Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
ROMNEY REJECTED!!!
Houston, the ego has landed
crash landed that is.
If 2012 was the end of an error, it was Romney's error and the Republicans' error and although it won't be the end of their policy of taking us for idiots in order to take us to the cleaners, at least we won't have to listen to the nasty pastors predicting Antichrists and Apocalypses and the rest of their superstitious idiocies for a few hours. We will get a rest from scurrilous fake economists telling us how tax cuts make us rich and pay our bills. We'll have a few minutes peace from being told that Obama is responsible for the disaster that occurred before he was elected, for raising gas prices and all of those brainless and fraudulent claims that even the most idiotic and uninformed partisan has to strain to believe. We won't have to look at Mutt's Botoxed and whitewashed face or listen to his ever shifting spectrum of lies and distortions and calumnies and complaints. At least for a while. They'll be back trying to bring down America within a day or so, or maybe sooner, like hyenas on a gazelle. They'll be back to make up ever more bizarre legends, ever more nonsense stories to fool the ignorant and bigoted and all designed for the benefit of a handful of people.
And we'll see them again in 2016, yapping about flag pins and the size of the flags on campaign jets and how the Democratic candidate eats Christian babies and was born on Mars and is financed by Commies from Kyrgyzstan, but their days do have a number as the population grows more diverse and younger, and angry, Bigoted, Southern white men go to sleep with their ancestors and their grandaughters date dark skinned men and have children more likely to piss on their Confederate ashes than to admire them.
Romney lost and he deserved to lose and the people who financed him and used him as a megaphone for their hate filled propaganda deserved to lose and to quote a favorite chant of that androgynous and whining witch Anthrax Coulter:
"As We Stand Here Before You Today": November 6th, 2012
"As I stand here before you today" is my favorite hackneyed political trope -- thus the post's title.
Well, as I sit here and type before you today, the nation is adjudicating the contentious case of Barrack H. Obumuh versus Willard Mittens (R)-Money the Eighteenth. Who is to win, and who to lose? Gagner ou ne pas gagner? C'est la la question.
This large carnivorous dinosaur has snarled with sufficient intensity at Nate Silver on location at the NYT to bring the odds up to a whopping 90.9 per cent -- 90.9 per cent odds, that is, in favor of a relatively narrow victory for the president in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Here's hoping he doesn't change them now that I've gone home to await the results. You never know about that Nate -- statistics and numbers, you know. Even the most terrifying dinosaur has only limited powers over statistics and arithmetics. And frankly, I'm seldom granted more than "mildly disquieting" status, so....
Thanks to all who have participated in the process, either helping out at polling stations, donating money, or just plain voting. All of it is important, and part of the civic life of the country. Thanks in advance to the candidates for "putting themselves out there," however much or little we may agree with some of them. It's exhausting to run for office these days, and it takes a good deal of commitment and sacrifice of one's privacy and even, at times, one's personal dignity -- something I think all sides should be able to agree on. We will all see the results soon, and then, as the Shakespeare line goes, "the end is known."
Well, as I sit here and type before you today, the nation is adjudicating the contentious case of Barrack H. Obumuh versus Willard Mittens (R)-Money the Eighteenth. Who is to win, and who to lose? Gagner ou ne pas gagner? C'est la la question.
This large carnivorous dinosaur has snarled with sufficient intensity at Nate Silver on location at the NYT to bring the odds up to a whopping 90.9 per cent -- 90.9 per cent odds, that is, in favor of a relatively narrow victory for the president in both the electoral college and the popular vote. Here's hoping he doesn't change them now that I've gone home to await the results. You never know about that Nate -- statistics and numbers, you know. Even the most terrifying dinosaur has only limited powers over statistics and arithmetics. And frankly, I'm seldom granted more than "mildly disquieting" status, so....
Thanks to all who have participated in the process, either helping out at polling stations, donating money, or just plain voting. All of it is important, and part of the civic life of the country. Thanks in advance to the candidates for "putting themselves out there," however much or little we may agree with some of them. It's exhausting to run for office these days, and it takes a good deal of commitment and sacrifice of one's privacy and even, at times, one's personal dignity -- something I think all sides should be able to agree on. We will all see the results soon, and then, as the Shakespeare line goes, "the end is known."
