Mitt.
My cat's litter box is full of more intelligence than this man.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Thursday, May 10, 2012
OTOH
Mitt is a moron.
All he had to do was say "I'm sorry I did that. But I was young and foolish and I have changed."
Instead we get:
I don't remember.
And if I do remember, it was just pranks and hijinks.
And if I it wasn't just pranks and hijinks, I'm sorry if you were offended.
Maybe we wouldn't survive four years of this over-privileged manchild.
All he had to do was say "I'm sorry I did that. But I was young and foolish and I have changed."
Instead we get:
I don't remember.
And if I do remember, it was just pranks and hijinks.
And if I it wasn't just pranks and hijinks, I'm sorry if you were offended.
Maybe we wouldn't survive four years of this over-privileged manchild.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
We will survive
Although I believe, from a purely political calculation, that Obama's decision to express his personal support for marriage equality will cost him very few votes in 2012, I really don't care.
It was the right thing to do.
It lurches humanity forward again.
Humanity will stumble, zig-zag and reel like a drunk after last call, but it will continue to head forward. And equality is forward.
I hope it does not cost Obama the election, but even if it does, we survived 8 years of W. We'll survive 4 of the Mittster.
And forward progress will still be made.
It was the right thing to do.
It lurches humanity forward again.
Humanity will stumble, zig-zag and reel like a drunk after last call, but it will continue to head forward. And equality is forward.
I hope it does not cost Obama the election, but even if it does, we survived 8 years of W. We'll survive 4 of the Mittster.
And forward progress will still be made.
Monday, April 9, 2012
Rick Warren is an awful human being
Also, too. Jake Tapper.
Look, I get that rich, conservative, white males who have used Jesus to justify their rich lifestyle exist. I get that they feel entitled to their largesse even if Jesus would have some mighty harsh words for their opulence. I get that religion mainly exists to make poor people feel happy about the fact that they are poor while making rich people feel they are justified for being rich AND UNWILLING TO SHARE. I get this.
But that is no excuse for a "journalist" who is "objective" to decide that conservative dogma trumps evidence based reality.
Ah, well. For the want of a nail.
Look, I get that rich, conservative, white males who have used Jesus to justify their rich lifestyle exist. I get that they feel entitled to their largesse even if Jesus would have some mighty harsh words for their opulence. I get that religion mainly exists to make poor people feel happy about the fact that they are poor while making rich people feel they are justified for being rich AND UNWILLING TO SHARE. I get this.
But that is no excuse for a "journalist" who is "objective" to decide that conservative dogma trumps evidence based reality.
Ah, well. For the want of a nail.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Rosie Blogs the Primaries: Florida
I'm getting a little irritated that work keeps scheduling me for election nights. Sigh... I'll get to actually see one of the primaries one of these days. No way am I missing Super Tuesday.
Anyway, I got home from work yesterday at around eight and found that CNN had already called the Florida race for Mitt Romney, no surprises there.
Mitt's victory speech was... less than inspiring. He's really not a compelling speaker. Say what you like about the president, but he's got much more charisma, and he gives much more powerful speeches. Maybe stuff like that shouldn't matter in politics, but whether it should or not, it does.
One thing I noticed last night: the Republicans love to talk up how they're going to downsize government. They're all like "Less government! Yaaaaaaaay!" and then they proceed to go "Obama wants to cut the military! BOOOOOO!". So apparently, it's less government, unless guns are involved.
I think Ron Paul is crazy, but at least he's consistent with his message of "Shrink ALL the things!". The hypocrisy of the rest of them is really what gets me.
Speaking of hypocrites, I find it highly ironic that Newt Gingrich is getting all the votes from the evangelical Christians. I mean, dude. He's been married three times, and he had a six-year affair. That's real conservative of you, Newt.
Also, if there are any Doctor Who fans out there, you may appreciate this: Newt Gingrich is totally a Dalek. "EXTERMINATE" is pretty much the only thing he ever says. And honestly, in this primary I think he's pretty much just out for blood. It's not likely that he'll win, but he hates Mitt Romney enough that he's going to sink in his teeth and carry it all the way to the end.
Overall: pretty uneventful primary. No particularly interesting speeches, no surprise results, no contest. The only mildly interesting thing coming out of this: Newt Gingrich didn't call Mitt Romney to congratulate him on his win.
Okay, really? How middle-school can you get? Firstly, Newt, for being such a sore loser. And secondly, Romney, for being upset about it. It's just so... immature. You're grown men. Get over it.
Anyway, I got home from work yesterday at around eight and found that CNN had already called the Florida race for Mitt Romney, no surprises there.
