This link demonstrates the illiteracy of the Teabagger Nation.
http://moronswithsigns.blogspot.com/
Monday, September 21, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
OW. Ow ow ow.
Check out this opinion piece. It's brutal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/15/europe-us-healthcare-economy
Here's a line from it: "Europeans simply don't understand how a wealthy United States could remain the last advanced nation that does not have universal healthcare."
I understand how. It's the right-wing noise machine that's a paid subsidiary of corporate America. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have tons of money, and they've paid off politicians and set up astroturf organizations. Right-wing talk show hosts chime in, and presto! You've got politicians who have been bought off who "allow" themselves to be influenced by moron teabaggers who will hold signs for free. Does anyone honestly think that if money was flowing in the opposite direction, that the Teabaggers would have any kind of pull at all? Please.
You want to understand how a wealthy United States doesn't have healthcare? Ask yourself two words: cui bono? Who benefits? It's sure not the people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/sep/15/europe-us-healthcare-economy
Here's a line from it: "Europeans simply don't understand how a wealthy United States could remain the last advanced nation that does not have universal healthcare."
I understand how. It's the right-wing noise machine that's a paid subsidiary of corporate America. The insurance and pharmaceutical industries have tons of money, and they've paid off politicians and set up astroturf organizations. Right-wing talk show hosts chime in, and presto! You've got politicians who have been bought off who "allow" themselves to be influenced by moron teabaggers who will hold signs for free. Does anyone honestly think that if money was flowing in the opposite direction, that the Teabaggers would have any kind of pull at all? Please.
You want to understand how a wealthy United States doesn't have healthcare? Ask yourself two words: cui bono? Who benefits? It's sure not the people.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Not only illiterate... teabaggers can't count, either.
The Washington, D.C. 9.12 rally was held last weekend. Now, I'm going to briefly drop a little satire down on it. President Kennedy, when hosting a group of Nobel Prize-winners at the White House, said that his guests were the most distinguished gathering of intellects ever to have dined at the White House - "with the possible exception of when Mr. Jefferson dined here alone." Well, last weekend was the greatest concentration of stupidity ever to have walked the National Mall, with the possible exception of when Michele Bachmann took a stroll alone.
Of course, the stupidity wasn't limited to the event alone. You can't have a large gathering of stupidity without post-stupidity stupidity, and the right-wing babbling heads are chiming in. It's about numbers. The Washington, D.C. Fire Department estimated the crowd at somewhere between 60,000 to 75,000. That number wasn't enough for the Teabaggers. Their heroes had to start inflating the numbers. First, there's Glenn Beck:
BECK: We had a, we had a, we had a, we had a, u-, university, I think it's the University of - I, I, I, I don't remember which university it is. Um, look at the pictures, and you know, they can do body space, calculate, 1.7 million, that crowd was estimated.
HOST: In Washington?
BECK: In Washington, D.C.
HOST: Wow. 'Cause we were saying tens of thousands.
BECK: Oh, of course everybody was saying tens of thousands, 'cause that's the official report. If you look at the pictures, university looked at it, did the body count, etc., etc., 1.7 million.
That's right: the Washington, D.C. Fire Department, whose job it is to estimate crowds in case of emergency, said the crowd was 60-75 thousand. In the meantime, the University of I Can't Remember did some magic video thingee and WOW! 1.7 million! So which number do you think the teabaggers will buy? I'm guessing that they will claim 1.7 million, unless they listen to Rush Limbaugh, who rounded the figure up to 2 million. What's 300,000 people, after all? And Limbaugh claims they left the place clean as a whistle. Does this look like it?
And you have to love the respect for the flag shown here (check out the bottom of the picture):
Not to mention what the sign said. Apparently, now, "Glen" Beck and FoxNews are just as important as our veterans.
Anyhow, back to the original point of the post: Teabagger math. Somehow, they've managed to turn 75,000 into 2 million. Talk about exaggeration. You'd think they could limit themselves to just one order of magnitude. Rush Limbaugh's number was in excess of the DCFD's estimated by 1.925 million. Think about this:
That exaggeration is greater than the population of 14 different states: West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, or Wyoming (2008 census data). The biggest football stadium in the United States is Penn State's, with a capacity of 107,282. You'd have to fill that stadium just about 18 times to get Rush's exaggeration. That exaggeration is greater than the metro area populations of Las Vegas, San Jose/Santa Clara, Columbus OH, Indianapolis, Providence, Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Jacksonville, Memphis, Louisville, Richmond, Hartford, Oklahoma City, Buffalo, Birmingham, Salt Lake City, Rochester, or New Orleans.
By the way... the Latin stands for "Pulling facts out of your ---."
P.S. Now I have photographic evidence!! For comparison's sake, here's President Obama's inauguration. 1.8 million:
See all the people? Going waaaaay back to the Washington Monument and filling all the available space? That's 1.8 million. Now, check out the Teabagger "2 million":
What I'm for.
I've spent some time already talking in very harsh terms about Glenn Beck and his Army O' Teabaggers. I think, though, that I should spend a little time talking about what I'd like to see done with the country. After all, a very valid criticism of the Republican Party and its associated loonies is that they don't have any ideas - that they are the Party of No. You could call them the G-No-P - the Grand "No" Party. Because of this, I feel it's incumbent upon me to outline some of the things that I'm for, rather than spending all my time railing about things I'm against. Just off the top of my head, there are several things I can mention. These aren't in any particular order; I think that each of these is needed.
First, I think that some things really need to be done regarding taxes. For one thing, get rid of the Bush tax cuts. That tax rate didn't stop the economy from being extremely strong during the Clinton years. Remember when we actually had a budget surplus? Reducing tax rates has allowed the rich to concentrate wealth to an incredible degree. Reagan was where this all started - and from 1979 to 2004, the top 1% went from controlling 20% of the wealth in this country to controlling 34%. When money flows upstairs, it doesn't trickle back down. I mean, that should be fairly obvious; if trickle-down actually occurred, surely you wouldn't have seen this kind of growth in wealth concentration. This isn't a good thing. This means that 99% of the country went from having 80% of the pie to having 66%. In other words, except for the top 1%, we've all got less. Therefore, I think we need to reverse the wealth redistribution that's happened since Reagan. Yes, I said wealth redistribution. It's been redistributed upwards to the top 1%. I think the rest of us ought to take steps to get it back. I call this wealth restoration. We need to restore the wealth to the middle class that's been redistributed to the rich by Republican policies. When you take wealth out of a society in this fashion, you limit social mobility... and social mobility is basically what people mean when they talk about the "American Dream." Wealth distribution is not a Communist or Socialist idea; it's been around a lot longer than either of those philosophies. It was a Roman practice. Jesus endorsed it. Sir Francis Bacon wrote "Above all things good policy is to be used that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like muck, not good except it be spread."
