The main difference between her and him is the fact that the only salient thing Blagojevich was delusional about was his ability to continue the scam that was the public life of Blagojevich. And to state the obvious, Blagojevich has self destructed, whereas Palin has not. Yet.

Lastly, consider this:

I came back from Alaska with the sense that the further Palin goes, the more she resembles not Joan of Arc but Eva Perón. In their book Evita, Nicholas Fraser and Marysa Navarro wrote of Perón that “the only people with whom she felt totally at ease were those who accepted what she was doing unconditionally” and that eventually “there was no one left around her capable of criticizing anything she did.”

That seems to be the way Palin wants it. It’s almost as if, long ago, she adopted as a personal motto Mark Twain’s sardonic observation “All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence, and then success is sure.”

Now I have to commend the writer, Joe McGinnis. His observation, comparing Palin to Perón, is spot on. If I ever tire of calling her Sociopathic Succubus Sarah, I think my next choice will be American Evita. No. Make that Alaskan Evita, instead.

Don't cry for me, Mat Su Valley . . . .

Monday, March 16, 2009

Um. I Thought Those Regressive Right Wingers Thought Nixon Got Screwed and Was Such a Great Leader?

Just when you think the Republicans have reached the lowest possible depths of confusing, contradictory, if not blatantly hypocritical talking points, they find a way to dig just a little deeper in that hole. And starting late last week, they managed to set a brand new depth level.

But before I discuss the actual confusing, contradictory, if not blatantly hypocritical talking point, let me set the baseline. Now the name of this game is called American Partisan Politics. The main players are the Republican and the Democratic Parties. And one of the main differences between the two, as a purely tactical matter, is that the Republicans pathologically and repeatedly and sometimes verbatim accuse the Dems of,"Playing politics." Sometimes, however, they do it in a slightly more subtle way. And that is how they have been dealing with the Rush Limbaugh as Leader of the GOP ploy. They are not using that (to my mind just so stupid) verbatim charge, but they are, or were, sniping and whining about how and why the White House was paying so much attention to a,"Private Citizen." And let's face it. That is as obviously an idiotic bit of spin as the playing politics charge, as who does not know that Limbaugh happens to be the record holder for making obscene amounts of money by being, on the one hand, a professional,water carrier for the GOP, and as well, arch critic of the Dems?

But starting late last week, there is a new spin on this. Not only regarding the specific "Get Limbaugh," campaign, but rather based on the fact that the Obama White House is actually playing the game of politics, as if, um, well, that was what they as politicians are entitled to do, the Republicans are accusing Obama of being like Nixon.

Excuse me?

First I saw the vid of one chuckle head on O'Reilly, where they were talking about some great conspiracy, evoking the Nixon Dirty Tricksters. And it turns out, Limbaugh himself may have got the ball rolling. And most recently Michael Steele is using the same talking point. But here is where reality should kick-in and this delusional and dishonest comparison falls apart. And I will resort to one of my favorite techniques, and that is the artificial quote.

"Um. Ya. The Obama White House's treatment of it's critics, by criticizing them back, either directly or sarcastically, is the same as Richard Nixon's felonious, paranoid, reputation killing, and office breaking into, and psychiatrist's office breaking into, and campaign headquarters bugging, and lying about it to Federal Investigators, and Congress, generally trying to cover it up, and also, destroying evidence of such felonies and cover ups, as long as you ignore that the Obama White House's treatment of it's critics, so far, has only been to criticizing them back, either directly or sarcastically. It is only the Nixon White House that we know engaged in felonious, paranoid, reputation killing, and office breaking into, and psychiatrist's office breaking into, and campaign headquarters bugging, and lying about it to Federal Investigators, and Congress, generally trying to cover it up, and also, the destroying evidence of such felonies and cover ups."

