How to Politicize without Politicizing

When I was attending classes there, the linguistics graduate program at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), offered two options for is MA candidates: One was the thesis track, the other, the general track.  Early on in my studies at CSUN, I had opted for the thesis track.  I had been working on an idea for many years, thanks in large part to my interest in politics, but especially, the use of language in politics, inspired in me by George Lakoff's "Moral Politics".

I had begun listening to a lot of political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio.  Actually, there is little getting around conservative political talk radio: According to Talkers.com, a website which bills itself as "The Bible of Talk Radio and the News Talk Media", and a tracker of talk radio rankings, the top twelve talk radio shows in the US are almost all political talk radio. There are several ties; for example, there are five shows tied for sixth place, however, of the political talk shows, which make up the majority on the list, the majority of those are conservative political talk radio.  Rush Limbaguh is number one, followed by Sean Hannity then Glen Beck and Mark Levin are tied at fourth.  You might be aware of who Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are, but you might not be aware that Levin was once a speech writer for Ronald Reagan.

Political talk radio, specifically, conservative political talk radio, dominates the US AM airwaves.  US airwaves, especially AM, not only belong to the American public, but they are, in the case of AM radio, the "voice of America" as well.  It's often been said, that when you are young and poor, you vote Democrat, but when you are older and rich, you vote Republican.  This seems to be born out by statistics which show the demographic make up of the two political parties: Democrats tend to be younger, ethnically more diverse and female, whereas Republicans tend to be older, less ethnically diverse and male.  This demographic is reflected in talk radio, a media arena that fewer and fewer younger generations pay any attention to: Talk radio is dominated by political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by conservative political talk radio, which is in turn dominated by wealthy white men who vote Republican, as outspoken in their support of the GOP as they are in their criticism of the Democratic party.

What this all means is that a large majority of Americans are listening to AM, conservative political talk radio, and most of those are wealthy, white, male Republicans.

One of the things which piqued my interest, and the thing I attempted to create my thesis on, before giving up out of panic and frustration and opting for the general track at CSUN, was the way in which messages could be said, by not saying them.

What I mean is, for the most part, the hosts of those conservative political talk radio shows cannot say or do anything too outrageous for fear of losing advertising sponsors and/or, their shows (just ask Rush Limbaugh and Don Immus, respectively).  However, what they can do, is let their listeners who call into their shows do the outrageous for them.

The recent agreement between the US, its partners, and Iran, on Iran's nuclear program is a case in point.  The Obama administration, along with China, France, Russia, the UK and the EU (otherwise known as P5+1, which, honestly, sounds like a K-pop boy band...) were able to bring Iran to an agreement regrading its nuclear program, by using the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, of which Iran was an early signator, but backed out after the Shah was deposed in the Islamic Revolution.  That Treaty, agreed to by the US in 1969 and put into effect by the US in 1970, was signed by President Richard M Nixon with the full support of the US Senate and Congress.  Nixon, it should be pointed out, was a Republican.

No matter.  What matters is the it was the Obama administration which was able to bring Iran to the table, as it were, and it was the Obama administration which was finally able to get Iran into some sort of an agreement regarding its nuclear program.  And if there is one thing that Republicans can agree upon, its their complete hatred of all things Obama.

Getting back to Sean Hannity:  Mr. Hannity has not only the number two talk radio show in the entire US, he also has the number one political talk "news" show, on the number one, cable, "news" network-Fox News, or FNC for short.  Hannity, like all of his contemporaries and colleagues, has saturated the US media market: Best-selling books, the afore-mentioned radio and television shows, concerts, speaking tours and a website which also hosts a discussion forum.

Navigating to The Sean Hannity Show website, a viewer is greeted by a billboard at the top of the page with a revolving list of political "news" items; all penned by Hannity or FNC columnists.  A recent trip to Hannity's website showed me a link to this item: "Confederate Flag Debate", which seems, on the surface, to be an essay about the controversy surrounding the Confederate flag.  The essay even begins with language suggesting that that is indeed what it is about:

"The dialogue in America has shifted away from the tragedy in Charleston and to a debate over the Confederate flag.

Perhaps the greatest untold story to unfold in the wake of the shooting in Charleston are the incredible family members of the victims. In many cases, their willingness to forgive the person who killed their loved ones in cold blood represents an awe-inspiring amount of faith. They are incredible human beings and we keep them in our thoughts and prayers."

Notice the clever use of the collective pronouns, "we" and "our"; my sociolinguistic professor taught me about the use of those.

However, not too far down into the essay, a reader will come across this:

"But at the end of the day, this sick young man did not kill those good Christian souls because of a flag. Nor did he kill them because of South Carolina's gun laws. He killed them because he was of a depraved mind. There were many signs that this was a troubled young man, and yet nothing was done."

Which seems, on the face of it, reasonable enough.  Until you remember that the GOP sells itself as being of Christian morals and values and is pro gun and anti-gun law.  Then, very cleverly, the last paragraph ends the essay with this:

"Nonetheless, tragedies such as this will be used for political gain. Whether its removing the Confederate flag or passing new gun laws, American politics has become a pattern of jumping on crisis moments in order to pass pet legislation. Even if the two events are not directly linked or related. Politics has become therapy for political activists who want to be seen as doing something; it's more of a feel-good exercise than a coherent political agenda."

