Last night I was perusing "The New Hate" (non-affiliate) by Arthur Goldwag; what struck me was how close to mainstream this new populist hatred was. Mostly because of Fox News, which amplifies and distorts with alacrity.
As we were leaving Barnes & Noble, I noted that "if you scratch Rick Santorum, just a little, I'll bet you'd find a rabid anti-Semite." Not like Mel Gibson or John Galiano, but the hatred is just beneath the surface. Such irrational hatreds are behind his ideas; that's why he's doing so well with evangelical and far-right Republicans; they agree with his irrational fears and hatreds and the busy-body, hypocritical morality that results from them.
Mr Goldwag traces things like Ron Paul's "end the Fed" campaign to the anti-Jewish/anti-banker animus generated by the "Protocols of Zion"; the basic anti-Semitism is still there, but George Soros has replaced the Rothschild's and others. Mr Paul pops up often in Mr Goldwag's examination; his supporters tend to the conspiracy-minded, and indeed do fear such inanities as the Illuminati, a "New World Order" and a government that's set to imprison its citizens. (Mr Goldwag steers clear of the sheer stupidity of these claims, although he does examine what makes a conspiracy.) In one section, he ably demonstrates how the new Islamophobia is an offshoot of commonplace anti-Semitism. He also notes that white supremacists and the John Birch Society - a secretive cabal of conspiracy minded idiots - all support Ron Paul. Indeed, Mr Goldwag shows that similar hatreds and irrationalities can be seen in Founding Fathers, in Henry Ford (who was virulently anti-Semitic), and all the way through to the modern day, passing through "Birth of a Nation" to the anti-Communism of McCarthyism and even Barry Goldwater's rise to prominence and the Republican nomination in the 1960's.
All in all, it was a disturbing half hour, browsing Mr Goldwag's book. I'll definitely have to buy it and read it some more; the hatred of these people has been growing since Bill Clinton was president, and it's not going to end anytime soon. Mostly because the nominees will be a black guy and a wealthy Mormon.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Urgent blizzard in Hell warning
Blizzard Warning
URGENT - WEATHER MESSAGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE MOUNT HOLLY NJ 520 AM EDT TUE MAR 20 2012 HELL
520 AM EDT TUE MAR 20 2012 ...BLIZZARD CONDITIONS WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT UNTIL RICK SANTORUM DROPS OUT OF RACE... * VISIBILITIES...WE CAN'T SEE A DAMN THING. * TIMING... WHILE EVANGELICAL VOTERS SUPPORT RICK SANTORUM, BLIZZARD CONDITIONS IN HELL WILL PREVAIL. * IMPACTS... COGNITIVE DISSONANCE WILL BE WIDESPREAD... DEVIL WILL WEAR PAJAMAS... LACK OF FIRE AND BRIMSTONE WILL AFFECT PREACHERS ACROSS NATION... . PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
BLIZZARD CONDITIONS IN HELL ARE UNPRECEDENTED. WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WILL HAPPEN NOW THAT AN EVANGELICAL FUNDAMENTALIST PREACHER HAS BLESSED A CATHOLIC. PACK BOXES. IF THIS MAN WINS HEAVEN AND HELL WILL BE SWAPPING PLACES. && $$
Monday, March 19, 2012
Team Santorum explains their losses
Apparently Puerto Rican voters don't know what's good for them. And Rick Santorum does. Rickety says that the islanders have to speak English to gain statehood. A restriction, oddly enough, that I don't think has ever been applied before. The voters of Puerto Rico disagreed and expressed their dislike of the man and his odious ideas by giving him less than 10% of the vote. (And for the record, I agree: Mittens panders.)
What I liked about the explanation is that the translation of it comes out to "we lost in Puerto Rico because we're tone deaf". It's either that or "we lost because we don't pay attention to the voters, preferring to dictate to them".
So we have the perfect example of contemporary conservative idiocy: they want a man who speaks his mind, but if they don't like what he has to say, they don't want him. (What they really want is someone who speaks their *collective* mind. Who says individuality has anything to do with conservative politics?)
But as far as Rickety is concerned, we've got a front runner who can't organize a piss-up in a brewery, can't and won't listen to the voter and is unable to even frame a constitutional discussion. But he's a hdd right Christian and that's all that matters to 20% of the voters.