Mitt's victory speech was... less than inspiring. He's really not a compelling speaker. Say what you like about the president, but he's got much more charisma, and he gives much more powerful speeches. Maybe stuff like that shouldn't matter in politics, but whether it should or not, it does.
One thing I noticed last night: the Republicans love to talk up how they're going to downsize government. They're all like "Less government! Yaaaaaaaay!" and then they proceed to go "Obama wants to cut the military! BOOOOOO!". So apparently, it's less government, unless guns are involved.
I think Ron Paul is crazy, but at least he's consistent with his message of "Shrink ALL the things!". The hypocrisy of the rest of them is really what gets me.
Speaking of hypocrites, I find it highly ironic that Newt Gingrich is getting all the votes from the evangelical Christians. I mean, dude. He's been married three times, and he had a six-year affair. That's real conservative of you, Newt.
Also, if there are any Doctor Who fans out there, you may appreciate this: Newt Gingrich is totally a Dalek. "EXTERMINATE" is pretty much the only thing he ever says. And honestly, in this primary I think he's pretty much just out for blood. It's not likely that he'll win, but he hates Mitt Romney enough that he's going to sink in his teeth and carry it all the way to the end.
Overall: pretty uneventful primary. No particularly interesting speeches, no surprise results, no contest. The only mildly interesting thing coming out of this: Newt Gingrich didn't call Mitt Romney to congratulate him on his win.
Okay, really? How middle-school can you get? Firstly, Newt, for being such a sore loser. And secondly, Romney, for being upset about it. It's just so... immature. You're grown men. Get over it.
Monday, January 30, 2012
Meet me in the Middle (sucker)
The political blogosphere exists today thanks to one factor. No, not the internet. That is simply the technology that allowed it to occur. The cause, instead, is the complete failure of the political pundit class. Sometimes referred to as the Gang of 500 by smarmy insiders like Mark Halperin, this group has failed to offer true and insightful analysis of events instead relying time and again on "both sides do it" so "the answer is in the middle" analysis.
You will never see a more stunning example of this kind of worthless analysis than in this article at the Wapo. h/t Instaputz
Read this line from the article:
And then look at the chart accompanying the article.
Notice anything interesting?
If the analysis above were to accurate, we would assume that Democrats hating a Republican president before a single official action has been taken would mean that the first year of W would appear on that handy little chart. Oddly, it's not there. Instead, the W years that make the list are 4,5,6,7,8: the latter half of his presidency...long after he took many official actions, some of them like torturing prisoners, that deeply offended many Americans, not just Democrats.
OTOH, it's pretty clear the GOP hated Obama on day one and hasn't stopped since. In fact, this past weekend you even had Grover Norquist saying as soon as the GOP has control of the Senate, they will impeach him. There is no mention of what they will impeach him for. High crimes and misdemeanors are so 20th century thinking.
It is evidently clear that only one side of the political game is guilty of hate with no reason. But that does not fit the approved Gang of 500 narrative so it does not get reported. And even if some reporter did point out the obvious ("Hey, the current GOP Congress is abusing the filibuster in a way that has never been done in history" or "Democrats did disapprove of Bush but only after spending 3 years with him" or "The GOP wants to impeach Obama for breathing"), the GOP would point and scream bias until the reporter backed down. (Meanwhile, Politifact would rate the whole episode "half-true" and call it a millenium.)
Our media failed and continues to do so in spectacular ways. And I must admit I have a grudging admiration to the right for recognizing this fact and exploiting it for all it is worth. If the answer is always to be reported in the middle, you can easily drive the country to your philosphy by simply taking the most extreme position. It gets further exacerbated if the opposing side take reasonable "middle ground" positions and yet you call them "socialism" anyway. (Ex. A healthcare law that is entirely reliant on the private sector insurance companies (i.e. the capitalists) and yet is called a government takeover of medicine.)
The right is working the refs. They are doing it very well. And this is why only venture capitalists and the Wall Street boys can have nice things.
You will never see a more stunning example of this kind of worthless analysis than in this article at the Wapo. h/t Instaputz
Read this line from the article:
Our guess is that Jones’ latter hypothesis is the right one — that we are simply living in an era in which Democrats dislike a Republican president (and Republicans dislike a Democratic one) even before the commander in chief has taken a single official action.
And then look at the chart accompanying the article.
Notice anything interesting?
If the analysis above were to accurate, we would assume that Democrats hating a Republican president before a single official action has been taken would mean that the first year of W would appear on that handy little chart. Oddly, it's not there. Instead, the W years that make the list are 4,5,6,7,8: the latter half of his presidency...long after he took many official actions, some of them like torturing prisoners, that deeply offended many Americans, not just Democrats.