Any good academic, or English teacher, will tell you that what is at the beginning and end of an essay is of the utmost importance; these are the words which guide the reader and make impressions upon them.  The famous quote, "Always leave them wanting more" is nowhere as appropriate as it is in academic writing and especially, politics.

What has very cleverly been done to the reader, is to have left the indelible impression that there are direct links between the Confederate flag and those who want it removed, with gun laws and those who want guns taken away.

As any good political analyst or politician will tell you, Republicans are all about liberty and Democrats are all about equality.  Which is basically true.  However, Republicans have done a far better job at weaving the myth of liberty into the so-called "American Dream" and the very notion of what it means to be an American.  When they begin talking about "pet legislation" and "political activists", they are referring to liberals and to Democrats.  And when Republicans do that, they are framing the message in very much an "Us v. Them" monologue.  And when that argument rests squarely on their frame of Democrats wanting to take away our freedoms and Republicans trying to protect those freedoms.

But they rarely, if ever, have to actually say it because they've done such a fantastic job of weaving it into their narrative.  And this is how I segue back to political talk radio and my abandoned thesis.

Many times, talk show hosts, such as Limbaugh and Hannity, will turn to their listeners who call into their show and let the callers voice their opinions.  And unless those callers state something against the narrative, the hosts will let those callers say nearly anything they want to say.  Things the hosts cannot, or should not, say.  Other times, however, the host will make an outrageous claim, only to immediately go to commercial break, thus leaving in the minds of their listeners, the outrageous claim, or the unverified and unchallenged comments of the last caller.

Which always leaves 'em wanting more.

Political Projection and Neocon Denialism

In psychology, projection is defined as an effort to deny those things people find disagreeable about themselves by blaming other people of having those same disagreeable things. Sometimes this happens consciously within an individual, sometimes not. In politics, projection is used as a tool to create divide. And nobody is more skilled and adroit at creating a sense of divide than the Republican Party and right-wing neo cons.

There certainly have been times when the US was politically divided; the Civil War coming to mind. A national war aside, I do not believe that the US has ever seen so many instances of violence perpetrated by, mostly, white men, against, mostly non-whites. In every single one of these instances, especially the more so during Obama's tenure as president, right-wing mouth pieces are quick to step up and deny any culpability for whites, neo-conservatives, guns, Christianity, or right-wing politics. However, how that is done is not as obvious as denying culpability.

I was watching "Thank You For Smoking" last night, a brilliant and wickedly funny movie about advertising and marketing. In the movie, Aaron Eckhart plays Nick Taylor, spokesperson for Big Tobacco. In one scene, he and his son, Joey, are talking about argumentation. Nick asks his son to defend his choice of ice cream and Nick argues against his choice. Only, Nick does not exactly argue against joey's choice, Nick argues for "liberty" and the freedom to choose. Confused, Joey tells his father, "...but you didn't prove that vanilla was the best...", to which Nick replies, " I didn't have to. I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right."

All of this has reminded me of something George Lakoff argued about in his book, "Moral Politics" which is, essentially; by claiming that you are not something, you have just admitted that you are that thing. He pointed to Nixon's claiming, the he was "not a crook" and how that claim made Nixon a crook in nearly everyone's eyes.

I often peruse right-wing talk radio and chat sites to keep my finger on the pulse, so to speak. As Michael Corleone said, "...keep your friends close but your enemies closer." and in less than 48 hours after the shooting at the Emanuael AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, and just hours after President Obama's speech regarding that shooting,, headlined, front and center on the Sean Hannity Show's website, is a picture of a dejected looking Obama, to the right, a title that reads, "Dividing America".

In the article are statements such as these:

"Senseless acts like what we've tragically witnessed this week in Charleston have unfortunately become touchstones to divide us, thanks to quick politicization of the issues."

"The instantaneous politicization of tragic events has become par for the course."

and it ends with this:

"The victims and their families deserve time to grieve, before they become the latest pawns in the liberal attempt to divide Americans over our Constitutional rights."

As PT Barnum said, "Always leave 'em wanting more."

Dividing America

I will tell my students, friends and family members, that I have what could be considered a perverse view of the world.  I admire people who some people might find loathsome.  But I am not admiring the person, per se, but rather, what they've done and how well they've done it.  From Albert Speer, to Joseph Stalin to Silvio Belusconi, I begrudgingly admire certain people for the astonishing things that they have done and said.  In this case, I really have to hand it to whomever penned the article linked to above.  Literally, the bodies are not even in the ground and the Right has figured out a way to blame the incident on Obama.

See, the Right has to shift focus away from the obvious: a deranged white man killed a bunch of people, in this case, black, and that man was clearly a racist.  It is in the best interests of the Right and everything and everyone they represent, to deny that racism exists.  If nobody believes that racism exists, then focus can shift away from hate crimes.  Because if there is no racism, then there can be no hate crimes, and if there is no hate crime, then focus shifts away from guns and onto the person who used the gun.  Or maybe not.