It's just a thought
What can you say about a man who holds down weaker students and cuts their hair off? Is it just schoolboy pranks, or evidence of a something else?
"Impersonating a police officer," incidentally, is only a misdemeanor. But why would somebody do that? Do they just like having power over other people?
What kind of person would think it's funny to have kids smell a dish of butter and then push their faces into it? And then do it again, years later, on their grandchildren?
What does it say about somebody who'd strap a dog in a carrier on the roof of a car? Is that animal abuse? (By the way, it's interesting that somebody might claim that the carrier was air-tight. Even assuming that the dog could breath, it obviously wasn't fecal-tight...)
What kind of person "likes to be able to fire people"?
I'm not suggesting that such a person would be anything more than a bully. But it might be enlightening to dig around the grounds of the Romney family home in Michigan. You know, just to see how many small animals have been buried there over the last 65 years or so.
"Impersonating a police officer," incidentally, is only a misdemeanor. But why would somebody do that? Do they just like having power over other people?
What kind of person would think it's funny to have kids smell a dish of butter and then push their faces into it? And then do it again, years later, on their grandchildren?
What does it say about somebody who'd strap a dog in a carrier on the roof of a car? Is that animal abuse? (By the way, it's interesting that somebody might claim that the carrier was air-tight. Even assuming that the dog could breath, it obviously wasn't fecal-tight...)
What kind of person "likes to be able to fire people"?
I'm not suggesting that such a person would be anything more than a bully. But it might be enlightening to dig around the grounds of the Romney family home in Michigan. You know, just to see how many small animals have been buried there over the last 65 years or so.
Monday, November 5, 2012
How the World Views the U.S. Election
According to the Winn-Gallop International Global Poll, Obama beats Romney globally by a landslide despite a close race at home. Here are the stats:
For the best possible electoral outcome, perhaps we should import more voters from abroad or ... outsource the election. Interesting to note, the spectrum of American opinion more closely resembles those of Pakistan in terms of partisan preference (and I hope no Pakistanis feel offended).
81% global support for Obama,
19% global support for Romney
For the best possible electoral outcome, perhaps we should import more voters from abroad or ... outsource the election. Interesting to note, the spectrum of American opinion more closely resembles those of Pakistan in terms of partisan preference (and I hope no Pakistanis feel offended).
It's all over but the eschatology
There's a point beyond which I can no longer pretend to be an
open-minded or fair-minded person disposed to find reason in others'
opinions, or at least to try to be tolerant of them. I think I reached
it today, shortly after a flurry of last minute political calls from (
supposedly illegal) robots delivering diatribes from Ann Coulter, Allen
West and the NRA. Gungrabber Obama? War Hero West? Seriously? Am I listed as Hatch, Booby in the phone book?
In another venue I joked today about inventing a Taserphone that one could use to zap annoying, if not felonious and even treasonous callers like these, but honestly that's only an attempt to cover up, to add mirth to the boiling volcanic eruption of rage that's been keeping me up nights; has been filling my dreams with violence and wondering if I really have enough ammunition in the house. I also joked about watching the election returns from my boat so that if things go all to hell, I could be in international waters within half an hour and in the Bahamas in three. But that would not be to protect me, it would be to protect others from a large, rude, green hulk stomping toward Washington in an uncontrollable rage.
But really, the level of criminal indecency to which the Republican Party has descended should sponsor far more rage than even this half mad writer can feel. If it had come all at once rather than incrementally over a period of years, I'm sure there truly would have been blood in the streets. Had we not had a multi-billion dollar industry soothing and rationalizing and reinterpreting the rape of reason and the murder of truth and the deportation of ethics, Republicans would have had to flee the country for their lives a decade ago, if not sooner. But as it is, stories like this one about an Arizona non-profit laundering eleven million for the GOP which may be a true drop in the bottomless bucket of corporate money, offshore money and other somewhat less than sanitary money being used for things like starving public education, sure, but perhaps the straw that broke this old back. As God knows, and has the GOP has stressed, an educated public is a "brainwashed" public, an 'elitist' and snobbish public less likely to buy into the raging idiocy they sell. So education is another beast the Tea Terrorists, the bar room brown shirts and the ruthless pirates of industry need to starve.