Carolyn Ann
What I liked about the explanation is that the translation of it comes out to "we lost in Puerto Rico because we're tone deaf". It's either that or "we lost because we don't pay attention to the voters, preferring to dictate to them".
So we have the perfect example of contemporary conservative idiocy: they want a man who speaks his mind, but if they don't like what he has to say, they don't want him. (What they really want is someone who speaks their *collective* mind. Who says individuality has anything to do with conservative politics?)
But as far as Rickety is concerned, we've got a front runner who can't organize a piss-up in a brewery, can't and won't listen to the voter and is unable to even frame a constitutional discussion. But he's a hdd right Christian and that's all that matters to 20% of the voters.
Carolyn Ann
Saturday, March 17, 2012
Cry me a piranha-filled river
Aw. Cry me a river. One with piranha's in it. :-)
Omar Hammami, an American-born jihadist is worried his fellow jihadists might kill him. Over a difference of opinion. Boo hoo.
I guess that old "freedom of expression" has something going for it, Omar.
Carolyn Ann
There's a difference?
Quick: what's the difference between a transsexual separatist and a Republican legislator?
No?
Okay: None. They're both far too interested in your vagina.
===
Spreading the muck, as always,
Carolyn Ann
No?
Okay: None. They're both far too interested in your vagina.
===
Spreading the muck, as always,
Carolyn Ann
Friday, March 16, 2012
Two versions of the bin Laden raid
With the well-deserved and applauded death of Osama bin Laden, there came a storm of conjecture about the operation that killed him. Conducted by US Navy SEAL Team 6, with Army Rangers and TF-160, the highly-skilled special forces helicopter pilots, the operation was quick and dangerous. A helicopter crashed and they got their man, who was buried at sea. That much is known. The rest of it really isn't. Which is something you pick up on when you read Chuck Pfarrar's engrossing history of modern SEAL operations, including the one to kill bin Laden. Not that the White House or the Navy SEALs want you to know anything much about the whole thing.
Principally iterating the known history of SEAL Team 6, Mr Pfarrar, who was an assault element commander of that team, adds much to the "factual" popular history of the raid. He principally details the rise JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), and why it came into being. Mostly because the CIA wasn't supplying the needed information. The CIA, it has to be said, was badly led for a long time; a political football, the leadership of it was given to people who had no ability to lead, never mind lead an intelligence service with billions of dollars, thousands of people and turf wars that border on the psychotic. That's not revealing secrets - that's revealing that I've read newspaper reports about the organization for decades!
Mr Pfarrar also doesn't resist any enticement to criticize politicians. Indeed, he tells us he learned not to be disappointed in people, and details his deep disappointment with Democratic presidents, and his mild annoyance with Republican ones. While trying to be "fair", he goes into the failings of the Clinton Presidency with relish, paying no heed, or awareness of, the reciprocal and equally convincing story that the Pentagon was determined to undermine that administration any which way it could. One story I read, in the 1990's, told how senior Special Forces commanders persuaded the White House that an operation was undoable; when they got back to base, those commanders then claimed the White House had cancelled the operation. Which was, strictly speaking, true, but wasn't what I'd call "honest". In such spats, it's best to consider all claims to be suspect. Especially when the warrior doesn't consider, or seem to want to consider, the various issues the political players have to deal with when they make decisions.
This whole "Democrats are weak" thing has become quite tiresome; especially when such nonsense comes face to face with Barack Obama and his "vigorous" foreign policies, not to mention his sometimes overly aggressive efforts to ensure terrorists meet their maker. The Bush Administration displayed some basic incompetence and yet is pretty much air-brushed out of the whole examination of Iraq and Afghanistan; political criticism is reserved only for Mr Obama's administration, and Bill Clinton's before then.
Mr Pfarrar also makes the case for invading Iraq; it's a tenuous case, but he makes it. The only problem I could actually see with his argument is that he alleges a sweeping conspiracy within "the media" to downplay the use of chemical weapons in IED's. That single allegation destroys his basic point which that while many people think of WMD's as nuclear bombs, the experts and those who know consider more than that - chemical and biological weapons, for instance. And Saddam had a lot of those. And because of a basic strategic incompetence in the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and in the upper echelons of the White House, the weapons were lost and the opportunity wasn't even noticed. Incompetence, in other words, explains more than about the lack of attention to this than any fictional media cabal.