Shortly after the shooting and subsequent arrest of Dylann Roof, Fox News host, Megyn Kelly urged her audience, and all of America, that people like Roof who commit such heinous acts should never be named; it give the murderers what they want she argued-fame and notoriety.  Kelly's pleadings for anonymity was nowhere to be found after the Tsameav brothers killed three people and injured another 264 at the Boston Marathon finish line.  Kelly, and all of Fox News, were at the head of the charge to find out as much as possible about the brothers and their family.  Shortly after Dzhokhar Tsamaev was sentenced to death for his role in the bombing, Kelly Tweeted about it:

JUST IN

Kelly does not want anyone knowing Roof's name because she does not want them looking into his past and discovering that he is an out-and-out racist:

Tear the Roof Off

And then, well, cat's out of the bag.

But Kelly wasn't alone in her push to obscure the facts.  KABC 710 AM radio host, Larry Kudlow, staunch conservative and former Reagan Associate Director for Economics and Planning, urged his listeners to stop referring to acts such as Roof's as "hate crimes".  Doing so, he said, was a tool of liberals who, he claims, are trying to divide the country by blowing racism out of proportion.  For Kudlow, much like Nancy Reagan and drugs, if nobody says a thing, then the thing does not exist.

Never an organization to let an opportunity slip by, the NRA was up to bat very quickly, claiming that had the people who had been shot and killed been allowed by the pastor of their church to arm themselves and bring guns into their church, then they would be alive today:

It Was the Pastor's Fault

So the NRA pulled a very neat trifecta there:  With one statement, NRA board member, Charles Cotton shifted focus off of the killer, onto the pastor, a black man, and made the issue a pro-gun issue.  Pretty neat.

If you clicked on the first link in this essay which takes you to the Sean Hannity Show, and you click on the embedded You Tube video from Hannity's show on Fox News (the number one cable news program on the number one cable news network, Hannity continuously reminds his viewers), Hannity and his guests cannot deny that racism played a part in the killings, but Hannity spends the entire first half of that segment discussing the possibility that Roof was taking some medication or other.  So, it wasn't that he was a racist or that he used guns, it was the drugs.  In fact, were you to read that article, you might notice, towards the bottom, along with not-so subtly placing the blame for the murders on Obama, the Left and Democrats' "racial politics", the article also dismisses Obama's attempts at stricter gun laws, citing an article from The Las Vegas Guardian Express that, yes, America does lead the world in incidents of gun violence, but "that if one were to exclude figures for Illinois, California, New Jersey and Washington D.C., the homicide rate in the United States would be in line with any other country and – of course – the nation’s capital, along with these three states, have some of the strictest gun laws in the country.”  That's right; just ignore certain aspects of evidence and it's all OK.

Just like if you ignore the fact that Dylann Roof was a racist white man who murdered eight people with a gun, then basically, nothing happened!

The Evils of Chowmein

First it was marijuana and the ill effects it had upon non-whites; turning them into wild-eyed, sex starved maniacs.  Now, I'm sure that by now, you're more than well aware of the strange, voodoo power women have while being raped which allows them to just, "shut the whole thing down", but were you aware that rape "does not happen deliberately" and that rape is both "sometimes good, sometimes bad"?  Well, if you can't believe US Republican law makers about a woman's reproductive system, then you should be able to believe a few Indian ministers.  I swear, for every year we go forward, I think we go back a half a year.

Mickey Mouse and the Bitter Scrooge of a Priest

There are a lot of legitimate reasons to knock Disney, especially their use of slave labor in less than third world conditions to make all those trinkets on sale for ridiculous amounts, however, one thing I've always applauded them for is their open acceptance of gays, starting with their "Gay Days" and now this:

Mickey and the Priest

So kudos to Disney, but read down and get a load of the mean old priest who keeps the Scouts' money for popcorn sales.  Me things he would have kept the money anyway; the acceptance of gays was simply an easy excuse.

The Koch Brothers of the World

In his essay, titled "Why The Democrats' Koch Brothers Fixation?", Frank James posits a question that he never answers.

Why The Democrats' Koch Brothers Fixation?"

After passing on a few, apparently unverified, claims by politicians from both sides (equal time and all), James' summation is that demonizing the Koch brothers is good business for Democrat fund-raising.  James provides nothing but anecdotal evidence for his theory and seems completely ignorant of an idea that is at least as old as the early 1900s when Edward Sapir, and later, one of his students, Benjamin Lee Whorf, first hypothesized that language impacts a society which in turn impacts a society's worldview which in turn, impacts the language of a society.

Many more would expand upon this original idea, more of Whorf's than Sapir's thinking, and none more so than George Orwell and his treatise, "Politics and the English Language", written in 1946.  Rushing through time and pushing aside larger, and minute, detail and fact, the fixation which Democrats seem to have with the Koch brothers might have something to do with what drove George Lakoff to write "Moral Politics"in 1996 after he witnessed the successful Republican campaign to win congressional majority in 1994 with their "Contract With America" (or, as some have labeled it, the "Contract On America").  Late Lakoff would slim down M"Moral Politics" into his Reader's Digestesque primer for Democrats in 2000, "Don't Think Of An Elephant". A friend of mine was working for a Democrat senator at the time and "Elephant" was required reading.

Briefly, Lakoff claims that the Republicans have done a far better job of uniting behind the same message. Writing in the May, 2005 issue of Vanity Fair (here, reprinted on Sentient Times), Robert Kennedy Jr pointed out the meshing of the GOP's ability to get behind ideological messages and the right-wing media.

