Two Women have been nominated for Vice President. There have been women Senators and Governors. Women Secretaries of State. Women within a snowball’s throw of being president (Hillary Clinton).

But Nancy Pelosi decides not to be completely brow beaten, like many other Democrats, by absurd threats of “filibuster” and helps pass an overly controlling health care bill that tells Americans what they must do, at a time when with health care costs spiraling out of control and some type of reform sorely needed, is the “biggest political victory for a woman ever achieved in America.”

That’s Bill Maher. The same Bill Maher who thought he was being chic when he called John Kerry a flip flopper, helping to validate over a year and close to hundreds millions of dollars of far right wing propaganda

At least he’s somewhat funny:

Two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, ”The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection.” Well, if it’s dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards’ girlfriend was filming it. Make all the botox jokes and she-shops-too-much jokes you want, but this is the biggest political victory a woman has ever achieved in America. Yes, Nancy Pelosi likes nice clothes. So does Sarah Palin. The difference is Nancy Pelosi pays for hers.

He also makes a separate good point: “You can’t use the statement ‘there will be no cooperation for the rest of the year’ as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first half of the year.”

Maybe at least Pelosi and a few others finally figured that out.

Florida Representative Alan Grayson is not your average politician, or, well, Democrat. Grayson, back in October:

They understand that if Barack Obama were to cure world hunger tomorrow, they would blame him for overpopulation.

They understand that if Barack Obama were to somehow bring about world peace, they would blame him for destroying the defense industry.

Also Back in October, Grayson told Congress that the Republicans health care plan is to:

A) not get sick, b) if you do get sick, c) die quickly.

Blogger and talking head Matt Taibi, in a humorous story, writes that Grayson once went “Werewolf” on him.

And back in September, Grayson successfully turned a legislative bill that was essentially (and unconstitutionally) intended for one one specific target, onto a much bigger, more successful range of targets –Defense Contractors who have committed any type of government fraud. (Little more seemed to be heard about the bill after that.)

Thus when a particularly well known person said the following of Grayson in Florida on Friday:

What can you say about Alan Grayson? Piper is with me tonight, so I won’t say anything about Alan Grayson that can’t be said around children.

Grayson, in turn, had a response. According to his campaign:

I look forward to an honest debate with [This person] on the issues, in the unlikely event that she ever learns anything about them.

So who is Grayson talking about? This person.

The person who said Rahm Emanuel should be fired for insensitively using the term “retarded” in a closed door policy session to describe a political strategy, but who then said it was okay when Rush Limbaugh (in defending Emanuel, and mocking Liberals) used it pejoratively as a noun, twice, publicly, to millions of listeners.

The person who once said she had foreign policy expertise because “Russia was close to Alaska” and she could see it from land in Alaska.

(Also See minute 1:14 here for one of the more incredible policy expertise claims ever made, and putting to rest fanciful delusions that Palin was “kidding” around.)

Grayson’s campaign email also noted how; “Palin knows all about politics in Central Florida, since from her porch she can see Winter Park” (in his Central Florida district),  also playing upon Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin.

Palin also infamously used written cliff notes on her hand last month. (What the notes on her “Alaskan Telemprompter” actually said.) Grayson also complimented Palin for having a large enough hand to fit Grayson’s full name on it.

***The End***

(Note, some may wonder why the “Big Brother” category tag was used for this post: Palin, despite constant chatter about freedom, is a chilling example of the type of rhetoric over reality — prompted by underlying and profound ignorances –that will take the U.S. — along with this guy, who of course constantly rails against Fascism while exhibiting nearly every one of its fundamental underlying traits — closer and closer to imperial, controlling government, where everyone is expected to be the same, and government acts “in our best interests” in secrecy. The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart speaks of Abraham Lincoln getting “freedom boners” when the two of them finally, under the glare of the Statue of Liberty no less, get to meet.)

Just Because, Well, It’s Hendrix Time

Posted: 15th March 2010 by admin in Uncategorized

With a little color,

Court TV?

Posted: 14th March 2010 by admin in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

The current Supreme Court is a bit of an ideological abomination. Little makes that clearer than the recent decision in Citizens United.

However, now the NY Times has weighed in, backing popular opinion that the S Ct’s proceedings should be televised:

They would also allow voters to hold presidents accountable for the quality of justices they nominate.

Prompting us to ask upon what standards — the same ones that make Fox the most watched and ‘trusted’ name in ‘news‘?