Second, we absolutely have to do something to restore our manufacturing base. We aren't a country that produces things, at all. I view this as a national security issue. It wasn't military brilliance that won the Civil War. It was the North's manufacturing base. Same thing applies for the United States and WWII. With the entire country geared for war, we had an absolutely incredible manufacturing base. We had tanks and ships rolling off the line like crazy. That's how we buried Germany and Japan and actually won a two-front war on both fronts; not with tactics, but with materials. There's no way in the world we could replicate that now. Additionally, these kinds of manufacturing plants produce generational jobs. People go to work for the plant in town for 40 years after high school. That was the option that the "Greatest Generation" had. This generation, and the last generation, didn't really have it.
And it's been management that has been the problem. I find it really ironic that Republicans spend so much time talking about how much better the private market is at anything/everything than government, because in the name of Profit, the manufacturing base of the country has wasted away. The private market's solution has been "buy cheap crap from China." Outsourcing has been going on for a long time; it's only been the past few years when a name has been applied to it. Manufacturing has been outsourced for decades, and it's put us in the unenviable position of going from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. Believe me: it's all been in the name of Profit, and the bean-counters and management have been the source of this. There's no loyalty to employees or communities or the nation, only to the bottom line. Republicans complain about the Post Office and cite it as a model of inefficiency. Well, if the Post Office was privately owned nowadays, our stamps would be made in China for 2¢ and cost $2, there would be illegal immigrants doing the heavy lifting in the back of every Post Office, every vehicle would be a Hyundai, and you'd be able to track your mail by calling someone in India, for a fee. Oh yeah, and the Postmaster General would make $500M a year and everyone you actually saw in the office would make minimum wage and no benefits.
Third, we absolutely have to do something about the education system in this country. The first step to this is abolishing No Child Left Behind. It's becoming pretty clear that school is becoming all about preparing for tests, which works very well for the testing industry. You'd better believe there's a testing industry; they're the ones who have made colleges feel that the SATs are indispensable, when in reality, they're not a reliable predictor of success in college. However, NCLB doesn't work for the students. They're great at taking a multiple choice test, but other skills are suffering. It's also a strictly punitive measure for educators. It sets a goal that is impossible for today's system by expecting the same results from every school system. As so much school funding is locally based, richer districts get more funding that poorer ones, but the same things are expected from schools that have less funding, less materials, and don't get to recruit the best teachers with pay. NCLB has not managed to quantify what makes a good teacher. It simply manages to select teachers that teach to the test. Now, let me be clear: I don't mind a little standardized testing - it can manage to spotlight classrooms that are in bad shape. Sometimes that is the teacher's fault, sometimes not. However, the assumption with NCLB is that it's automatically the teacher's fault, and that's just not the case all the time.
If you want to improve the quality of teachers, there's a very simple solution: pay them more. I remain constantly surprised that Republicans are all about free market principles, but one of the biggest principles is that you have to pay for talent, and they want to ignore that in education. Why does anyone suffer through the abject misery of medical school or law school, and internships/associateships that make them work absolutely ridiculous hours? Because they are in it for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you increase teacher pay, you will have more applicants for teacher ed programs. When you have more applicants, you can become more selective, and you can really ratchet up the rigor of education programs, because people will suffer for a career that pays well. With NCLB, we've tried the stick, and it does not work. Perhaps it's time to try the carrot. We also need some of the type of infrastructure that the legal and medical professions have; e.g., review boards composed of professionals. There should be a minimum teaching requirement for principals and members of school boards (both local and state). Would you allow some moron local politician to have power over your doctor? Then why do you tolerate it for your child's teacher?
Fourth, we need higher expectations from government contractors, and fewer of them. There's a tremendous amount of waste when you look at corporations like Halliburton. Who remembers hearing about $600 screwdrivers and $900 toilet seats back in the years when Reagan was throwing money at defense contractors? Tighten up. Demand market value from contractors, or, alternatively, demand use of American-made products. The former saves money, and the latter creates jobs. And we sure need to stop privatizing ancillary services for the military. You can't tell me that Halliburton does a better job than the US Armed Forces. For one thing, there are accountability issues; put the ancillary services in the chain of command, and the first time a soldier gets electrocuted in the shower, someone's head rolls. For another, if the people in the ancillary services wear the uniform, their loyalty goes to the uniform, and not to profit.
Now, however, I'm tired of writing. I'm going to close, but in the future, I will post more things I'm for. Examples include but aren't limited to: campaign finance reform, re-establishment of the Fairness doctrine, abolishment of corporate "personhood," transparency in government, and more. I consider any and all of these just as important as what I've mentioned - frankly, campaign finance reform and abolishment of corporate "personhood" pretty much trump anything I've mentioned and I will have to devote single posts to each of them. Thanks for reading!
First, I think that some things really need to be done regarding taxes. For one thing, get rid of the Bush tax cuts. That tax rate didn't stop the economy from being extremely strong during the Clinton years. Remember when we actually had a budget surplus? Reducing tax rates has allowed the rich to concentrate wealth to an incredible degree. Reagan was where this all started - and from 1979 to 2004, the top 1% went from controlling 20% of the wealth in this country to controlling 34%. When money flows upstairs, it doesn't trickle back down. I mean, that should be fairly obvious; if trickle-down actually occurred, surely you wouldn't have seen this kind of growth in wealth concentration. This isn't a good thing. This means that 99% of the country went from having 80% of the pie to having 66%. In other words, except for the top 1%, we've all got less. Therefore, I think we need to reverse the wealth redistribution that's happened since Reagan. Yes, I said wealth redistribution. It's been redistributed upwards to the top 1%. I think the rest of us ought to take steps to get it back. I call this wealth restoration. We need to restore the wealth to the middle class that's been redistributed to the rich by Republican policies. When you take wealth out of a society in this fashion, you limit social mobility... and social mobility is basically what people mean when they talk about the "American Dream." Wealth distribution is not a Communist or Socialist idea; it's been around a lot longer than either of those philosophies. It was a Roman practice. Jesus endorsed it. Sir Francis Bacon wrote "Above all things good policy is to be used that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like muck, not good except it be spread."
Second, we absolutely have to do something to restore our manufacturing base. We aren't a country that produces things, at all. I view this as a national security issue. It wasn't military brilliance that won the Civil War. It was the North's manufacturing base. Same thing applies for the United States and WWII. With the entire country geared for war, we had an absolutely incredible manufacturing base. We had tanks and ships rolling off the line like crazy. That's how we buried Germany and Japan and actually won a two-front war on both fronts; not with tactics, but with materials. There's no way in the world we could replicate that now. Additionally, these kinds of manufacturing plants produce generational jobs. People go to work for the plant in town for 40 years after high school. That was the option that the "Greatest Generation" had. This generation, and the last generation, didn't really have it.