The Disinformation Society

It was that right wing media, specifically AM talk radio, the top 100 practically owned, lock stock and barrel by right wing political talk shows, which, for years, has hammered away at the meme, "...the George Soroses of the world..." as if there were an army of radical left-wing political funders who are, like some liberal zombie apocalypse (a recent fascination of mine. Zombie apocalypse, not a political zombie apocalypse in particular...) while completely ignoring their own Soroses of the world; people like the Koch brothers.

No less than the savior of undocumented Asian street walkers, Bill Maher, made comment of on his show recently:

Bill Maher, "Dead Man's Party"

It seems that the donkey party might be coming around to a less fractious nature, and one better adroit at towing the line.

So that's why, Frank James, you might be hearing the name of the Koch brothers more these days.

The Lock Down of Religious Battles Gets Tighter

Not to be outdone by that upstart religion which is not even 1500 years old, yet insists on bending everyone over and under its knee, the American Religious Right has decided to continue the anteing by continuing their backwards slide from science, while relying upon science more and more every day:

Belief in Evolution Dwindles Amongst American Republicans

While I would not venture to claim that 11% equates to "plunging" numbers, what I think is more telling is the time frame within which this has been happening.  And, perhaps more important; how has this been happening?  In other words; how has the message been sent, and received?

The Privatization of Communication

In the landmark, Dartmouth College v. Woodward case, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of private institutions against public influence.

Later, after the 14th amendment was ratified to the US Constitution, corporate lawyers would argue, and usually successfully, the word, "person", as used in the 14th amendment to identify people granted equal protections because corporations, rather than lifeless businesses, were really extensions of the people who had created, owned and operated them.  Although the wording of the 14th amendment does not include any mention of businesses nor corporations, and it seems clear to most who have studied it that its original intent was not in support of those, it has been used, time and again, on the behalf of businesses and corporations, to create a sense of "personhood" when it comes to corporations and the law.

Replacing the Federal Radio Commission by the enactment of the Communications Act of 1934, the FCC was created primarily to "make available so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication services with adequate facilities at reasonable charges."

Falling under its jurisdiction of public access to channels of communication was telephone service, which, after some small ingress by other telecommunications companies in the area of long distance calling, ultimately led to the dissolution of At&T's monopoly of American phone services.

However, by that time, 1982, several changes were underway in the world of US media: the rise of cable, and later, satellite television; computers and the Internet; and cellular phones.

Although the history of cable television dates as far back as 1924, it began in the US in 1948 as a way of concentrating a radio signal's power in order to reach distant communities where over the air transmissions were hard if not impossible to receive.  Originally called Community Access, or Community Antenna Television (CATV), this service was provided free until one year later when a subscription fee was charged for use.  This fee, in part, was a result of the franchise fee levied by counties and cities for use of public land and right of way.  As a result of being appointed arbiters of public land and its right of way,  This franchise fee is set in negotiations between local governments and cable providers after local governments determine which media companies will have access to their public based upon the outcome of bidding competition.  Government municipalities are guaranteed a maximum of 5% of a cable operator's gross revenues which in turn is supposed to be used for as public, government and educational television.  The cable companies in turn, offset the franchise fee by passing off its cost to the cable customers.  In other words, local governments select what their public has access to, not based upon reliability, choice or quality, but rather, who can pay the most amount of money for access to public property and right of way.  The winners of these bids then defers any and all costs onto its customers who have little to no choice in their selection of cable accessed media.

Meanwhile, shifts in technology which favored the use of cable over traditional broadband (rabbit ears) televisions meant that what we are really buying these days are not televisions in the classic sense, but rather, large and expensive monitors.  Additionally, the rise of Internet and cellphone use also precipitated s shift away from traditional sources of communication; airwaves and telephone lines, to newer, non-traditional sources; digital signals and satellite transmissions.

In 1949 the FCC introduced the Fairness Doctrine, designed to require "equired the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced".  However, in the late 70's, a new technology used across television signals, teletext, was becoming popular.  So popular and so limited a resource, that the FCC declared it immune to the Fairness Doctrine.  In 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled that teletext technology was indeed not subject to the rules of the Fairness Doctrine.  And, to obliterate any further misunderstandings as to the application of the Fairness Doctrine, the US Supreme Court simply ruled it out of existence in 1987.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 ordered the FCC to conduct a biennial review of its rules to determine whether or not they were still in the "public interest" in light of newer competition.  That public interest was what the FCC was originally established to safeguard.  However, as a result of that act and of a slow deregulation of big business, more and more avenues of communication and media have been bought up by fewer and fewer companies with one result being that over 4,000 previously independent radio stations have been bought out and minority ownership of television stations has dropped to its lowest figure since 1990.

In 2003 the FCC, with one public hearing held, voted to virtually eliminate any and all regulations regarding bans on media consolidation.  That was later over turned in 2004 and the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal to that ruling.  However, in 2007 and 2013, the FCC again moved to relax multi-ownership rules.

In 2004 the FCC granted digital TV licenses to all previous owners of analog TV licenses without an auction, meaning in essence, that only those larger companies with already held licenses were granted access to the impending new technology.  Later, the FCC ordered all national and local TV stations to switch from analog to digital capacity and therefore, forced the public to switch out their old televisions for new ones capable of receiving digital signals.  As of June 12, 2009, all full power analog terrestrial TV licenses in the US were terminated.