Will all these crimes ever be punished? Not likely, no matter which candidate wins and if someone is prosecuted, their soulless, corpse eating associates will manage to make it seem all political and public opinion will turn against that damned liberal press all the more.
I'm
not ready to say "you can't win" or that it's all lost, but I'm afraid
it's none the less true. Our debt problem isn't going to be repaired no
matter who wins. Obama or the Mutt, even if all spending were to
cease, it may take a lifetime for the debt to go away, unless it's
through massive inflation we haven't seen the likes of in our own
history. Think Zimbabwe, think Weimar Republic, think third world
America. My biggest worry isn't about the post-prosperous America, it's
about the post-Liberal America; an oligarchy of entities deriving their
power not from the consent of the governed, but of global financial
interests, of religious demagogues and corporate feudal lords.
So no, I'll likely watch the circus from the local Democratic headquarters, at least until it gets late, but win or lose, the difference is, I fear only in the nearness to the abyss toward which we're inexorably headed and no, I'll probably not push those throttles forward and head for West End, no matter who wins Tuesday night, but I'm sure as hell not going down without a fight or go gentle into any Goddamned Republican night.
In another venue I joked today about inventing a Taserphone that one could use to zap annoying, if not felonious and even treasonous callers like these, but honestly that's only an attempt to cover up, to add mirth to the boiling volcanic eruption of rage that's been keeping me up nights; has been filling my dreams with violence and wondering if I really have enough ammunition in the house. I also joked about watching the election returns from my boat so that if things go all to hell, I could be in international waters within half an hour and in the Bahamas in three. But that would not be to protect me, it would be to protect others from a large, rude, green hulk stomping toward Washington in an uncontrollable rage.
But really, the level of criminal indecency to which the Republican Party has descended should sponsor far more rage than even this half mad writer can feel. If it had come all at once rather than incrementally over a period of years, I'm sure there truly would have been blood in the streets. Had we not had a multi-billion dollar industry soothing and rationalizing and reinterpreting the rape of reason and the murder of truth and the deportation of ethics, Republicans would have had to flee the country for their lives a decade ago, if not sooner. But as it is, stories like this one about an Arizona non-profit laundering eleven million for the GOP which may be a true drop in the bottomless bucket of corporate money, offshore money and other somewhat less than sanitary money being used for things like starving public education, sure, but perhaps the straw that broke this old back. As God knows, and has the GOP has stressed, an educated public is a "brainwashed" public, an 'elitist' and snobbish public less likely to buy into the raging idiocy they sell. So education is another beast the Tea Terrorists, the bar room brown shirts and the ruthless pirates of industry need to starve.
Will all these crimes ever be punished? Not likely, no matter which candidate wins and if someone is prosecuted, their soulless, corpse eating associates will manage to make it seem all political and public opinion will turn against that damned liberal press all the more.
So no, I'll likely watch the circus from the local Democratic headquarters, at least until it gets late, but win or lose, the difference is, I fear only in the nearness to the abyss toward which we're inexorably headed and no, I'll probably not push those throttles forward and head for West End, no matter who wins Tuesday night, but I'm sure as hell not going down without a fight or go gentle into any Goddamned Republican night.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Abort! Abort!
I've worked various election campaigns, and phone-banking is one of the most depressing, soul-grinding things you can do. Important, but sweet baby Jesus, you get to hear from all the losers, idiots and, worse, the one-issue voters.
Yes, they're out there. We could be emerging from the rubble of a GOP-led recession, the challenger could be saber-rattling for a third war in the Middle East and trying to set up robber barons for another Gilded Age, and you'd still have people on the phones listening to babbling lunatics explain how they could never vote for the Negro Abortionist.
Well, if there's people out there fixating on one subject, let's look at that subject for a moment, shall we?