And it's been management that has been the problem. I find it really ironic that Republicans spend so much time talking about how much better the private market is at anything/everything than government, because in the name of Profit, the manufacturing base of the country has wasted away. The private market's solution has been "buy cheap crap from China." Outsourcing has been going on for a long time; it's only been the past few years when a name has been applied to it. Manufacturing has been outsourced for decades, and it's put us in the unenviable position of going from the world's greatest creditor nation to the world's greatest debtor nation. Believe me: it's all been in the name of Profit, and the bean-counters and management have been the source of this. There's no loyalty to employees or communities or the nation, only to the bottom line. Republicans complain about the Post Office and cite it as a model of inefficiency. Well, if the Post Office was privately owned nowadays, our stamps would be made in China for 2¢ and cost $2, there would be illegal immigrants doing the heavy lifting in the back of every Post Office, every vehicle would be a Hyundai, and you'd be able to track your mail by calling someone in India, for a fee. Oh yeah, and the Postmaster General would make $500M a year and everyone you actually saw in the office would make minimum wage and no benefits.
Third, we absolutely have to do something about the education system in this country. The first step to this is abolishing No Child Left Behind. It's becoming pretty clear that school is becoming all about preparing for tests, which works very well for the testing industry. You'd better believe there's a testing industry; they're the ones who have made colleges feel that the SATs are indispensable, when in reality, they're not a reliable predictor of success in college. However, NCLB doesn't work for the students. They're great at taking a multiple choice test, but other skills are suffering. It's also a strictly punitive measure for educators. It sets a goal that is impossible for today's system by expecting the same results from every school system. As so much school funding is locally based, richer districts get more funding that poorer ones, but the same things are expected from schools that have less funding, less materials, and don't get to recruit the best teachers with pay. NCLB has not managed to quantify what makes a good teacher. It simply manages to select teachers that teach to the test. Now, let me be clear: I don't mind a little standardized testing - it can manage to spotlight classrooms that are in bad shape. Sometimes that is the teacher's fault, sometimes not. However, the assumption with NCLB is that it's automatically the teacher's fault, and that's just not the case all the time.
If you want to improve the quality of teachers, there's a very simple solution: pay them more. I remain constantly surprised that Republicans are all about free market principles, but one of the biggest principles is that you have to pay for talent, and they want to ignore that in education. Why does anyone suffer through the abject misery of medical school or law school, and internships/associateships that make them work absolutely ridiculous hours? Because they are in it for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. If you increase teacher pay, you will have more applicants for teacher ed programs. When you have more applicants, you can become more selective, and you can really ratchet up the rigor of education programs, because people will suffer for a career that pays well. With NCLB, we've tried the stick, and it does not work. Perhaps it's time to try the carrot. We also need some of the type of infrastructure that the legal and medical professions have; e.g., review boards composed of professionals. There should be a minimum teaching requirement for principals and members of school boards (both local and state). Would you allow some moron local politician to have power over your doctor? Then why do you tolerate it for your child's teacher?
Fourth, we need higher expectations from government contractors, and fewer of them. There's a tremendous amount of waste when you look at corporations like Halliburton. Who remembers hearing about $600 screwdrivers and $900 toilet seats back in the years when Reagan was throwing money at defense contractors? Tighten up. Demand market value from contractors, or, alternatively, demand use of American-made products. The former saves money, and the latter creates jobs. And we sure need to stop privatizing ancillary services for the military. You can't tell me that Halliburton does a better job than the US Armed Forces. For one thing, there are accountability issues; put the ancillary services in the chain of command, and the first time a soldier gets electrocuted in the shower, someone's head rolls. For another, if the people in the ancillary services wear the uniform, their loyalty goes to the uniform, and not to profit.
Now, however, I'm tired of writing. I'm going to close, but in the future, I will post more things I'm for. Examples include but aren't limited to: campaign finance reform, re-establishment of the Fairness doctrine, abolishment of corporate "personhood," transparency in government, and more. I consider any and all of these just as important as what I've mentioned - frankly, campaign finance reform and abolishment of corporate "personhood" pretty much trump anything I've mentioned and I will have to devote single posts to each of them. Thanks for reading!
Monday, September 14, 2009
Conservative Illiteracy
OK, so I saw some pictures of the 9.12 Project rally in Washington, D.C. over the weekend. Now, I distinctly remember watching Glenn Beck say that he wanted the 9.12 Project to get back to that feeling on the day right after 9/11. As you know, loyal reader(s?), I riffed on that one a little bit in a previous post. I was pretty mean to ole Glenn, but he deserved it. He's a jerk. Anyhow, what Glenn meant with his whole schtick was that he supposedly wanted America to feel like one country again. That, at least, has a little validity; liberals and Democrats largely set their differences with President Bush aside and presented a unified country, until he started beating the war drums against Iraq - at which point we knew he was full of it. One more thought, while we're at it: if it had been President Gore in charge when 9/11 happened, do you think Republicans would have rallied behind him? HELL, no. Every moment would have been second-guessed and there would have been 100,000 Republicans on the National Mall holding signs that said "It Was Your Fault!!" This is, of course, theoretical; President Gore almost certainly would have paid attention to the memos, the 9/11 hijackers would have been rounded up and stuck in jail, and no one would have publicized it except perhaps on page 16 of the NYT as "The Attack that Didn't Happen."
So on 9/12, we all came together in support of our country and our President. How does 9.12 stack up to 9/12? Not too well. Do we have that feeling of unification? Hardly. I don't recall any Democrats convening in D.C. with signs that displayed the President with a Hitler mustache, or signs that talked about hating the government, or signs about secession, or any of that crap. Yeah, way to bring that 9/12 spirit back, guys. What was the whole thing about, anyway? It was just one big I-hate-the-government rally. Let's be honest, though: when spending went through the roof, and there was warrantless wiretapping, and a whole new Federal bureaucracy (e.g., Homeland Security Department, still the creepiest Cabinet name ever), today's tighty whitey righties were all loosey-goosey. Oh, they loved it! Homeland Security and wiretapping was a-gonna catch them Ay-rab terrists!! So it's not really about government. It's not about spending - otherwise the stories of Halliburton employees playing touch football using $100 bricks for the football would have made them lose their collective minds. It's not about morals - otherwise, they would have gone bonkers over Abu Ghraib, torture, and the idea that our country has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's about hating the Democrats.
"But Yellow Dawg," you say, "your title is about illiteracy! When are you going to get to that?" Well, I'm just laying some groundwork. This rally - and the outrage behind it - didn't start as a grassroots movement. Every concern noted by Teabaggers was violated by the Bush administration. Corruption? Check. Lying to a joint session of Congress? Check. Outrageous, unreasonable deficit spending? Check. Kill Grandma? Check, if you're Iraqi (but killing brown people doesn't really register with Republicans, does it?). Violating the Constitution? Check. Pandering to special interests? Check. Curbs on personal liberties? One big fat Patriot Act check. Once again, what does this have to do with illiteracy? Patience, dear reader.