Of course, the problem is, when they do it, it is directed at their own.

This has been a repeated pattern for months now. The latest example is on the liberal leaning Daily Kos website, where today, a front page recommended “diary” piece asserted the following, ascribing ill motives to those they disagree with, simply by virtue of their disagreement:

Dear Michael Moore, Kucinich, Jane Hamsher, Howard Dean, Arianna, Adam Green, etc etc etc., other people who are looking out for number one at the expense of 31 million uninsured.

How is it that they are looking out for “number one”?

Theda Skocpol, Phd Harvard, Professor of Government and Sociology says Progresives need to undertsand the president is trying to lead. Progressives need to follow:  All Dems, including Progressives, Need to Back Obama on Health Reform.

Well, that settles it. Theda Skocpol (and others) say it, so those who don’t support it, can’t possibly disagree; so, therefore, they must be looking out for number one.

And, in a far right wing favorite (Al Gore is only interested in promoting climate change remediation because he has invested in green technologies, never mind that he has invested in green technologies because he believed in climate change remediation), as there is always something to gain by one’s position (even if that gain has to be make believe), FireDogLake’s Jane Hamsher (emphasis added):

Is a film maker.  She is looking to make money off of going against the administration.

Of course. That’s why she opposes the bill. She can’t possibly think it’s a bad bill or anything like that.

It is amazing how the left often can’t seem to make any cohesive case beyond their own largely self reverberating choir against the right or far right. But then when it comes to their own, they sometimes sabotage each other viciously. It’ seems in some ways a perverse extension of the “no one can possibly see it another way” mentality, which is why they so often both fail to make a cohesive case against their political opponents, and fail to realize that they have or that they even need to. Because “no one can see it any other way.”

One a slightly more amusing note (or not) another front page recommended “diary” on the same popular Daily Kos website, at the very same time, pointed out how Sarah Palin used to cross the border to Canada to receive “socialized” medicine back before she and her husband had, well, better health care privileges.

On the one hand, farmers in the region were glad to have the rains, giving them their “best start” in two decades.

On the other hand, some areas in Queensland,Australia, were particularly hard, as the entire population of the Southern Town of St. George may have to be evacuated due to flooding expected to be even worst than the regions last great flood 130 years earlier.

On yet another hand, there were daunting rescues of citizens imperiled by the rising waters occasioned by handcuffing one to a drainage grate?

In the Brisbane suburb of Algester, police say the 14-year-old autistic boy entered a drain that empties into a creek and walked 500 metres against the current to a grate at the other end.

Police say the boy spent almost an hour struggling against a torrent of water and could have drowned had they not handcuffed him to the grate.

Which seems to raise the question: Why not just help the boy get away from the grate in the first place?

Perhaps the handcuffing was a temporary measure until enough help could arrive and or the initial officers on the scene were able to fully stabilize the boy against the current sufficient to remove him from it. But it’s hard to tell.

We kid you not:

Far more of the African American community is being devastated by the policies of today than were being devastated by the policies of slavery.

As the original material source suggests (and reasonably, if one listens to the actual audio of the statement), it seems that Representative Trent Franks did not really mean the comment as racist, “paternalistic” or as an insult. But the statement is rather incredible, regardless.

Here’s guessing that “far more” if not all of the people who are “African American” prefer the “policies to today” to slavery, and that a lot of people, perhaps rightly so, would take great offense at Frank’s statement.

Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty’s contempt and ignorant sneering is something that should give Americans at least quick pause.

It’s easy to just scapegoat a group, and mix in a few wildly exaggerated and in most cases idiotic stereotypes that appeal to our deepest and most base emotions.  It’s the exact opposite of leadership. It’s cowardly, it’s insecure, it’s mean spirited. It’s ignorant.

At CPAC today, Tim Pawlenty went off an a really nasty rant about how liberals all sneer at conservatives for not having gone to Ivy League colleges and for not liking “brie and chablis.”

As this country moves further and further to the right, and– as we continue to have the opposite of our best and brightest, but the most gifted spinmeisters, seek to inform and lead our debate — misleading rhetoric continues to replace fact and understanding, America is beginning to slowly change. We are starting to enter the age of ignorance.