Again, I know that an oft enough repeated lie, or line of bullshit can get so much traction or play that the lack of even borderline trustworthiness can be effectively overcome, sometimes. But the Republicans tactic of argument, where the attempt to cast things that are not similar at all, as similar things is particularly galling to me. I guess that is because I am particularly galled by blatant bullshit and lies. And if I might contradict myself, even if I can be momentarily surprised by the audacity of the Republican bullshit, when I am faced with the newest talking point, I know I should never be surprised how audacious they will get. It is like that scene in some movie I saw long ago, when the wife catches the husband right in the act with another woman, and the man says,"What are you going to believe? Me or your eyes?"

Ya. They are that audacious, and that full of bullshit.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Let Us Mock Glenn Beck. It is Right and Proper to do so.

As a socio-political data junkie, I have been familiar with Beck for years. Some folk might not be so aware of him. How do I describe him in brief, with out resorting -- I mean relying too much on harshly critical (no matter how true) descriptors? I will not worry that much about that, I have just decided. Glenn Beck is an ex-multi intoxicant addict, right wing radio and FOX News TV host, who either is genuinely histrionically-crazy, or is doing an amateurish, but borderline workman's job of acting the part of a far right, right winger Proto-Fascist, American Taliban, Chicken Little/Boy who cried wolf, truly half-crazed nutter who is so spastic that he should not be trusted to hold a plastic spoon. And I mean even the good kind of plastic spoon, that has the beefed up edge, as opposed to the cheaper crappy ones with a sharp, unfinished edge.

Wait. I actually watched some of his clips from his special "You Are Not Alone," act, from Friday, and I have to confess, that I remembered the specifics of his performance and that is why I describe it here as,"Amateurish, but borderline workman's job." He is not really all that convincing in his histrionics (need I specify, to people who can tell the difference between a hawk and a handsaw), although he has mastered the art of really bad, really saccharine, insincere emotional manipulation. And to be specific I mean at the level of a jack leg preacher who is trying way to hard to impress the audience. Ya. that is the way to describe the act. But I should say that some people go for that crap. Then again, some people think pro wrestling is a genuine competitive sport.

Nevertheless, I am going to try this from another angle. Instead of going long, myself, in mocking Beck, I am going to post the video of one of his fellow Fox News talking heads.

I never thought I would be saying this (with out being snarky about it) but I am beginning to respect Shep Smith. At least he is willing to point out the abject silliness of Glenn Beck's act. In any case, watch and see for yourself. Now it might not be the most entertaining thing you have seen this year so far, but the part where Chris Wallace tries to scold Shep Smith for mocking Beck, and Smith is totally unapologetic? Priceless!

Saturday, March 14, 2009

I am Almost as Sick With the Way Some Republicans Whine About Being Called Racists, for Acting and Talking Like Racists . . .

as I am at them for actually being racists, but I know the difference. Listening to them whine like that about that is just tiresome and annoying. The actual racism they embrace and display is a real and serious problem in America, and is an affront to all reasonable, decent people.

But as I said many times in the past here, there are some people who's understanding about the topic of racism is basically limited to the awareness that being slapped with the label of being called a racist is very bad, and the solution to that potential problem, of being labeled racist, is to demonize the very use of that label.

It is logic that only a racist could love.

Anyway, here is a vid from Bill Maher's Real Time, where he had as guests Princeton grad, and U. Penn. Professor Eric Dyson, and some republican racist twit blogger, Andrew Breitbart. Ok. I am being short and snarky about Andrew Breitbart, but he really is a perfect twit, and as well, a perfect example of the calling people racist is evil, don't do it or I will throw a fit, even if you ain't calling me that, camp.

If you watch this tape you will see him doing the whole shuck and jive and tap dance. More importantly, he actually comes close to telling the truth about that theory. He says that when someone gets accused of it, then they have to defend themselves.

Excuse me? Let's take the wide view here. When ever anyone gets accused of anything that is considered socially taboo or just plain wrong, they have the choice to defend it or not. Demonizing, specifically, the accusation and charge of being a racist on account of the whole now you got to defend yourself, part, is weak as it is not a unique thing as far as accusations go. Nevermind, you don't really have to defend against the charge. You do have to right to 'plead guilty' or otherwise to say you don't care who thinks you are a racist.