If you look at the signs hoisted by the Teabaggers, you see rampant illiteracy. They call others "Morans." They call President Obama a "comunist" or a "terorist." They are all about "capitolism." They'll tell you they're not "raceist." Perhaps they'll mention "Section 110, Artical III" of the Constitution. Some are still complaining about President Obama's "telepromter." And my new personal favorite is the video of the guy who says that immigrants simply must be literate in English while holding a sign that says, "Politicians are like dipers - they must be changed often and for the same reason."
I don't say this just to mock them, although there's plenty of fun to be had there. I say this because I think the illiteracy is symptomatic. I really think that the best way to write well is to do a lot of reading. Well, Teabaggers aren't going to read a lot. After all, newspapers, especially the New York Times, are liberal. Books are for pointy-headed ivory-tower intellectual liberals, unless they're by Hannity, O'Reilly, or Coulter. The point is, I don't think of Teabaggers as readers, at least of anything substantive. It's simply too hard. If you think Presidentin' is hard, try reading. If you don't read much, you inevitably lose spelling and grammatical skills. I think this is what's happened to the Teabaggers. Why read the Bible when Joe Bob Fundamentalist Preacher can yee-hah his way through a sermon for you and tell you what's in it? Why read a book about politics when Glenn Beck is there to tell you about it? And why read a bill when Beck and FoxNews will be happy to "inform" you of its contents? This is why they're so ill-informed. They don't read. They can't research. They don't have critical thinking skills. They have no BS detectors. Their objections come straight from right-wing radio and/or FoxNews. The signs are merely symptomatic: FoxNews reports and decides, the Teabaggers follow, and spell poorly.
So that's it. Before I go, though, I've thought of a new flag that can be hoisted at Teabagger rallies:
So on 9/12, we all came together in support of our country and our President. How does 9.12 stack up to 9/12? Not too well. Do we have that feeling of unification? Hardly. I don't recall any Democrats convening in D.C. with signs that displayed the President with a Hitler mustache, or signs that talked about hating the government, or signs about secession, or any of that crap. Yeah, way to bring that 9/12 spirit back, guys. What was the whole thing about, anyway? It was just one big I-hate-the-government rally. Let's be honest, though: when spending went through the roof, and there was warrantless wiretapping, and a whole new Federal bureaucracy (e.g., Homeland Security Department, still the creepiest Cabinet name ever), today's tighty whitey righties were all loosey-goosey. Oh, they loved it! Homeland Security and wiretapping was a-gonna catch them Ay-rab terrists!! So it's not really about government. It's not about spending - otherwise the stories of Halliburton employees playing touch football using $100 bricks for the football would have made them lose their collective minds. It's not about morals - otherwise, they would have gone bonkers over Abu Ghraib, torture, and the idea that our country has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. It's about hating the Democrats.
"But Yellow Dawg," you say, "your title is about illiteracy! When are you going to get to that?" Well, I'm just laying some groundwork. This rally - and the outrage behind it - didn't start as a grassroots movement. Every concern noted by Teabaggers was violated by the Bush administration. Corruption? Check. Lying to a joint session of Congress? Check. Outrageous, unreasonable deficit spending? Check. Kill Grandma? Check, if you're Iraqi (but killing brown people doesn't really register with Republicans, does it?). Violating the Constitution? Check. Pandering to special interests? Check. Curbs on personal liberties? One big fat Patriot Act check. Once again, what does this have to do with illiteracy? Patience, dear reader.
If you look at the signs hoisted by the Teabaggers, you see rampant illiteracy. They call others "Morans." They call President Obama a "comunist" or a "terorist." They are all about "capitolism." They'll tell you they're not "raceist." Perhaps they'll mention "Section 110, Artical III" of the Constitution. Some are still complaining about President Obama's "telepromter." And my new personal favorite is the video of the guy who says that immigrants simply must be literate in English while holding a sign that says, "Politicians are like dipers - they must be changed often and for the same reason."
I don't say this just to mock them, although there's plenty of fun to be had there. I say this because I think the illiteracy is symptomatic. I really think that the best way to write well is to do a lot of reading. Well, Teabaggers aren't going to read a lot. After all, newspapers, especially the New York Times, are liberal. Books are for pointy-headed ivory-tower intellectual liberals, unless they're by Hannity, O'Reilly, or Coulter. The point is, I don't think of Teabaggers as readers, at least of anything substantive. It's simply too hard. If you think Presidentin' is hard, try reading. If you don't read much, you inevitably lose spelling and grammatical skills. I think this is what's happened to the Teabaggers. Why read the Bible when Joe Bob Fundamentalist Preacher can yee-hah his way through a sermon for you and tell you what's in it? Why read a book about politics when Glenn Beck is there to tell you about it? And why read a bill when Beck and FoxNews will be happy to "inform" you of its contents? This is why they're so ill-informed. They don't read. They can't research. They don't have critical thinking skills. They have no BS detectors. Their objections come straight from right-wing radio and/or FoxNews. The signs are merely symptomatic: FoxNews reports and decides, the Teabaggers follow, and spell poorly.
So that's it. Before I go, though, I've thought of a new flag that can be hoisted at Teabagger rallies:
Friday, September 11, 2009
Tea Party people. To paraphrase Darth Vader: the Stupid is strong in these ones.
Note: I will probably never put up 3 posts in one day again, but I wrote this a couple of days ago, sent it to a couple of friends, and they said I should put it up in a blog. So here goes. The context of this is my frustration over the ridiculous flap about President Obama speaking to public schools.
This one's all rant.
You know, I thought the whole "Obama pals around with domestic terrorists" thing was stupid. I thought that was about as stupid as a certain segment of this country could get. Then that same segment started calling themselves "teabaggers," which was even stupider. I didn't think it could get any stupider than that. Then, they bought into Orly Taitz's fake birth certificate, which was even stupider. Then came the "death panels," which was even stupider than that. Like any member of Congress would actually write something like that into law. "Hmm, now how can I commit career suicide? Oh, I know!! I'll kill Grandma!!" Their next campaign would go south faster than Mark Sanford's jet (think Argentina).
Each time, I thought that this certain segment just couldn't get any stupider - that they'd plumbed the depths of stupidity. That they were on the bottom of the Marianas Trench of stupidity (the Marianas Trench being the deepest spot in the world's oceans). Where could they possibly go down from there? Well, I guess they took a shovel down to the bottom of the trench and started digging with this latest thing. I've heard three jaw-dropping, mind-numbing, shock-inducing stupid assertions about President Obama's speech to students.