With all this information and misinformation abounding, in journals, magazines, books, universities, Internet sites galore, few can tell anymore what is spin and what is fact; with that which appeals to the lowest common denominator often rising to the top.  Like a shipwrecked crew in an ocean locked lifeboat, water all around yet dying from dehydration, our democracy — with information all around as misinformation continues to lead our national debates, is itself being threatened. From the inside.

For the record, Chablis is pretty lame. But we’re not liberals, so maybe we just don’t know — like 12 year school yard kid Pawlenty clearly does.  But this 12 year old prejudiced, ignorant, snob is a Governor of a state.

Maybe some Liberals can come off as a little elitist at times. Some, not understanding conservatives, sometimes do show disdain. It’s not helpful, and the disdain, with far more effective framing and messaging, is often shown right back.

But it’s idiotic, to bring brie and chablis into it. It’s not a metaphor. It’s a friggin’ cheese, and a crappy wine.  It’s the fallback for the weak, the lazy, the unthinking mind.  Exactly what Pawlenty seems to be insecure about being accused of, or, more likely, is trying to capitalize on, exploit, appeal to, foment,  in others.

Incidentally, Pawlenty graduated from one of the best law schools in the country.  He (theoretically) should know better. As should those putting up with this kind of lame reverse elitist snobbish contempt from the anti Chablis one time junior varsity Hockey Player.

One who, by the way, is considering a presidential run in 2008. No, not president of the local crass and lame divide and conquer stereotyping club; president of the United States.

A potential presidential candidate who — in addition to railing against any personal preferences for the easy targets of brie and chablis, picked an odd time to use a violence against Government metaphor:

Conservatives could learn a lot from Tiger Woods’ wife Elin, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty said at the Conservative Political Action Conference today.

“She said, I’ve had enough,” Pawlenty said. “We should take a page out of her playbook and take a 9-iron and smash the window out of big government.”

One day after one Andrew Joseph Stack, using an airplane as a missile, did just that.

Pawlenty, in this same CPAC speech, also rails against Liberals trying to take away freedoms, and how conservatives will “fight back.”

It’s not clear which freedoms he is talking about, since neither group has a full monopoly on taking away freedoms, but it seems conservatives have the clear if not lopsided edge here.

Yet clearly Pawlenty is not talking about the most basic freedoms of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, because once we “suspect you” of something, you have no more rights. Which defeats the ENTIRE purpose of having rights, in the first place. But that’s okay, just rail about protecting freedoms and at the same time rail against those laws and constitutional provisions that actually protect them, while blaming, of course, “Liberals” for everything once again. Classic rhetoric. The new fuel for America.

Our chances of getting a comment through the NY Times comment censorship police, and any Maureen Dowd column, are probably about as good as the Oakland Raiders chances of winning the Super Bowl so long as Tom Cable (bless his passion though), is head coach.

There are a few reasons for this, that seem transparent, and perhaps, others, more veiled.  We don’t know.

First, as documented frequently, this website is not a fan of the one time Pulitzer prize winning and now seemingly vacuous, vague, stereotpying, false balancing Dowd. Nor is this rather well researched, and written site here (by a former college roommate of Tommy Lee Jones, Eric Siegel, and Al Gore).  Although that is a decidedly liberal site, whereas Donkasaurus Post is decidedly neutral (with due note that in today’s world’s, the facts themselves, are decidedly not) a snapshot look as to the reasons why that site is also not a fan of Dowd’s, is illuminating.

And we know — or at least it seems — that Dowd’s site carefully monitors to protect her from overly critical assessments of her work.

And third, we imagine that despite the inanity, and borderline sexual indulgence of some of Dowd’s columns, the Times does not want to encourage links to what it must surely (and somewhat ironically), view as puerile meanderings.

Today, Dowd wrote yet another somewhat inane, fanciful column.  In it, she tried to make the point about extreme Cheney was. At the same time, she also played into some of Cheney’s arguments, and seemed to make the questionable assertion that Cheney had no right to criticize Obama’s approach to our “counter terrorism” efforts. (We refuse to use the idiotic “war on terror,” “war” “enemy combatants” or “battlefield,” all of which play right into these psychotic terrorist criminals recruitment and proselytizing efforts as something other than the simple, lowly, depraved common murderers that they are, and which they absolutely do not want to think of themselves as, or be perceived as.  Newt Gingrich doesn’t get this point either.)  And of course she played into the pure spin argument, while seemingly trying (ineffectively) to mock it, that Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he does not use five time military deferrer Cheney’s constant drumbeat of war rhetoric.