And I have to imagine that Breitbart himself, and all the other twits who say such things, are not all that stupid, that they know that the argument is weak. So what is really going on here? The answer is right there in the weak argument. They are tired of having to defend themselves. They know they are not exactly the nicest people out there. They want to believe that, but they know, and not only deep inside, it is actually close to the surface, they are aware of their passive, weaker, slightly milder racism. And they really have no intention of working harder to become more, if not truly tolerant. So instead they nurture their resentments about having to conform to a higher level of awareness about such issues, and the requirement to actually think before they act, and ultimately act like nicer people. They choose to resist being pressured to abandon the comfortable pathologies and behaviours of bigotry and bias and generalization, and separating the world into, "People who walk talk and look like us," and the rest of them.

So they attack the legions of Political Correctness, and the very idea of it, as a violation of their natural rights, and they figure as long as they are not using the EN word, or saying something blatant like kill the darkies, that they are entitled to a pass on what ever they say, no matter how offensive. They are a twisted lot. I am sure that many if not most of these behavioral regressives actually know they are the ones with the failing grade in being decent people. But that does not diminish the genuineness of their feelings of resentment, and their being offended. They are definitely offended by anyone who dares suggest they are less than decent folk. And they are twice as offended if they are at all remotely aware that they are in fact less than decent.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Friday Grab Bag

What is it About Republican Women Pundits/Talking Heads?

That is my way to breach the subject about how it seems that they, the radio head and pundit chix of the GOP seem to be in a death spiral down to out dick their male counterparts. And you know darn well, that is a hard thing to do.

Case in point: Laura Ingraham's nasty-assed swipe at Meghan McCain, calling her plus-sized.

To my mind Ingraham has always had something of a fairly obvious mean streak in her. She seemed, only in degrees, of slightly better temperament than Ann Coulter, who of course is behind the story here. Ms. McCain dared speak the truth, that that harridan Coulter is,"offensive, radical, insulting and confusing." That is the cause for Ingraham's smack at McCain. So comes the question? What is Ingraham's motivation? Is Coulter some Queen Spider, and Ingraham 'has her back' out of loyalty or some such? Or is it more a matter of selfish serving. I mean really. Could this be more a matter of bitchy Republican women being upset when that is pointed out, even when the target is not themselves? All for one, one for all?

In any case, Ingraham may not make Keith Olbermann's Worst Person in the World list this week, but she gets my floating award, for being one of the "Worst Public Republicans of the Week."

Moving on to another matter, slightly related, as it does have to do with another named McCain, and more stupidity in temper tantrum throwing, to protect the bad name of someone who has a well deserved bad name. And I am talking about John McCain, who it is said, is holding up Pres. Obama's nominee for Secy Interior as the fellow in question once said something, not even actually insulting, but more and only mildly critical of Reagan. And this is on the record.

John McCain Hearts Ronnie Reagan.

Before I move on, John McCain is the weirdest critter in D.C. Politics. On one day, on some issues, he can be the voice of reason, a rarity in a party of delusional, dysfunctional ding bats. And then, and sometimes on the same day, even, he acts as erratic and emotional as a bratty pre pubescent child.

Changing topic once more, I mention last night's moment of joy, when Jon Stewart had that Cramer guy on The Daily Show. Here is how I described it to a friend.

Stewart ripped the skin off him.

Ok. I actually said it with more ghetto inflection, but I am not in the mood for that stuff now. Anyway, at least one commentator I saw over on HuffPo is predicting Cramer will loose his show within 60 days. Good Riddance. Hope they boot Ricky Santelli while they are cleaning house. And they need some kind of watchdog for CNBC, someone to keep the broadcasts more ethical and honest. I volunteer myself for the job. I would be so good at it, you would not believe it.

Ok. That is enough for now. As ever, I reserve the right to add or edit, later.

Thursday, March 12, 2009

Republican Lunatics Livid at President Obama's Failure to Keep McCain's Campaign Promise about Earmarks.

Remember kids -- it was McCain who had the (Viagra assisted?) hard on about earmarks. Obama's promises re earmarks were more restrained, on the order of reforming the process, not eliminating it from day one. That was McCain's sthick.