(If you know anybody doing phone-banking in these waning days of the campaign, feel free to share this with them. You don't even need to give me credit for it. I'll be honest. It won't help: one-issue voters are not changing their minds, regardless of how many facts you run past them. But, well... at least you'll feel better.)
Barack Obama has been reliably pro-choice his entire career. This is not under dispute. But despite what many on the right like to claim, he is not a "radical abortionist."
While he did vote against bills to prevent "sex-selection" abortion and various bills which claimed to protect infants born alive due to failed abortions, but not due to some radical agenda. All were introduced by radical anti-abortionists, and all were so general that they could be twisted by political activists to begin the process of making all abortions illegal. Plus, the "failed abortion" acts were redundant even before they were written: Illinois law already protects an aborted fetus which turns out to be born alive.
But if you think that a vote for Romney is a "pro-life" vote, then, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
Because the truth of the matter is, nobody (probably not even Mitt Romney) knows what Romney's personal feelings are on abortion. Just looking at the evidence, his political advisers have determined that it would be best for his campaign if he was pro-life. But the people who know him give the impression that he isn't so much "pro-choice" as "uncaring." This isn't really a subject he feels like addressing.
But there's nothing here that qualifies as evidence. So, to determine the truth, we have to look at his record, and consider what Mitt Romney has actually done.
That, however, is also a mistake. Because the only conclusion to be drawn from history is that Mittens will say anything and do anything if he believes it is politically expedient.
In 1994, debating Teddy Kennedy, Romney said that he supported Roe vs Wade. Kennedy responded "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice," leading Romney to tell a heartwarming story of a close relative named Ann Keenan.
In 2002, debating gubernatorial opponent Shannon O'Brien, he added "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."
But in 2005, as governor, Romney vetoed a law which would ease access to emergency contraception. He explained through an Op-Ed in the Boston Globe, where he said he was "pro-life" and opposed any "judicial mandate" that dictated a nationwide abortion law, arguing instead that the issue should be left up to the states.
"I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," Romney wrote. "I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." Romney said he would uphold his campaign promise not to change Massachusetts' abortion laws, even though that campaign pledge was preceded by Romney's statement that he would "protect a woman's right to chose."
Then, during his first presidential bid in 2007, Romney explained that he had "changed my mind" on abortion while serving his one term as Massachusetts governor, and that "we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states." He also said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill as president that would outlaw abortion, if there "was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period."
(He even had a cute little explanation, about how Reagan and both Bushes had started out pro-choice, and changed to become pro-life. Like so many of Romney's stories, it was a lie. But even though he was called out on it, he used it again a few years later.)
Still with me?
From 2005 to 2011, Romney consistently said that he was "pro-life" and believes abortion should be legal only in the case "of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." That may be the longest stretch he ever went without reversing himself.
During the Republican primary last year, Romney expanded that view to explain how he believed he should cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe v. Wade "because it is bad law and bad medicine," and end funding for any international aid program that "promotes or performs abortions on women around the world."
But remember: he won't force his beliefs on other people.
He wrote it out for us in a National Review Op-Ed in June 2011. "If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation's next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America." Apparently, one of his advisers thought he needed to take a hard right tack.
Having said repeatedly that abortion laws should be left up to the states, in October 2011 he went on Fox "News" and told Mike Huckabee that he "absolutely" supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.
But now, less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney is casually trying to amble back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register last month that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." (It comes about 14 minutes into the audio of the interview.)
Funny, because in his National Review Op-Ed, he named three specific pieces of legislation he supported: "I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions... I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy (to bar foreign aid from abortion providers)... I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children..."
But hell, his friends, family and coworkers are just as confused about Romney's position as Romney is. After he spoke to the Des Moines Register, Romney's spokesperson, Andrea Saul was quick to contradict her candidate, saying "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president."
On the other hand, his sister Jane, back in August (you remember August, right? Her brother was "severely conservative" back then...), said that any fear that Romney would restrict abortion was "conjured," and that "it's not his focus."
At a "Women for Mitt" event held in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in Tampa, she said "He's not going to be touching any of that... Mitt's much more in the middle" than even the GOP platform (which supports several anti-abortion initiatives and a "Right to Life" amendment with no exceptions for rape or incest).