Due to resentment over ever-increasing cable and satellite TV fees and an increase in the availability of movies and TV shows online, more and more people began to cut their ties with the fewer and fewer Big Media corporations.  However, those cuts could only extend as far as their television sets; Big Media still owns the phone lines and our access to the Internet.

That is a simplified and loose history to what has happened to the "public interest" in access to communication.  Robert McChesney writes about this extensively, but his book, "Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times", is probably the best, close up look at what has happened to the media in the US.

Finally, this article which was recently released on The Verve's site gives a chilling look into what is happening to the Internet:

The internet is fucked

Sweet dreams!

For my Homies on Thanksgiving

Not comfortable with the inky aura of very low wages and employee intimidation at the hands of its managers and CEOs, WalMart decided that the next best thing to paying its employees nothing was to get its employees who aren't starving to kick in a little extra somethin-somethin for Turkey Day.

For My Homies

Debunking More Neocon Outrage

Granted, this is a bit dated by now (I see articles, email them to myself, save then promptly forget about them.  Sue me), however, it is a poignant reminder regarding the right-wing outrage not too long ago, ginned up mostly by Rush Limbaugh and his infamous "slut" remarks over Sandra Fluke.

Fact Checking "free" Birth Control

And the thing is?  They still believe it today as strongly as they believed it then.  They are very good at never letting go a controversy of their own creation.

They Are Just Like US!

See folks, even the rich got it tough these days.  They are having a hard time putting all of their kids through near $40,000/year private schools.  They jokingly refer to their Porsches as "Volkswagens" (although, technically...).  The $17 large for doggie upkeep is getting a little too heavy.  And, by the sweet love of Moses, some of them even have to wash dishes by hand!  The horror, the horror:

No Bonus Check, No Trip To The Maldives This Year

And all because some are having their bonus checks cut or completely removed.  We really need to get together and help these poor rich people out.

A Case for Guns

Let me be absolutely clear on this; I have zero problem with people owning guns.  I do not own one, but I do like shooting them.  In fact, I might even pick me up an AR15 when I get back to the States (fuck AK47s); AR15s are W way more fun!

What I do not and can not agree with is how political gun ownership has become in our country and how polarizing an issue it is.  And while I do not always find agreement with the the pro gun lobby, as well, I do not always find agreement with the gun control lobby.  However, after reading about this jewel heist (I always love reading about jewel and art heists; just seems so glamorous and something I wish I could pull off ala Thomas Crowne), I find myself definitively on the side of pro guns and their argument that if more people were armed, there's be less crime.

Or Why I am in Favor of Guns

I mean, there were two, back to back, in which the robbers were armed and the guards were not.  And this quote from a non-profit director in Switzerland can be filed right alongside equally puzzling logic from the pro-gun crowd:

"Given that civilian possession of weapons is much less available, they're unlikely to have weapons because they're unlikely to be facing people with weapons."

I get it, I understand that this is Europe where not everyone is as trigger happy as those in the US, but being assigned to guard millions of dollars worth of jewels, and especially after there was a robbery just a little while ago and especially more so when the hotel and the area seem to have a penchant for having jewels stolen, it just seems to me, in my perhaps rather pedestrian world view, that had one guard at least had a handgun, perhaps things might have turned out different.

Still Making His Case For A Number One Douche Bag Status

Not content to rest on his laurels, or his penis, Anthony Weiner decided to to get tough with a man twenty years his senior, using tough guy bar speak:

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/aarp-calls-weiners-grandpa-language-at-forum-unfortunate-95292.html

I understand that Weiner did a lot of good politically, and I also know full well the expression, "He's an asshole, but he's our asshole."  But I think that Senor Weiner should seriously consider golf.  In Rwanda.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oy, Oy, Oy!

Some say that life imitates art while others claim that art imitates life.  What happens when stupidity decides to double down?

Running for a seat in public office in the east Australian city of Brisbane, Stephanie Bannister was One Nation's candidate.  One Nation is virulently anti-immigration and clearly has deep-rooted issues with Islam.

In an interview with local media that she later claimed was edited to make her "look the fool" (sound familiar?), Bannister claimed the following: Islam is a country; referred to the Koran as the "Haran"; Judaism is predicated on the words of Jesus Christ; food prepared Al Halal (the Arabic version of Kosher) is being used to fund terrorism; she has been charged with putting stickers which proclaim the latter on food in markets.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/10/one-nation-s-stephanie-banister-withdraws-from-race-after-islam-comments

The question here, much like the question of why the GOP foisted Palin onto McCain, is why did One Nation pick Bannister?  I mean, really?  She was it?  Were they at a meeting and when asked who wanted to try and have a go at the seat, she was the only one who raised her hand?  She isn't all that charismatic, she clearly is not the sharpest tool in the shed and she is under criminal investigation.

Actually, in light of the above, Palin was a brilliant tactical decision.