On the other hand, John Weisman's "KBL, Kill Bin Laden", is intended for the Fox News audience. As I read it I lost interest; I returned to it only because I felt I had to give the man a fair (and balanced?) hearing. My principal thought was "he's no Hemingway"; indeed, Mr Weisman employs the Tom Clancy method of writing: long explanations that set an unneeded background and paper-thin caricatures that stand up only with the props he supplies. Mr Weisman goes into more detail, much more detail, about the operation. He covers where the practices were held (Fort Knox), how the helicopters slipped into Pakistan (I'm sure the Pakistani military are mightily grateful) and he covers the White House with leering, incompetent politicians who need prodding to do the Right Thing. Like I said, the bin Laden raid for the Fox News crowd.
The only interesting piece in Mr Weisman's book is the asymmetric warfare exercise Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have ordered held. The man in charge of the "enemy" (red team, apparently) won so decisively against the technology-dependent Americans that the rules were changed to ensure an American win and the battle refought. As Mr Weisman notes, it's like the scene in Clint Eastwood's movie, Heartbreak Ridge, where the Marines' major always wins the ambushes because the ambushers are told where and how to fight by the major. It's silly and typical of bureaucracies; I especially believe it of Mr Rumsfeld's band of neocons who thought they knew better than the warriors.
Mr Weisman has a plot line that seems to have been designed to ridicule an American politician, a man based quite clearly on John Kerry. That needless secondary plot is dropped the moment Mr Weisman accomplishes his goal; no effort is made to understand what other dynamics might have been occurring; the result is a facile and desperate attempt to tarnish a man who's been unfairly tarnished quite enough. Like I said, it's something Fox News fans will love, despite its transparency and silliness. Especially as the plot line doesn't go anywhere.
Likewise, diplomats get short thrift from Mr Weisman; he clearly doesn't agree that negotiating to end a war is far more preferable to shooting your way to a dangerous uncertainty. Diplomats, in Mr Weisman's bag, are incompetent buffoons more suited to Hollywood glamor than people who are trying to do a much needed job. You can't always shoot a population into democracy or civil rights. No matter how much Fox News pundits say you can.
In short, neither book provides much new information. They differ on the what happened in that house, leading the reader to conclude that no one will ever know the facts of that raid. Perhaps in a hundred or so years, when the records are unsealed, but no one is going to say what happened. I found it interesting that neither writer mentions the now-famous photograph of the Navy SEAL laying down next to bin Laden's corpse so they could get a comparative measure of his height; apparently no one thought to bring a tape measure! That sort of inventiveness should be celebrated, ghoulish as it is. The helicopter problem isn't well covered at all, which leads me to believe that while both writers claim to have spoken to SEALs who might have taken part in the operation, there wasn't much communication going on. (That's as it should be.) Neither man talked to people at the White House; that much is clear. Mr Pfarrar can be excused because while he's critical of the president - presumably because the man is a politician - his main concern is with the warriors carrying out the raid. Mr Weisman has no such excuse; he plays to Fox News stereotypes with enthusiasm and despite trying to provide a window into the political decision making, makes no effort to not be partisan and simple. His otherwise quite exciting book is marred, and ultimately rendered silly, by such foolishness. (Tom Clancy does the same thing.) Of the two, if you want to know how such an operation happens, I'd head for Chuck Pfarrar's "SEAL Target Geronimo".
All in all, I'd say both writers missed the opportunity to provide the definitive popular account of this daring raid. But of the two, Mr Pfarrar's account is probably the most accurate and the one I would put on my bookshelf.
Carolyn Ann
Principally iterating the known history of SEAL Team 6, Mr Pfarrar, who was an assault element commander of that team, adds much to the "factual" popular history of the raid. He principally details the rise JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), and why it came into being. Mostly because the CIA wasn't supplying the needed information. The CIA, it has to be said, was badly led for a long time; a political football, the leadership of it was given to people who had no ability to lead, never mind lead an intelligence service with billions of dollars, thousands of people and turf wars that border on the psychotic. That's not revealing secrets - that's revealing that I've read newspaper reports about the organization for decades!