1. "The President is speaking out of his jurisdiction!" Really? You mean the office of the President isn't valid on public school grounds? Who knew? If I'd known that, I would have gone into public school teaching eight years ago just so I could threaten George W. Bush with impunity. "Don't like the death threats, W.? Well, UP YOURS! I'm at a SCHOOL!" Honestly, it makes my head hurt when people believe things this stupid. I really shouldn't be surprised. I really shouldn't. After all, these are the same kinds of people that elected Michele Bachmann. And Michele Bachmann is so stupid, that if stupid was gravity, the entire earth would revolve around her. Not that she doesn't think that it doesn't already.
2. "It's illegal to include a lesson plan!" What?!? How is it illegal to include a lesson plan with a speech to students? Name the law that prevents that. Seriously. Name the law that says, "A President, upon speaking to public school children, shall not provide a lesson plan." Find it. FIND IT!! Oh, you know where it probably is? It's on a secret document taped to the weapons of mass destruction. No, wait, wait. It's actually on the back of the Declaration of Independence and Nicholas Cage discovered it! Bunch of idiots. If you think there's a law against a President providing a lesson plan, then you're catastrophically stupid. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Mr President: nuclear codes yes, lesson plan no. Remember, these are the same people who thought warrantless wiretapping was just fine and dandy. George Bush can tap your phone... but Barack Obama can't give out a lesson plan. Holy crap, people. It's like you live in Bizarro World. "Me can have phone tapped! Hooray! But you no give lesson plan to the childrens!! Fourth Amendment bad! Stupid belief good!"
Yep, these are the same people who voted for a woman who believed in a witch exorcist. You know the one I'm talking about. The one who thought the daughter who was boinking under her own roof and got knocked up could be a spokesperson for abstinence. I'm guessing she saw an old bumper sticker from the 60s that said "Killing for peace is like ----ing for chastity" and thought it actually legitimized the war in Iraq. By now you know who it is: Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is so stupid that if stupidity was velocity, she'd be the only person on earth who could literally travel faster than light. Well, besides Michelle Bachmann. And George W. Bush. Which means this certain segment of people voted for different species of Stupid.
Not to mention that they love Ann Coulter. Ann. Coulter. You know those "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books? Ann Coulter's books are like black lung for the soul. Have you ever seen those pictures of the nice, pink, healthy lung, and then a lifelong smoker's lung? That dark grey, shrunken, filthy, twisted lung? That's Ann Coulter's soul. And some of them fantasize about her! If they actually had the opportunity to fulfill those fantasies, Ann Coulter is so bony she'd eviscerate them with her hipbones. And that face. Why the long face, Ann? Oh yeah, genetics. But I digress.
3. "Barack Obama will indoctrinate our kids!" Ho. Lee. CRAP. One 15 minute speech and he'll indoctrinate your kids for life? In one speech? Kids? You mean the same kids who leave toys in the yard after you've told them not to about a thousand times? The same kids who you have to tell 15 times to take out the trash? The same kids who it took YEARS to teach to not run into the street without looking? Man, if President Obama was that good, he would control the world and everyone would do his bidding without question.
I'll tell you who's indoctrinated here: the parents. What? Don't believe me? Oh, sure, they run two hours each of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and three hours of Sean Hannity at work every day, and follow that 7-hour blast of horse droppings by watching Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly every night, but noooooooo, they're not indoctrinated. Why, they're so indoctrinated that I'd bet they'd get mad if a Democrat got on TV and told their kids to study hard. Some of them kept their kids home from school because college dropout Glenn Beck said so. But no, they're not indoctrinated.
These people will adopt any position that comes from right-wing radio. In 2001, when George W. Bush gave people a tax rebate instead of using that money to pay down on the deficit, it was "deficit? No problem!" In 2006, we were spending 200 million a day on the Iraq war. Deficit? No problemo! Rush said it was A-OK! In 2009, Hannity says to worry about the deficit and it's PANIC TIME!! Remember: these are the same people who still think that Iraq was part of 9/11.
And speaking of 9/11, isn't it ironic how New Yorkers were real Americans on 9/11, but a couple of election cycles later, Sarah Palin could get mad applause from her audiences by saying they weren't? Isn't it ironic how the same people who hold up all those signs about hating government probably have a FDNY t-shirt or cap at home? You know, the Fire Department of New York. Socialized firefighting. But then again, these are our Glenn Beck fans: the same ones who holler about keeping the government out of their Medicare.
And Glenn Beck is stupid. Seriously. He's a moron. Well, either that, or he's a smart, soulless piece of garbage who takes advantage of peoples' stupidity or, alternatively, prejudices. I used to tend towards the latter, but after seeing him on a chalkboard, I'm leaning more towards stupid, along with the rest of the "oligarhy." Mendacious and greedy, but also stupid.
But now I've gone far afield. There are just too many branches on the right-wing stupid tree to not get tangled up at times. Honestly, there don't seem to be limits to the stupidity. If stupidity was a power source, we could sell so much electricity from these people to China that they'd erase our national debt in six months. I'm pretty sure it doesn't get stupider than protesting a speech by the President to schoolchildren telling them to work hard and study hard. But I've underestimated this segment of right-wingers before. They are the idiot savants of stupid. Or would that be the stupid savants of idiocy?
Bear in mind: not all right-wingers are stupid. But those who aren't sure do climb in bed with stupid quickly - especially if they're making money from it.
This one's all rant.
You know, I thought the whole "Obama pals around with domestic terrorists" thing was stupid. I thought that was about as stupid as a certain segment of this country could get. Then that same segment started calling themselves "teabaggers," which was even stupider. I didn't think it could get any stupider than that. Then, they bought into Orly Taitz's fake birth certificate, which was even stupider. Then came the "death panels," which was even stupider than that. Like any member of Congress would actually write something like that into law. "Hmm, now how can I commit career suicide? Oh, I know!! I'll kill Grandma!!" Their next campaign would go south faster than Mark Sanford's jet (think Argentina).
Each time, I thought that this certain segment just couldn't get any stupider - that they'd plumbed the depths of stupidity. That they were on the bottom of the Marianas Trench of stupidity (the Marianas Trench being the deepest spot in the world's oceans). Where could they possibly go down from there? Well, I guess they took a shovel down to the bottom of the trench and started digging with this latest thing. I've heard three jaw-dropping, mind-numbing, shock-inducing stupid assertions about President Obama's speech to students.
1. "The President is speaking out of his jurisdiction!" Really? You mean the office of the President isn't valid on public school grounds? Who knew? If I'd known that, I would have gone into public school teaching eight years ago just so I could threaten George W. Bush with impunity. "Don't like the death threats, W.? Well, UP YOURS! I'm at a SCHOOL!" Honestly, it makes my head hurt when people believe things this stupid. I really shouldn't be surprised. I really shouldn't. After all, these are the same kinds of people that elected Michele Bachmann. And Michele Bachmann is so stupid, that if stupid was gravity, the entire earth would revolve around her. Not that she doesn't think that it doesn't already.