Anthony Weiner: Making His Case For A Number One Douche Bag Status

?Illegitimi non carborundum" should be the new Weiner campaign slogan.  Regardless of how many women he's sexted pictures of his penis to, regardless of being forced to resign from Congress in disgrace, regardless of the shame and humiliation he rains on his wife, Anthony Weiner has vowed to press on, stating emphatically that: "Quit isn't the way we roll' in NYC"

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/30/weiner-new-york-mayor-resign-sexting/2601211/

He reminds me of the people portrayed in Bud Light's "Real Men of Genius" commercials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETrWZsYYJOQ

The Stolen Kingdom Has Its Revenge

While it is well known that many US cities will scoop of their homeless and bus them out of town, sort of like a combination between "Soylent Green" and the trains that the Nazis loaded Jews onto, Hawaii, the 50th state, has introduced a new policy regarding its homeless population: a one=way ticket to the mainland:

Hawaii Offers Homeless One-Way Tickets

That's right folks; LAX, SFO, OAK; you name it, soon not only will you be battling taxis, buses, the screeching whistles of airport police, now you will also have to do battle with a swarm of shuffling vagrants blinking at the sun, their pockets filled with small bags of complimentary pretzels and honey roasted peanuts.  Wait in line for your baggage, load aunt May into the SUV and give a homeless person a ride to the nearest park.

Good times!

Thanks Hawaii!

Sears/Kmart overseas labor practices: Like!

In this article I discovered from Business Insider, apparently, over the years, Chinese who have been forced into labor camps where such things as Halloween decorations are made, have been secretly stashing letters begging for help into boxes of those products.  Subsisting on around $1.50/month and miserable living conditions some of these "criminals of the state" have managed to squirrel away letters of despair and tragedy.  Reading the story I suppose, considering what you think or know about China, one might shrug their shoulders or be horrified.  I was a little of both.  However, what really caught my eye was at the end of the article.  Sears Holdings, owner of Kmart, apparently did an internal investigation and when asked by The New York Times to comment on the investigation, informed the Times that there was "no violations of company rules that bar the use of forced labor."  In the words of the Church Lady, "Isn't that special?"

Crazy-ass Wingnut Emails and the Meltdown of the GOP

The meltdown is so apparent it’s like that scene at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark when the Nazis all start melting after being exposed to the contents of the Ark of the Covenant. OK, perhaps that imagery is a push which should not be shoved this time of year; I mean as to not so-veiled Nazi/Republican conflations and the whole Obama as Messiah/Ark of the Covenant thing. Some people might read this and presume that I was biased. God forbid…

Anyway, those crazy Internets are full of “emails” which mysteriously appear in random inboxes like tatters of paper drifting down from Calvary, warning us of the impending arrival of the Anti-Christ in the form of Senator Barrack Obama. Either that or emails outlining Obama’s many terrorist connections. Or his history of Communist/Marxist/socialist involvement (apparently these magical mystery emails can not discern one –ism from another…

But this gem was just way too good to pass up.

After months of reading threads conflating Hitler with Obama (not the men, per se, but their oratory styles. That’s all…) turns out that there is indeed something to this oration business after all; Barrack Obama employs, sitting down?, the power of mass hypnosis.
That’s right. Mass hypnosis.

Remember the other day when Obama was speaking to something like 100,000 people in Saint Louis, MO? Hypnotized. Every single one of ‘em. That guy, waaayy in the back? The one who just locked his bicycle to that tree, swigging down the last of his latte (‘cause what else would an elitist Democrat Obama supporter be drinking at that hour of the day, or any hour for that matter?) Stone-cold hypnotized my friend.

And you. And me. But only if we’re Democrats.

You see, Republicans have been given special hats and earplugs to help stifle the hypnotic lullaby sung on honey smooth waves of creamy milk, licking your ears like the warm tongue of a lover, caressing their way around your brain, spooning you in the embryonic bed of what will ultimately be the end of America. Jesus, now I’m excited…

But enough about me, just read the story:

Obama's Use of Hypnotism

The Palin Gambit

A while back I was commenting to some friends that the real consternation amongst Republicans this presidential election year was that once again, they were up against charisma.

The last truly charismatic presidential nominee, and subsequent president, The GOP had was Ronald Reagan. Since then the GOP has earnestly been searching for the next Reagan.

Perhaps they were looking for love in all the wrong places.

According to linguist and political pundit, George Lakoff, in this article, "In 1980, Richard Wirthlin -- Ronald Reagan's chief strategist -- made a fateful discovery. In his first poll he discovered that most people didn't like Reagan's positions on the issues, but nevertheless wanted to vote for Reagan. The reason, he figured out, is that voters vote for president not primarily on the issues, but on five other factors -- "character" factors: Values; Authenticity; Communication and connection; Trust; and Identity. In the Reagan-Carter and Reagan-Mondale debates, Mondale and Carter were ahead on the issues and lost the debates, because the debates were not about the issues, but about those other five character factors. George W. Bush used the same observation in his two races. Gore and Kerry ran on the issues. Bush ran on those five factors."

In other words, what the GOP has known since their disastrous defeat in 1964, a paradigm shift was needed if they were going to win the presidency.

And so began a subtle re-alignment of what had previously been known as "the issues", to "values". That is, the issues really are values, and values are the issues.

As well, the modern Conservative movement was born with Senator Goldwater, but more importantly, a young recently-turned Republican politician from California was being hastily groomed through the right-wing ranks as Republican focus shifted from its older, East coast liberals to newer, West coast conservatives; Ronald Reagan.