OTOH, it's pretty clear the GOP hated Obama on day one and hasn't stopped since. In fact, this past weekend you even had Grover Norquist saying as soon as the GOP has control of the Senate, they will impeach him. There is no mention of what they will impeach him for. High crimes and misdemeanors are so 20th century thinking.
It is evidently clear that only one side of the political game is guilty of hate with no reason. But that does not fit the approved Gang of 500 narrative so it does not get reported. And even if some reporter did point out the obvious ("Hey, the current GOP Congress is abusing the filibuster in a way that has never been done in history" or "Democrats did disapprove of Bush but only after spending 3 years with him" or "The GOP wants to impeach Obama for breathing"), the GOP would point and scream bias until the reporter backed down. (Meanwhile, Politifact would rate the whole episode "half-true" and call it a millenium.)
Our media failed and continues to do so in spectacular ways. And I must admit I have a grudging admiration to the right for recognizing this fact and exploiting it for all it is worth. If the answer is always to be reported in the middle, you can easily drive the country to your philosphy by simply taking the most extreme position. It gets further exacerbated if the opposing side take reasonable "middle ground" positions and yet you call them "socialism" anyway. (Ex. A healthcare law that is entirely reliant on the private sector insurance companies (i.e. the capitalists) and yet is called a government takeover of medicine.)
The right is working the refs. They are doing it very well. And this is why only venture capitalists and the Wall Street boys can have nice things.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Birther Emails and Mondays Always Get me Down
In the middle of the day I received an email from my parents. It featured the most recent (I think!) conspiracy theory about Obama's Birth Certificate and the various discrepancies proving he is not a US born citizen. I tried to ignore the message but eventually surrendered to my impulse for truth and responded by debunking all the claims within. (For those that are aficionados of the genre, it is the message that features the three challenges to the most recent birth certificate released.) I didn't even need snopes! Still, I doubt it will change anyone's belief that Obama is a usurper and has achieved the presidency through enchantments and charismatic flim-flam.
But this email message, and its odd timing considering we are almost at the end of the first term of the Obama Presidency, have me wondering about the connection with the recent (re)surgence of Newt, the Republican Id in pasty white man form. Hmm, I think I was redundant there.
Anyway, my parents are long-time conservatives and it is, I imagine, a great embarrassment to them that I became liberal in my 20s. So from time to time they attempt to engage me and change my leanings. At least, I suspect that is there motive. It is a frustrating experience for us both. But at its core I think it speaks to their experience and desires, the very experience and desires that caused me to reject conservatism. And its most simplistic that can be explained as: fear the other. The other is anyone that differs from you and has concluded that life can be lived differently than you do. The other is a threat. They reject your order, your values, your superiority and as such, they must be ostracized and if need be, destroyed. It does not matter if the other actually does embrace your values. In fact, there is nothing the other can ever do to persuade you they are not the other.
And Barack Obama is the other.
No matter what he does, no matter his values, no matter his policies, he will always be unacceptable. 3 years of presidential material and hardcore conservatives still want to discuss his birth certificate.
He is Dr. Huxtable. To conservatives he will always be Tupac.
And because of this, and Fox News stoking these fears of the other, I cannot have a political discussion with my parents.
But this email message, and its odd timing considering we are almost at the end of the first term of the Obama Presidency, have me wondering about the connection with the recent (re)surgence of Newt, the Republican Id in pasty white man form. Hmm, I think I was redundant there.
Anyway, my parents are long-time conservatives and it is, I imagine, a great embarrassment to them that I became liberal in my 20s. So from time to time they attempt to engage me and change my leanings. At least, I suspect that is there motive. It is a frustrating experience for us both. But at its core I think it speaks to their experience and desires, the very experience and desires that caused me to reject conservatism. And its most simplistic that can be explained as: fear the other. The other is anyone that differs from you and has concluded that life can be lived differently than you do. The other is a threat. They reject your order, your values, your superiority and as such, they must be ostracized and if need be, destroyed. It does not matter if the other actually does embrace your values. In fact, there is nothing the other can ever do to persuade you they are not the other.
And Barack Obama is the other.
No matter what he does, no matter his values, no matter his policies, he will always be unacceptable. 3 years of presidential material and hardcore conservatives still want to discuss his birth certificate.
He is Dr. Huxtable. To conservatives he will always be Tupac.
And because of this, and Fox News stoking these fears of the other, I cannot have a political discussion with my parents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)