Romney's surrogate, former Senator Norm Coleman, seems to agree with Jane, saying in Ohio last week, "President Bush was president for eight years, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. He had two Supreme Court picks, Roe v. Wade wasn't reversed. It's not going to be reversed."
And then we have that last debate with Obama, where Romney went even further left, saying Obama was "totally wrong" about him wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood.
Of course, he was also trying to blame gun violence on single mothers (presumably women who had escaped his binders), so perhaps he was just having an off night.
It's funny, isn't it? Romney's positions on abortion seem to change whenever there's an election nearby, and what position would be most popular with the people voting in that election. That's kind of weird. You have to wonder - is he a vacillating bag of douche, or a cynical, calculating fucknozzle?
Personally, I vote for the second one.
Yes, they're out there. We could be emerging from the rubble of a GOP-led recession, the challenger could be saber-rattling for a third war in the Middle East and trying to set up robber barons for another Gilded Age, and you'd still have people on the phones listening to babbling lunatics explain how they could never vote for the Negro Abortionist.
Well, if there's people out there fixating on one subject, let's look at that subject for a moment, shall we?
Barack Obama has been reliably pro-choice his entire career. This is not under dispute. But despite what many on the right like to claim, he is not a "radical abortionist."
While he did vote against bills to prevent "sex-selection" abortion and various bills which claimed to protect infants born alive due to failed abortions, but not due to some radical agenda. All were introduced by radical anti-abortionists, and all were so general that they could be twisted by political activists to begin the process of making all abortions illegal. Plus, the "failed abortion" acts were redundant even before they were written: Illinois law already protects an aborted fetus which turns out to be born alive.
But if you think that a vote for Romney is a "pro-life" vote, then, I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.
Because the truth of the matter is, nobody (probably not even Mitt Romney) knows what Romney's personal feelings are on abortion. Just looking at the evidence, his political advisers have determined that it would be best for his campaign if he was pro-life. But the people who know him give the impression that he isn't so much "pro-choice" as "uncaring." This isn't really a subject he feels like addressing.
But there's nothing here that qualifies as evidence. So, to determine the truth, we have to look at his record, and consider what Mitt Romney has actually done.
That, however, is also a mistake. Because the only conclusion to be drawn from history is that Mittens will say anything and do anything if he believes it is politically expedient.
In 1994, debating Teddy Kennedy, Romney said that he supported Roe vs Wade. Kennedy responded "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple choice," leading Romney to tell a heartwarming story of a close relative named Ann Keenan.
"I have my own beliefs, and those beliefs are very dear to me. One of them is that I do not impose my beliefs on other people. Many, many years ago, I had a dear, close family relative that was very close to me who passed away from an illegal abortion. It is since that time that my mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter. And you will not see me wavering on that."Look it up. While you do, keep in mind that one joke he made there, that he will "not impose (his) beliefs on other people." (It'll seem funnier later.)
In 2002, debating gubernatorial opponent Shannon O'Brien, he added "I will preserve and protect a woman's right to choose. I am not going to change our pro-choice laws in Massachusetts in any way. I am not going to make any changes which would make it more difficult for a woman to make that choice herself."
"I believe that abortion is the wrong choice except in cases of incest, rape, and to save the life of the mother," Romney wrote. "I believe that the states, through the democratic process, should determine their own abortion laws and not have them dictated by judicial mandate." Romney said he would uphold his campaign promise not to change Massachusetts' abortion laws, even though that campaign pledge was preceded by Romney's statement that he would "protect a woman's right to chose."
Then, during his first presidential bid in 2007, Romney explained that he had "changed my mind" on abortion while serving his one term as Massachusetts governor, and that "we should overturn Roe v. Wade and return these issues to the states." He also said he would be "delighted" to sign a bill as president that would outlaw abortion, if there "was such a consensus in this country that we said we don't want to have abortion in this country at all, period."
From 2005 to 2011, Romney consistently said that he was "pro-life" and believes abortion should be legal only in the case "of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother." That may be the longest stretch he ever went without reversing himself.