Get your shit and bullshit straight, Republicans. Well, I know you are not used to that, and facts and reality and dictionary meanings of words, but how about trying honestly, one step at a time?


Now let us talk for the hopefully last time about those demonic earmarks. First off, when did they become the issue of high concern? Is this some hang over from McCain's campaign? Or is this just more of the phenomenon of the Republicans throwing every and anything at Obama, just because they are hateful dicks?

And here is a fact. Earmarks account for less than 2% of that bill.

So you whiny-assed Republicans. You all can continue to whine about this. But you all look even more insane, than usual. Ya'll have been that way since the election. I suggest you all should chill and try to fix what is wrong with your party, rather than wasting so much time basically making shit up or, alternatively, just spreading the bullshit widely and deeply.

And on another front, this Retro Neo Ayn Rand cult? Sales of "Atlas Shrugged," are reported to be on the rise, now in this era of (ironically) national and international economic malaise following one of the worst phases of particularly corrupt crony capitalism, such having been encouraged by the Bush Administration for the previous 8 years.

My short reply to that peculiar current trend:

John Gault was a punk-assed piglet, and Ayn Rand preached the gospel of Despotic Plutocracy.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Woden's Day Quickies

(As no News Story of the moment seems all that dominant. Hell, even the trivia seems extra trivial today.)

Katie Couric has won The Cronkite Award from the Annenberg School for Communication, for her Palin interviews.

In not exactly related news, a "Draft Palin" club held its first meeting in a Denny's, up in Connecticut.

In not exactly related to that news, unsubstantiated reports are coming in from Alaska that Sarah Palin's daughter, Bristol, and baby-daddy Levi Johnson have split off. I am sad to hear the news myself. I had between Feb. 15 and March 1, in the pool, so I just missed the pay out zone.

It totally unrelated news Grandmaster Shuck and Jive Michael Steele, it has been reported, might already be the intended target of a No Confidence Vote. I will say the following and even if I am not a fan of Steele I got to say what I believe is possible here (ain't saying it is provable true, just possible.) That would be that no matter what he said or did in the past few weeks, I think that buyer's remorse has set in with the GOP; they want to return that negro to the store, and get them some one who looks and sounds more like the majority of the party. And let's face obvious facts, and that is that the majority of the 90% white GOP are more comfortable being lead by a hate-oozing, not terribly morally anchored, leave alone morally consistent, fat, balding, generally unhealthy, and likely mentally disturbed ex pill head, than some jive talking, but only the 10 or more years older stuff -- don't wanna be too scary to ya'll black man.

I am not going to say sorry Michael, in the sense that I am sorry what happened to him all that much, but do say sorry Michael, in the sense that any victim of institutional racism does not deserve that shit. But my message to Mr. Steele, otherwise:

Them dicks never liked black folk all that much. That is why the majority of we black folk refuse to vote for them or support them. And despite their claims, generally, they are always totally and painfully aware of the white us/black them thing. And they are notoriously narrow with their "Our Kind of Negro," bigotry. So I can't be all that sorry for your ass, as you knew that, going in.

Speaking about hate-oozing, not terribly morally anchored, leave alone morally consistent, fat, balding, generally unhealthy, and likely mentally disturbed ex pill head, it is said that Rush Limbaugh is only slightly more popular, nationwide, than the Rev. Wright. But between you and me, I think the hate-oozing, not terribly morally anchored, leave alone morally consistent, fat, balding, generally unhealthy, and likely mentally disturbed ex pill head known as Rush is actually more repugnant than the Rev. Wright. After all (and I am not even church people) when Wright was all fired up in his pulpit, he was more in the position of wigging out before people he considered as family, and vice versa. Not to get too deep in the matter, but there is not a single African American in the USA who has not righteously felt anger for the persistence of Racism in American Society. However, Rush's anger is less of the kind that can be even remotely tied to real cause, and more instead, resembles that of a excessively bratty and spoiled child, momentarily thwarted in their desire to get and have something that they never were entitled to in the first place.