Thus, it was, that in response, the following comment was of course blocked from all fair readers potential considerations.  As submitted in comment form to the Dowd’s column today, unedited, unabridged, and unaltered from it’s original puerile fulsomeness:

Well, you hit a lot of stereotypes Maureen, and played into a lot of misleading framing, but did so in a ‘balanced’ way.

But were you just afraid it was going too far?

Or was there some other reason that you left out that in addition to being weak — and afraid to use the manly words “war” and “enemy combatants” even though this plays right into our lowly, common murderous psychotic enemy criminals’ hands (and recruitment) that they are in some sort of grander “war” and are instead the more noble “combatants” in a war — how in addition to being weak, Obama is also prejudiced?

How’d you miss this clearly also relevant nugget. Weak and prejudiced. What kind of leader is that?

If Obama won’t frequently and constantly use “architect against terrorism” Dick Cheney’s manly war words and make our enemies all goose bumply thereby, couldn’t he at least cease from being prejudiced against homosexual fish, also?

It seems fair to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSrtMPIqoaY&feature=related

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15/obama-calls-kanye-west-jackass/

http://donkasauruspost.com/2009/09/15/beck-half-correct-president-obama-is-prejudiced-after-all-hates-gay-fish/

Dick could have pointed that out too, in the above fireside chat, don’t you think?

I’m just askin.’

What a pity that the Times readers could not revel in the sophomoric-ness and juvenile-ness of it all, while reading about how Obama is “weak” on terrorism because he relies less upon grandiose sweeping battlefield phrasing, and how Obama should tell Cheney to be quiet because THAT emboldens our enemy. (When it seems to us that both are likely wrong. The only thing that emboldens our enemy is their irrational hatred of the U.S., and culturally psychotic approach to visualizing it, along with our turning them into something they are not. That is, combatants, rather than lowly murderous criminals, and playing up to them publicly in some big game of rhetoric, rather than quietly and powerfully framing the effort so as to lessen recruitment appeal, and finding, minimizing, and where applicable, wiping them out.)

This humble, and somewhat obscure blog, if known, might not always be a favorite of Maureen Dowd’s. Here’s a very recent, but we think fair, example.

Today, Dowd wrote a column in the NY Times very space limited op ed pages, essentially saying that 3d movies are cool, or might be cool, or that people like them, or some such. In response to the column, one of our 82,000 or so Deputy Editors happened to witness the posting of the following comment to Dowd’s post. In full:

Times’ op-eds have nothing better to cover than 3d movies??

Why don’t you write about this — good update to a NY times comment on the issue, too.

Or this.

Nah. Bring us movie talk on the oped page. Maybe Entertainment magazine’s editorial pages can cover the substantive stuff.

Who knows who monitors these, but the comment was blocked from readers’ gentle thought considerations. Unlike the one just below that makes a small fraction of the same point, while taking two ridiculous shots at President Obama for using a teleprompter (similar to essentially every other president ever since teleprompters have been in existence), and more. Or perhaps it was double reverse sophisticated satire, that few readers would ever get. We don’t know:

I wondered what compelling issues you would write about with the departure of the Bush administration. Movies, how fascinating! There is plenty of farce to be found in the Obama administration and the Democrat lead Congress. Tell us what you think about the teleprompter President please. No sarcasm needed, just the facts, and we can weep or laugh as prompted by his deeds.

The links from the blocked comment — the one that was too thoughtful to actually allow in examples by way of contrast — go to substantive pieces regarding critical issues that go to what our country is all about. Yawn, snooze, ready?:

One on a subject that has been occasionally covered; the undue influence of corporations now, in addition to everything else, upon our election process in the wake of the abysmal decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. (Some more analysis on Citizens that misses the point and paints a false paradox, with good commentary following).

The other on something that has not been very well covered; clandestine government infiltration into non governmental speech, influence and information activities, and its parallels to the anti Constitutional theories upon some of the Bush Administration’s unchecked and clandestine actions to set aside Congressional Statutes — and even potentially set aside provisions of the Bill of Rights — were based.

Maybe this stuff is too highfalutin for Dowd. Fair enough. But entertainment merging as news is not what Thomas Jefferson had in mind when he said the given the choice between newspapers and government itself, he should take newspapers. And it was not because of their official op ed page opinions on 3d movies.

But then again, this is the NY Times. It’s not like it’s a leading newspaper or anything. How could it be with op ed pieces like this?