In Reagan, the GOP had an unbeatable combination; Republican strength had shifted from north to south, from east to west, and Reagan was the physical embodiment of that shift. Young(ish), charismatic, wanna' be cowboy, great orator and staunch conservative, he was, in some ways, quite literally, the right-wing Superman whose magic elixir saved this country and the world.

And who have the GOP been able to put on stage since? As Margot Kidder's Lois Lane told Christopher Reeve's Superman, "You're kind of a hard act to follow, you know?"

And that's why the Republicans seethe at the mere mention of Bill Clinton; Clinton and the DNC stole pages directly from the RNC playbook. Twice. I believe that a large part of the acerbic animosity directed at Bill Clinton stems from a jealousy of Clinton's charisma.

I've noticed a political tendency favored by Republicans during presidential election season when they are faced with a clearly more charismatic opponent than their offering; they tend to attack the Democrat candidate on his "values", or lack thereof, which is really the point they try to drive home. Their intent, near as I can figure it, is to drive a wedge between Democrats and Republicans based purely upon mythological images of American values, somehow completely unique than those of any other country, sacrament for, of and to the Republican party, and of course, completely at odds with Democrat values. In this way, the particular candidate is not attacked based upon his, or her, stance regarding the issues, rather their complete lack of character.

George HW Bush was no Reagan, and he was in part punished for his short-comings by Republicans who did not vote for him in 1992. This was a part of why Clinton won, but the number one reason was his over-arching charisma; the Clinton/Gore ticket was, in the end, simply sexier than the Bush/(Noe means noe)Quayle.

George W Bush has proven to be no Reagan either, but that has been through no fault of the RNC; the transformation of George W Bush, long in the line of deep political and financial connections, he from deep money dating back to the Mayflower, and he of New Haven, Connecticut, Yale and Harvard to just good ole' boy W with whom most Americans admitted they wouldn't mind having a beer with will, in my mind, no doubt go down as the greatest shell game in the history of mankind. He has been the most charismatic nominee and president the GOP has had since The Gipper, and let's face it; even that is a very long stretch of those pointy ears.

But in essence, the GOP has been putting up old white guys since Lincoln, and in all honesty, that's all they had lined up for quite some time.

Senator John McCain was not the GOP's first choice. I can assure you that. But 2008 is payback for McCain sucking it up after the 2000 smear campaign.

Many on the extreme end of conservative Republicans were less than enthused, to say the least, of McCain's candidacy throughout the primaries, with such notables as Coulter and Limbaugh threatening to vote for Clinton or simply not vote at all.

However, when Romney bowed out, essentially giving the nomination to McCain, Republicans were suddenly faced with a great conundrum and their greatest fear. They were faced with the very real possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that person would either be Clinton, or more than likely, Obama, two people greatly loathed by Republicans, especially conservatives. Their only hope was someone they wanted in the White House only as an "in case of an emergency"-type situation; John McCain.

Media focus shifted from the Republican primaries, now, despite Huckabee's dogged determination, and focused squarely on the bitter Democrat slug-fest between Clinton and Obama. And the Republicans were silently grateful.

For once not whining about lack of coverage, Republicans the country over had to do some serious soul-searching, because the way things were shaping up, there was, and is, every possibility that a Democrat was going to be elected president, and that more than anything, was what began the silent rally; Republicans would more than likely vote this year, and they were going to vote for McCain.

Then comes a governor.

Far outside of the so-called liberal MSM, conservative pundits such as Sean Hannity and of course the afore mentioned Rush Limbaugh, the two topics of discussion are Obama and Palin and only Obama and Palin. And just how is that being done? Why framing them in terms of their values, of course.

To the right-wing media, it's as if George W Bush and Dick Cheney have already left the White House, putting the key under the fake stone partly hidden behind a small plant (dare, a bush?...) by the front stoop. I mean, seriously, has anyone seen Cheney? Who? And McCain doesn't even rank 3rd most important topic; that spot is reserved for Senator Joseph Biden. It's as if the Right are quite literally acknowledging the complete lack of importance McCain holds for them, and quite clearly showing just how important Sarah Palin is to them.

I was indifferent when I first learned of McCain's VP pick; I had no idea who Palin was. The original reports on her seemed like Democrat reaches to try and dig up dirt on her. I waited, and so too did the US and the world; the GOP was keeping Palin well away from the press until they could sit down with her, find out everything they could because clearly McCain had not done much, if any, vetting, bot most importantly, the GOP needed to drill into Palin their talking points.

This could not have been made more clear to any non-partisan observer than with the Gibson and Hannity interviews; when it came to actual policy questions, she was a well-trained tape recorder who clearly had little to no real ideas of her own in regards to those areas (remember, she is the one who admitted that she had no idea what the vice-president actually did...) But partisan hacks, that is those people who crowd the Hannity.com boards loved her because she seemed like "one of them". And if we all can remember back just eight years ago, that was perhaps the biggest selling point for Bush's candidacy; "I'd have a beer with Bush."

But why the passion for Palin from the hard-core political insiders? Look no further than George W Bush.

In an article yesterday on the Huffington Post, Arianna Huffington noted that, according to one Republican insider, Palin is the perfect vessel for the neocons; "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."