During the Republican primary last year, Romney expanded that view to explain how he believed he should cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, reverse Roe v. Wade "because it is bad law and bad medicine," and end funding for any international aid program that "promotes or performs abortions on women around the world."
But remember: he won't force his beliefs on other people.
He wrote it out for us in a National Review Op-Ed in June 2011. "If I have the opportunity to serve as our nation's next president, I commit to doing everything in my power to cultivate, promote, and support a culture of life in America." Apparently, one of his advisers thought he needed to take a hard right tack.
Having said repeatedly that abortion laws should be left up to the states, in October 2011 he went on Fox "News" and told Mike Huckabee that he "absolutely" supports a Constitutional amendment banning abortion.
But now, less than two months after accepting the GOP nomination, Romney is casually trying to amble back toward the center on his abortion stance, telling the Des Moines Register last month that he would not make abortion legislation part of his agenda. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." (It comes about 14 minutes into the audio of the interview.)
Funny, because in his National Review Op-Ed, he named three specific pieces of legislation he supported: "I support the Hyde Amendment, which broadly bars the use of federal funds for abortions... I will reinstate the Mexico City Policy (to bar foreign aid from abortion providers)... I will advocate for and support a Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act to protect unborn children..."
But hell, his friends, family and coworkers are just as confused about Romney's position as Romney is. After he spoke to the Des Moines Register, Romney's spokesperson, Andrea Saul was quick to contradict her candidate, saying "Mitt Romney is proudly pro-life and will be a pro-life president."
At a "Women for Mitt" event held in conjunction with the Republican National Convention in Tampa, she said "He's not going to be touching any of that... Mitt's much more in the middle" than even the GOP platform (which supports several anti-abortion initiatives and a "Right to Life" amendment with no exceptions for rape or incest).
And then we have that last debate with Obama, where Romney went even further left, saying Obama was "totally wrong" about him wanting to shut down Planned Parenthood.
Of course, he was also trying to blame gun violence on single mothers (presumably women who had escaped his binders), so perhaps he was just having an off night.It's funny, isn't it? Romney's positions on abortion seem to change whenever there's an election nearby, and what position would be most popular with the people voting in that election. That's kind of weird. You have to wonder - is he a vacillating bag of douche, or a cynical, calculating fucknozzle?
Personally, I vote for the second one.
Friday, November 2, 2012
Hate is in the blood, says Lyin' Bill
So lyin' Bill is still at it. I don't go looking for his wisdom any
more than I go around opening manhole covers looking for a pleasant
smell, but sometimes you just stumble into it - like you might step into
some dog shit on the sidewalk. Anyway, here we have him again
running his foul mouth for his foul audience hoping to promote evil and
ugliness and hate wherever he can -- and get rich from doing it.
So Barack Obama hates half the country, says O'Reilly -- the white half, of course, because even though the only family he ever knew was white, he must hate white people because he's black -- even though he's every bit as white as he is black, unless of course, the old Confederate, Secessionist USA hating bigots like Lyin' Bill are right that one drop of "black" blood means you're black and inferior. Old Confederate, Secessionist bigots like Lyin' Bill must think that "black blood" is mighty powerful stuff though, if one drop of it can pollute an ocean of whiteness and all the superiority it conveys. Lyin' Bill must believe in "black power!" Whattaya know!
But Dennis Miller, that other Fox bastard who, back when he was funny and before he sold his soul for a buck thirty seven used to try to impress us all with his brilliance and erudition and vocabulary, is reduced to making a living with pusillanimous persiflage for the amusement of the stupidest fraction of mediocre American minds by bantering with Bill, would none the less opine that he seeth not the anger of blackness but the haughtiness of the educated. Fox and grapes, Dennis? Nobody thinks you're smart or funny any more.
So they're back to this -- still at this, since every factual-seeming accusation has been erased like grafitti under the blast from a power washer. The fake numbers, the fake stories, the false identification with George Bush's blunders misdeeds, blunders and frauds -- it all has a shelf life and perhaps the lies have gone past it and are beginning to spoil and so it's back to racists and Bolshevik class warfare: he's a racist, he's a snob, he's consumed with hate (just like us.)