Lastly, kudos to Jon Stewart, for basically doing what no one else in TV (or in the regulatory agencies who might have jurisdiction) has yet done, and quite accidentally taking on CNBC. It is time for them, CNBC (and other bullshit lying-assed, if not corrupt business commentators and such) to pay for their crimes. And if there is such a blow back from a deep, and widespread probe of the so called finance news area that no commentator or writer will be willing to promote a stock, company or market sector, I say the following: good!

That is all for now. I need some chocolate.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Why Do Republicans Want Our Nation to Fail?

Well, the week is just getting started. Unless we have some major news piece carrying over from last week, we are looking for the next shiny object.

But since I mentioned hold over news, let me quickly say something about what really is the most important issue of the moment, as well as has been for months: the sick economy.
Now if I were a praying man I would be praying for a real good uptick in the economy. I mean majorly, and not only because that would raise my boat, as it raised everyone else's.
And hey. That reminds me. Before I move on to other matters, I have something harsh to say to Rush Limbaugh and any other dicks who are hoping for President Obama to fail. Fuck ya'll. Now I have heard the original clip, and the follow up, in depth version, and even the CPAC version, with Rush dressed up and looking like a low rent stripper joint manager (thanks again, Mr. Letterman, for that perfect observation.) You can try to nuance it all you like. In fact I saw some dick on some video saying it this way."Do I want socialism to fail?" And to dickheads who think and or say that, I say as follows:
No dickhead. That was not the question put to you. That is not nor has it ever been the question. The question is do you want the current POTUS to fail at his job, which is leading the nation out of the worst economic crisis in many decades. The question is not about ideology, or perceived differences in economic theory. The question goes to the end result of our Nation's (if not the greater world's) economic health. To wish the President to succeed is to wish that he makes life better for the Nation, and that means all of us, damnit. People who say otherwise are dogmatic demagogues, more concerned with some ideological ideal than the actual well being of the Nation.
Let me make a point of comparison. For the most part, I could not stand Bush, from before he became POTUS. I was particularly livid about his plan to invade Iraq. I was incensed that he actually did it. I thought the plan was criminally stupid. I wish I could go back in time or otherwise make it so that the Iraq war never happened. If I could snap my fingers and undo it all, reset the clock to October of 2002, and prevent the Iraq Resolution from passing, I gladly would. I would rather see things be much the same in Iraq as they were in October 2002 than how they currently are, if I had the power to choose.
Let me stop there. I get fired up if I think too long and hard about that stuff. Point is, that even as little faith I had in the mission, I did repeatedly say words to the following effect:
Yes, I think the war is wrong, and I wish it never happened, but I would rather see the whole nation of Iraq turn into the most peaceful place on the planet overnight, even if that means Bush gets credit, rather than to see it go up in smoke (I just can't imagine a real success there.)
Hell, back when I was actively fighting right wingers on the Hannity Message Board, I was on the end of repeated attempts to take me to task for not actively being optimistic about the chance of success. Let me be clear. I was not actively wishing for failure, not was it that I was being mistaken for that. The attempt was to chastise me for not actively wishing that against the odds, the thousands of years of history in that region, and the stupefying incompetence of the political leadership in the Bush Administration, that by magic, the Iraq invasion would succeed.
Well, what happened to that kind of wish it were so, make it so, right winger Magical Thinking? I suspect that it has not gone away, we are just seeing the negative side of it. So why do so many right wingers care even less about America than I do about Iraq? And honestly, I really do not give much of a shit about the future of Iraq, I say as a point of calibration. So can you see the point I am making there? I never actively wished for Bush to fail at the mission. I just considered him to be no smarter than a bucket full of snot for thinking the mission could succeed to a level that would justify even a nominal expense in blood or treasure. I was not wishing for the bad outcome; I just saw it as inevitable.
Wow. I went long on that tangent. But the point is perhaps a good one to make. People who are actively wishing for President Obama to fail are in fact wishing for the Nation's economy to fail. And that is the same as wishing for the Nation itself to fail. There is no getting around that, if they are being honest.
Add to Technorati Favorites