Remind you of anyone else?

"That's why the Palin pick was so brilliant. On the outside, she's exponentially more likable and talented at connecting with people than Cheney ever was. But on the inside, once she graduates from the neocon finishing school, she'll be a complete and total Dick. Cheney. With lipstick."

Let's face it; the GOP has not had a charismatic presidential nominee since Reagan, and they are bitterly upset over the popularity of the Clintons, Gore and Obama. They know they are essentially backing a dead horse with McCain, so their only shot was sliding Palin onto the ticket; she has energized the base like no other candidate would have done, and if they do not win the White House this year, they have groomed, trained and prepped quite possibly the next GOP presidential nominee.

For McCain, what has he got to lose? He already bit the bullet once for the GOP in 2000, and this is his payback. If he does not win, there will be no 2012 for him, so it's now or nothing and Palin was most likely his one and only chance.

However, for the GOP, it really is a win-win situation. If McCain/Palin get in, they've quite possible got the White House for at least the next 12 years. If not, they have re-paid their debt to McCain and cleared the books with military veterans and the 60+ crowd, but they have also stacked the deck in their favor for the next go-round.

That's why Palin is such an intelligent move.

The GOP has only been able to put up old white men for president, and looking back on it, that's all they would have had for at least the next couple of elections. Democrats meanwhile had put up a charismatic woman with serious connections and experience, and a very charismatic and young black man. In the face of that, the GOP knew they were facing a potential sea change in voting demographics in this country, and in light of that, selecting on older Jewish former Democrat who is pro-choice, a charismatic, intelligent but Mormon, or a liberal-leaning Evangelical, there really was no choice if they wanted to be viable in the future.

So, see you in '12 when things get really interesting!

Backdooring the environment

No; that's not a sexual reference. In this case, it's of political nature, as in creating a backdoor into something. And in that case, what Bush is doing to the Environmental Protection Act of 1978.

To wit:

"The proposal, which does not require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews that government scientists have been performing for 35 years. Developers welcomed the plan, while environmentalists derided it.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said late Monday the changes were needed to ensure that the Endangered Species Act would not be used as a “back door” to regulate the gases blamed for global warming.

The proposal would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects."

This one sounds like something from a Daily Show skit:

"The Interior Department said such consultations are no longer necessary because federal agencies have developed expertise to review their own construction and development projects, according to the 30-page draft.

"We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations," the proposal said."

But wait, there's more:

"The proposal was drafted largely by attorneys in the general counsel's offices of the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Interior Department, according to a source with the National Marine Fisheries Service. The two agencies' experts were not consulted until last week, the official said.

In 2003, the administration imposed similar rules that would have allowed agencies to approve new pesticides and projects to reduce wildfire risks without asking the opinion of government scientists about whether threatened or endangered species and habitats might be affected. The pesticide rule was later overturned in court. The Interior Department, along with the Forest Service, is currently being sued over the rule governing wildfire prevention.

But internal reviews by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Fish and Wildlife Service concluded that about half the unilateral evaluations by the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management that determined wildfire prevention projects were unlikely to harm protected species were not legally or scientifically valid.

Those had been permitted under the 2003 rule changes."



The Bush Administration: making sure that you have the God-given right to shoot wolves from airplanes and helicopters, drink poisoned water and ensuriing that if there is a Yellowstone Park, you will be able to ride your snowmobile through it.

Ari Fleischer - Come sit at the Master's knee

This morning, as the news of former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's tell-all book consumed Clinton's Kennedy comments, another former Press Secretary, Ari Fleischer was asked by MSNBC anchor, Norah O'Donnell what his thoughts were on the book and on McClellan himself. Watch and learn:



Notice the following from Fleischer:

1) Look of complete sincerity.

2) Reiterate the unnecessary: That McClellan has the "right" to print thin book. Thanks for that reminder and the little American flag lapel pin...

3) Repeat the talking points which will be later echoed by the White House: Several times Fleischer mentions of McClellan that he, Fleischer, is confused, that McClellan never mentioned any of this while Press Secretary, that this is not the Scott he knew.

4) And pay attention to the masterful dodge when O'Donnell asks Fleischer point-blank, at about 2:30 regarding McClellan's remarks that he, McClellan and Fleischer were used to sell an "unjust war" as part of a sophisticated propaganda campaign, does he, Fleischer, "deny that?” Fleischer never answers her question nor McClellan's allegations but instead answers with a truthful assertion about something else entirely.

5) Blame others and Clinton as soon and as often as possible: When asked about the information regarding Hussein's WMD "stockpiles", Fleischer immediately throws George Tenet under the bus, but not without first mentioning that he was previously Bill Clinton's Director of CIA.

6) Make not-so subtle suggestions regarding the person's character: After briefly mentioning that "we all were wrong", Fleischer then turns to subtly dismantling McClellan's credibility, saying that his words sounded like somebody who was an opponent of Bush. Later, someone from the White House will say that McClellan is just "disgruntled".

Later on, Fleischer again lays the blame on "foreign nations, the Clinton administration..."

This is classic stuff from the man who threatened the White House press corps shortly after 9/11 to watch what they say and who also said, after stepping down as press secretary that "I am leaving the White House but I am not leaving President Bush."

Hmmm...