2. "It's illegal to include a lesson plan!" What?!? How is it illegal to include a lesson plan with a speech to students? Name the law that prevents that. Seriously. Name the law that says, "A President, upon speaking to public school children, shall not provide a lesson plan." Find it. FIND IT!! Oh, you know where it probably is? It's on a secret document taped to the weapons of mass destruction. No, wait, wait. It's actually on the back of the Declaration of Independence and Nicholas Cage discovered it! Bunch of idiots. If you think there's a law against a President providing a lesson plan, then you're catastrophically stupid. It's ridiculous on the face of it. Mr President: nuclear codes yes, lesson plan no. Remember, these are the same people who thought warrantless wiretapping was just fine and dandy. George Bush can tap your phone... but Barack Obama can't give out a lesson plan. Holy crap, people. It's like you live in Bizarro World. "Me can have phone tapped! Hooray! But you no give lesson plan to the childrens!! Fourth Amendment bad! Stupid belief good!"
Yep, these are the same people who voted for a woman who believed in a witch exorcist. You know the one I'm talking about. The one who thought the daughter who was boinking under her own roof and got knocked up could be a spokesperson for abstinence. I'm guessing she saw an old bumper sticker from the 60s that said "Killing for peace is like ----ing for chastity" and thought it actually legitimized the war in Iraq. By now you know who it is: Sarah Palin. Sarah Palin is so stupid that if stupidity was velocity, she'd be the only person on earth who could literally travel faster than light. Well, besides Michelle Bachmann. And George W. Bush. Which means this certain segment of people voted for different species of Stupid.
Not to mention that they love Ann Coulter. Ann. Coulter. You know those "Chicken Soup for the Soul" books? Ann Coulter's books are like black lung for the soul. Have you ever seen those pictures of the nice, pink, healthy lung, and then a lifelong smoker's lung? That dark grey, shrunken, filthy, twisted lung? That's Ann Coulter's soul. And some of them fantasize about her! If they actually had the opportunity to fulfill those fantasies, Ann Coulter is so bony she'd eviscerate them with her hipbones. And that face. Why the long face, Ann? Oh yeah, genetics. But I digress.
3. "Barack Obama will indoctrinate our kids!" Ho. Lee. CRAP. One 15 minute speech and he'll indoctrinate your kids for life? In one speech? Kids? You mean the same kids who leave toys in the yard after you've told them not to about a thousand times? The same kids who you have to tell 15 times to take out the trash? The same kids who it took YEARS to teach to not run into the street without looking? Man, if President Obama was that good, he would control the world and everyone would do his bidding without question.
I'll tell you who's indoctrinated here: the parents. What? Don't believe me? Oh, sure, they run two hours each of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and three hours of Sean Hannity at work every day, and follow that 7-hour blast of horse droppings by watching Hannity, Beck, and O'Reilly every night, but noooooooo, they're not indoctrinated. Why, they're so indoctrinated that I'd bet they'd get mad if a Democrat got on TV and told their kids to study hard. Some of them kept their kids home from school because college dropout Glenn Beck said so. But no, they're not indoctrinated.
These people will adopt any position that comes from right-wing radio. In 2001, when George W. Bush gave people a tax rebate instead of using that money to pay down on the deficit, it was "deficit? No problem!" In 2006, we were spending 200 million a day on the Iraq war. Deficit? No problemo! Rush said it was A-OK! In 2009, Hannity says to worry about the deficit and it's PANIC TIME!! Remember: these are the same people who still think that Iraq was part of 9/11.
And speaking of 9/11, isn't it ironic how New Yorkers were real Americans on 9/11, but a couple of election cycles later, Sarah Palin could get mad applause from her audiences by saying they weren't? Isn't it ironic how the same people who hold up all those signs about hating government probably have a FDNY t-shirt or cap at home? You know, the Fire Department of New York. Socialized firefighting. But then again, these are our Glenn Beck fans: the same ones who holler about keeping the government out of their Medicare.
And Glenn Beck is stupid. Seriously. He's a moron. Well, either that, or he's a smart, soulless piece of garbage who takes advantage of peoples' stupidity or, alternatively, prejudices. I used to tend towards the latter, but after seeing him on a chalkboard, I'm leaning more towards stupid, along with the rest of the "oligarhy." Mendacious and greedy, but also stupid.
But now I've gone far afield. There are just too many branches on the right-wing stupid tree to not get tangled up at times. Honestly, there don't seem to be limits to the stupidity. If stupidity was a power source, we could sell so much electricity from these people to China that they'd erase our national debt in six months. I'm pretty sure it doesn't get stupider than protesting a speech by the President to schoolchildren telling them to work hard and study hard. But I've underestimated this segment of right-wingers before. They are the idiot savants of stupid. Or would that be the stupid savants of idiocy?
Bear in mind: not all right-wingers are stupid. But those who aren't sure do climb in bed with stupid quickly - especially if they're making money from it.
9/12: Or the further conservative exploitation of 9/11.
This post: some rant, some reason.
The lunacy continues. Glenn Beck had his 9.12 Project, and now, the moron from South Carolina who interrupted President Obama's speech is jumping aboard this 9.12 thing. I guess they're too stupid to know that it's college football season, and many of their followers are going to be attending or watching football games. Believe me, I'm not knocking college football: I love it, but there are a whole load of Southern white 9.12ers who love them some college football. Which will make me love it a little more tomorrow. And I hope we absolutely bury South Carolina. The state deserves some misery for electing the aforementioned moron.
What I really wanted to talk about, though, was 9/11. That was an absolutely horrible event. If you want to know the really terrible events in America, simply ask the question: "do you remember where you where when you heard..." and if you get an instant answer from everyone, it was one of the really horrible moments. John Kennedy's assassination. When the Challenger blew up. The Oklahoma City bombing. And 9/11.
I still remember the feeling I had when it happened. I'm not going to disclose specific circumstances because I'd rather keep a little anonymity, but it felt like I'd suddenly grown a hard ball of nausea in my stomach. We'd been attacked in an awful fashion. Why us? Why the towers? One of my friends has the reflex to stock up on lots of bottled water in the event of catastrophe, so I took her and a couple of other people to Sam's Club. We watched both towers come down on multiple large screen TVs. It was awful.
There are some other things I remember. Some might be faulty; memory isn't exact. I'm pretty sure either George Bush or Dick Cheney came out not long after 9/11 and talked about how it shouldn't be politicized. The first thing I thought, was "someone screwed up." That's usually when politicians start talking about not politicizing things. But that's not all; Republican politicians talk the loudest about not politicizing things when they intend to politicize them.
Some background on my response to 9/11 here. My first response was this: George W. Bush gets a clean slate. I felt like he'd been appointed rather than elected. I still do. If you're scoffing at this, then screw you. At least I'm not falling for fake birth certificates. That said, I decided that after 9/11, he should get a fresh start. American history is rife with examples of ordinary or even subpar people rising to greatness in response to crisis, so I thought I would give President Bush the chance to be great.