So Barack Obama hates half the country, says O'Reilly -- the white half, of course, because even though the only family he ever knew was white, he must hate white people because he's black -- even though he's every bit as white as he is black, unless of course, the old Confederate, Secessionist USA hating bigots like Lyin' Bill are right that one drop of "black" blood means you're black and inferior. Old Confederate, Secessionist bigots like Lyin' Bill must think that "black blood" is mighty powerful stuff though, if one drop of it can pollute an ocean of whiteness and all the superiority it conveys. Lyin' Bill must believe in "black power!" Whattaya know!
But Dennis Miller, that other Fox bastard who, back when he was funny and before he sold his soul for a buck thirty seven used to try to impress us all with his brilliance and erudition and vocabulary, is reduced to making a living with pusillanimous persiflage for the amusement of the stupidest fraction of mediocre American minds by bantering with Bill, would none the less opine that he seeth not the anger of blackness but the haughtiness of the educated. Fox and grapes, Dennis? Nobody thinks you're smart or funny any more.
So they're back to this -- still at this, since every factual-seeming accusation has been erased like grafitti under the blast from a power washer. The fake numbers, the fake stories, the false identification with George Bush's blunders misdeeds, blunders and frauds -- it all has a shelf life and perhaps the lies have gone past it and are beginning to spoil and so it's back to racists and Bolshevik class warfare: he's a racist, he's a snob, he's consumed with hate (just like us.)
Like we didn't all know that?
No shit! Now say that with as much condescending and snarky
cynicism as you can manage and yet it won't be enough to fit the
circumstance. You see, the central tenet of Republican politics has
been the idea that cutting the tax rates for the very wealthy will spur
the economy and yet, as far as I can tell the evidence for that has been
the repetition of the formula in very stentorian and hortatory tones.
In fact all the evidence I can see, and many economists agree, suggest
that quite the opposite is true and reduced sufficiently, the economy
will at first experience soaring markets and catastrophic busts and
recessions. And of course we've seen some very prosperous times with
90% tax brackets for earned income and much higher rates on Capital
gains. One can argue all day about what should happen according to one
hypotheses or conjecture, but of course most people have learned in the
last half millennium that the outcome of experiment, of experience
counts more than dialectic and endless repetitions of doctrine. It
wasn't politics that settled the question of how fast things would fall
after all.
But it seems to be politics that has to decide for all time whether the very wealthy are "job creators" who will create more and better jobs if they have sufficient capital, because experience shows otherwise. The numbers history gives us show otherwise and like so many battles involving politics and religion, those made powerful through those things have to resort to things other than honest numbers. The other lesson of history is that denial, anger and retribution are the responses of religious and political power, threatened by strongly supported truth.
So you're not going to be surprised to hear that a report by the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress argues that the foundations of the Republican edifice are as solid as Lamarkian evolution, an Apache rain dance or the Heliocentric universe. Actually they've been far easier to refute. Supply side economics is a crock. No shit! Is this the first time you've bothered to seek confirmation of that whackadoodle gospel? Didja examine entrails, consult the oracle, sacrifice a goat? Well you know about those first stages of grief. Denial and anger, right? So withdraw the research and repeat the catechism sirs -- and do it loud!
But it seems to be politics that has to decide for all time whether the very wealthy are "job creators" who will create more and better jobs if they have sufficient capital, because experience shows otherwise. The numbers history gives us show otherwise and like so many battles involving politics and religion, those made powerful through those things have to resort to things other than honest numbers. The other lesson of history is that denial, anger and retribution are the responses of religious and political power, threatened by strongly supported truth.
So you're not going to be surprised to hear that a report by the research service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress argues that the foundations of the Republican edifice are as solid as Lamarkian evolution, an Apache rain dance or the Heliocentric universe. Actually they've been far easier to refute. Supply side economics is a crock. No shit! Is this the first time you've bothered to seek confirmation of that whackadoodle gospel? Didja examine entrails, consult the oracle, sacrifice a goat? Well you know about those first stages of grief. Denial and anger, right? So withdraw the research and repeat the catechism sirs -- and do it loud!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
It was the end of times, it was the beginning of times
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)