I thought the response got completely bungled. I wanted to throw the TV across the room when I saw Orrin Hatch make the first announcement that it was al-Qaeda who did it. I did scream at the TV. "You STUPID (several unprintable words)! You've just given them warning!" Any cop will tell you that it's a bad idea to call criminals and tell them you know they're responsible before going after them. And make no mistake: Hatch wouldn't have said one peep without permission by the Bush administration. What most of you probably have forgotten is that Osama bin Ladin initially denied responsibility for 9/11. I think the clever thing would have been to keep saying publicly that we had no idea and parked a missle up bin Ladin's backside and carpet bombed al-Qaeda training camps when they thought they had gotten away with it. Then say we got them. Instead, bin Ladin got warning and he's still at large.
What was much worse was when Republican politicians started mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences. As the case for war ramped up, and the presidential elections started to get into gear, we started to hear about 9/11 24/7. Who do you trust to keep you safe? There are wolves in the forest. And so forth and so on. Every single national Republican politician used 9/11 to try to get re-elected. There were terror alerts. Coincidentally (you should hear sarcasm in this word), there was a terror alert just before Election Day. Any time there was a disagreement with the President or any Republican policy, 9/11 was invoked. And they're still doing it. Glenn Beck has his "9.12 Project." He says he wants us to get back to that feeling we had on 9/12/2001. Really? What feeling, Glenn? Do you mean so mad that we felt like our heads would explode? Or so sad that we went to stores in tears and bought candles and made homemade monuments on the sidewalks? Or so stunned we couldn't think or care about anything? Or crapping our collective pants in terror? Or all of those in the same day? Yeah, I know I want that feeling back.
As a side note: isn't it ironic how New Yorkers were real Americans on 9/11, but a couple of election cycles later, Sarah Palin could get mad applause from her audiences by saying they weren't? Isn't it ironic how the same people who hold up all those signs about hating government probably have a FDNY t-shirt or cap at home?
As another side note: I should be fair. I don't think your average Republican exploits 9/11. Not at all. I think your average Republican voter honors and mourns the 9/11 victims, and I think those feelings get taken advantage of by the people they vote for and listen to.
But back to the blog, and I've only got a little more to say. It's been 8 years since 9/11. 8 years since 19 terrorists drove four planes into buildings or into the ground and killed 2,974 people. Today is an important day for us to remember. But there's another day that I want to point out: Monday, November 2, 2009. What's special about that day? Well, it's really tragic instead of special. On that day, it will have been 8 years, one month, and 22 days since 9/11/2001. In other words, 2,974 days. And on that date, unless something suddenly changes, Republican and conservative politicians, pundits, and radio hosts will have been exploiting 9/11 for one day for each victim of 9/11.
The lunacy continues. Glenn Beck had his 9.12 Project, and now, the moron from South Carolina who interrupted President Obama's speech is jumping aboard this 9.12 thing. I guess they're too stupid to know that it's college football season, and many of their followers are going to be attending or watching football games. Believe me, I'm not knocking college football: I love it, but there are a whole load of Southern white 9.12ers who love them some college football. Which will make me love it a little more tomorrow. And I hope we absolutely bury South Carolina. The state deserves some misery for electing the aforementioned moron.
What I really wanted to talk about, though, was 9/11. That was an absolutely horrible event. If you want to know the really terrible events in America, simply ask the question: "do you remember where you where when you heard..." and if you get an instant answer from everyone, it was one of the really horrible moments. John Kennedy's assassination. When the Challenger blew up. The Oklahoma City bombing. And 9/11.
I still remember the feeling I had when it happened. I'm not going to disclose specific circumstances because I'd rather keep a little anonymity, but it felt like I'd suddenly grown a hard ball of nausea in my stomach. We'd been attacked in an awful fashion. Why us? Why the towers? One of my friends has the reflex to stock up on lots of bottled water in the event of catastrophe, so I took her and a couple of other people to Sam's Club. We watched both towers come down on multiple large screen TVs. It was awful.
There are some other things I remember. Some might be faulty; memory isn't exact. I'm pretty sure either George Bush or Dick Cheney came out not long after 9/11 and talked about how it shouldn't be politicized. The first thing I thought, was "someone screwed up." That's usually when politicians start talking about not politicizing things. But that's not all; Republican politicians talk the loudest about not politicizing things when they intend to politicize them.
Some background on my response to 9/11 here. My first response was this: George W. Bush gets a clean slate. I felt like he'd been appointed rather than elected. I still do. If you're scoffing at this, then screw you. At least I'm not falling for fake birth certificates. That said, I decided that after 9/11, he should get a fresh start. American history is rife with examples of ordinary or even subpar people rising to greatness in response to crisis, so I thought I would give President Bush the chance to be great.
I thought the response got completely bungled. I wanted to throw the TV across the room when I saw Orrin Hatch make the first announcement that it was al-Qaeda who did it. I did scream at the TV. "You STUPID (several unprintable words)! You've just given them warning!" Any cop will tell you that it's a bad idea to call criminals and tell them you know they're responsible before going after them. And make no mistake: Hatch wouldn't have said one peep without permission by the Bush administration. What most of you probably have forgotten is that Osama bin Ladin initially denied responsibility for 9/11. I think the clever thing would have been to keep saying publicly that we had no idea and parked a missle up bin Ladin's backside and carpet bombed al-Qaeda training camps when they thought they had gotten away with it. Then say we got them. Instead, bin Ladin got warning and he's still at large.
What was much worse was when Republican politicians started mentioning 9/11 and Iraq in the same sentences. As the case for war ramped up, and the presidential elections started to get into gear, we started to hear about 9/11 24/7. Who do you trust to keep you safe? There are wolves in the forest. And so forth and so on. Every single national Republican politician used 9/11 to try to get re-elected. There were terror alerts. Coincidentally (you should hear sarcasm in this word), there was a terror alert just before Election Day. Any time there was a disagreement with the President or any Republican policy, 9/11 was invoked. And they're still doing it. Glenn Beck has his "9.12 Project." He says he wants us to get back to that feeling we had on 9/12/2001. Really? What feeling, Glenn? Do you mean so mad that we felt like our heads would explode? Or so sad that we went to stores in tears and bought candles and made homemade monuments on the sidewalks? Or so stunned we couldn't think or care about anything? Or crapping our collective pants in terror? Or all of those in the same day? Yeah, I know I want that feeling back.
As a side note: isn't it ironic how New Yorkers were real Americans on 9/11, but a couple of election cycles later, Sarah Palin could get mad applause from her audiences by saying they weren't? Isn't it ironic how the same people who hold up all those signs about hating government probably have a FDNY t-shirt or cap at home?
As another side note: I should be fair. I don't think your average Republican exploits 9/11. Not at all. I think your average Republican voter honors and mourns the 9/11 victims, and I think those feelings get taken advantage of by the people they vote for and listen to.
But back to the blog, and I've only got a little more to say. It's been 8 years since 9/11. 8 years since 19 terrorists drove four planes into buildings or into the ground and killed 2,974 people. Today is an important day for us to remember. But there's another day that I want to point out: Monday, November 2, 2009. What's special about that day? Well, it's really tragic instead of special. On that day, it will have been 8 years, one month, and 22 days since 9/11/2001. In other words, 2,974 days. And on that date, unless something suddenly changes, Republican and conservative politicians, pundits, and radio hosts will have been exploiting 9/11 for one day for each victim of 9/11.
First Blog: My Views and Intentions.
Welcome to my blog.
First, let me explain my name: Georgia Yellow Dawg. I'm from Georgia, and I generally don't vote Republican. Hence, yellow dog. I'm also a diehard Georgia Bulldog fan, hence the spelling "dawg." Also, please note the colors of the page. In this very simple layout, the title of the post is in red and black, an homage to my Dawgs, and the rest of the page is blue, for my political views.
I'm a liberal from Georgia. Yes, we exist. We exist in a state full of contradictions. I honestly think that Georgia has a lot of good people, and a lot of well-intentioned people. Like many in the South, Georgians have their sets of prejudices but generally seem to set them aside for individuals that they know. If you're white and you live or have lived in the South, you've more than likely heard this conversation:
"I don't like (members of ethnic group/religion/etc.)."
"Well, what about (member of ethnic group/religion/etc.)? You sure seem to like him/her."
"Oh, he/she is different."
I call it the Ethnic Exception Rule. For whatever reason, the idea that people are people, and decent people tend to be the rule rather than the exception, doesn't seem to occur to a lot of prejudiced individuals. I would say that I don't know why... but I think I do.
It's the Right. The political right. The other side of the aisle makes its business by setting people against each other. Right-wing commentators and politicians spend a whole lot of time telling their listeners and voters how much is right with them, and how much is wrong with their opponents. You are probably familiar with the rhetoric: the faithful listeners are the core, the heartland, the decent people, the foundation, the hardworking, the honorable, the true, the real Americans, while the opposition isn't. It's easy to see the attraction; there are plenty of people who like hearing for several hours a day how good they are and how much better they intrinsically are than other people.
In the process of this, the political right spends a lot of time misleading, a lot of time distorting things, a lot of time making things up. In other words, lying. In case you've never seen this term, I'll be using it a lot: straw man.
A straw man argument is when you represent your opposition's position as something it's not, and then you attack that false position. The nation's been subjected to a lot of this recently. We've heard right-wingers say that healthcare reform as proposed by Democrats contains "death panels" that will "kill Grandma." Well, no decent person would be for death panels, or killing Grandma, right? So then the rest of the argument is spent talking about how horrible death panels are, with the initial lie about death panels treated as a given.
Another strategy is to take positions, or words, or votes out of context. I've already provided something that could be taken out of context. Let's say that Ann Coulter is gathering information for another book. She happens across this blog and quotes part of the last paragraph like this: "... healthcare reform as proposed by Democrats contains death panels that will kill Grandma. Even the liberals admit their own evil!" It makes me look like I'm admitting to it... but in fact, the entire paragraph was about debunking those kinds of arguments. The right wing does this quite often. Ann Coulter is particularly bad about it.
What will I be doing? Part of the time, I intend to cut through a lot of the straw men and the out-of-context stuff. Part of the time, I'll be taking the meanest shots I can think of against right-wing politicians and commentators. I do this to work off stress, so sometimes just debunking things in a reasonable fashion works for me, and sometimes I feel like turning the tools of the right against them. I will try to explicitly separate reason from rant; that way, if you feel like skipping over one or the other, you can.
Thanks for reading. You've just surprised me by doing so.
First, let me explain my name: Georgia Yellow Dawg. I'm from Georgia, and I generally don't vote Republican. Hence, yellow dog. I'm also a diehard Georgia Bulldog fan, hence the spelling "dawg." Also, please note the colors of the page. In this very simple layout, the title of the post is in red and black, an homage to my Dawgs, and the rest of the page is blue, for my political views.
I'm a liberal from Georgia. Yes, we exist. We exist in a state full of contradictions. I honestly think that Georgia has a lot of good people, and a lot of well-intentioned people. Like many in the South, Georgians have their sets of prejudices but generally seem to set them aside for individuals that they know. If you're white and you live or have lived in the South, you've more than likely heard this conversation:
"I don't like (members of ethnic group/religion/etc.)."
"Well, what about (member of ethnic group/religion/etc.)? You sure seem to like him/her."
"Oh, he/she is different."
I call it the Ethnic Exception Rule. For whatever reason, the idea that people are people, and decent people tend to be the rule rather than the exception, doesn't seem to occur to a lot of prejudiced individuals. I would say that I don't know why... but I think I do.
It's the Right. The political right. The other side of the aisle makes its business by setting people against each other. Right-wing commentators and politicians spend a whole lot of time telling their listeners and voters how much is right with them, and how much is wrong with their opponents. You are probably familiar with the rhetoric: the faithful listeners are the core, the heartland, the decent people, the foundation, the hardworking, the honorable, the true, the real Americans, while the opposition isn't. It's easy to see the attraction; there are plenty of people who like hearing for several hours a day how good they are and how much better they intrinsically are than other people.
In the process of this, the political right spends a lot of time misleading, a lot of time distorting things, a lot of time making things up. In other words, lying. In case you've never seen this term, I'll be using it a lot: straw man.
A straw man argument is when you represent your opposition's position as something it's not, and then you attack that false position. The nation's been subjected to a lot of this recently. We've heard right-wingers say that healthcare reform as proposed by Democrats contains "death panels" that will "kill Grandma." Well, no decent person would be for death panels, or killing Grandma, right? So then the rest of the argument is spent talking about how horrible death panels are, with the initial lie about death panels treated as a given.
Another strategy is to take positions, or words, or votes out of context. I've already provided something that could be taken out of context. Let's say that Ann Coulter is gathering information for another book. She happens across this blog and quotes part of the last paragraph like this: "... healthcare reform as proposed by Democrats contains death panels that will kill Grandma. Even the liberals admit their own evil!" It makes me look like I'm admitting to it... but in fact, the entire paragraph was about debunking those kinds of arguments. The right wing does this quite often. Ann Coulter is particularly bad about it.
What will I be doing? Part of the time, I intend to cut through a lot of the straw men and the out-of-context stuff. Part of the time, I'll be taking the meanest shots I can think of against right-wing politicians and commentators. I do this to work off stress, so sometimes just debunking things in a reasonable fashion works for me, and sometimes I feel like turning the tools of the right against them. I will try to explicitly separate reason from rant; that way, if you feel like skipping over one or the other, you can.
Thanks for reading. You've just surprised me by doing so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)