Mr Pfarrar also doesn't resist any enticement to criticize politicians. Indeed, he tells us he learned not to be disappointed in people, and details his deep disappointment with Democratic presidents, and his mild annoyance with Republican ones. While trying to be "fair", he goes into the failings of the Clinton Presidency with relish, paying no heed, or awareness of, the reciprocal and equally convincing story that the Pentagon was determined to undermine that administration any which way it could. One story I read, in the 1990's, told how senior Special Forces commanders persuaded the White House that an operation was undoable; when they got back to base, those commanders then claimed the White House had cancelled the operation. Which was, strictly speaking, true, but wasn't what I'd call "honest". In such spats, it's best to consider all claims to be suspect. Especially when the warrior doesn't consider, or seem to want to consider, the various issues the political players have to deal with when they make decisions.
This whole "Democrats are weak" thing has become quite tiresome; especially when such nonsense comes face to face with Barack Obama and his "vigorous" foreign policies, not to mention his sometimes overly aggressive efforts to ensure terrorists meet their maker. The Bush Administration displayed some basic incompetence and yet is pretty much air-brushed out of the whole examination of Iraq and Afghanistan; political criticism is reserved only for Mr Obama's administration, and Bill Clinton's before then.
Mr Pfarrar also makes the case for invading Iraq; it's a tenuous case, but he makes it. The only problem I could actually see with his argument is that he alleges a sweeping conspiracy within "the media" to downplay the use of chemical weapons in IED's. That single allegation destroys his basic point which that while many people think of WMD's as nuclear bombs, the experts and those who know consider more than that - chemical and biological weapons, for instance. And Saddam had a lot of those. And because of a basic strategic incompetence in the civilian leadership at the Pentagon and in the upper echelons of the White House, the weapons were lost and the opportunity wasn't even noticed. Incompetence, in other words, explains more than about the lack of attention to this than any fictional media cabal.
On the other hand, John Weisman's "KBL, Kill Bin Laden", is intended for the Fox News audience. As I read it I lost interest; I returned to it only because I felt I had to give the man a fair (and balanced?) hearing. My principal thought was "he's no Hemingway"; indeed, Mr Weisman employs the Tom Clancy method of writing: long explanations that set an unneeded background and paper-thin caricatures that stand up only with the props he supplies. Mr Weisman goes into more detail, much more detail, about the operation. He covers where the practices were held (Fort Knox), how the helicopters slipped into Pakistan (I'm sure the Pakistani military are mightily grateful) and he covers the White House with leering, incompetent politicians who need prodding to do the Right Thing. Like I said, the bin Laden raid for the Fox News crowd.
The only interesting piece in Mr Weisman's book is the asymmetric warfare exercise Donald Rumsfeld is reported to have ordered held. The man in charge of the "enemy" (red team, apparently) won so decisively against the technology-dependent Americans that the rules were changed to ensure an American win and the battle refought. As Mr Weisman notes, it's like the scene in Clint Eastwood's movie, Heartbreak Ridge, where the Marines' major always wins the ambushes because the ambushers are told where and how to fight by the major. It's silly and typical of bureaucracies; I especially believe it of Mr Rumsfeld's band of neocons who thought they knew better than the warriors.
Mr Weisman has a plot line that seems to have been designed to ridicule an American politician, a man based quite clearly on John Kerry. That needless secondary plot is dropped the moment Mr Weisman accomplishes his goal; no effort is made to understand what other dynamics might have been occurring; the result is a facile and desperate attempt to tarnish a man who's been unfairly tarnished quite enough. Like I said, it's something Fox News fans will love, despite its transparency and silliness. Especially as the plot line doesn't go anywhere.
Likewise, diplomats get short thrift from Mr Weisman; he clearly doesn't agree that negotiating to end a war is far more preferable to shooting your way to a dangerous uncertainty. Diplomats, in Mr Weisman's bag, are incompetent buffoons more suited to Hollywood glamor than people who are trying to do a much needed job. You can't always shoot a population into democracy or civil rights. No matter how much Fox News pundits say you can.
In short, neither book provides much new information. They differ on the what happened in that house, leading the reader to conclude that no one will ever know the facts of that raid. Perhaps in a hundred or so years, when the records are unsealed, but no one is going to say what happened. I found it interesting that neither writer mentions the now-famous photograph of the Navy SEAL laying down next to bin Laden's corpse so they could get a comparative measure of his height; apparently no one thought to bring a tape measure! That sort of inventiveness should be celebrated, ghoulish as it is. The helicopter problem isn't well covered at all, which leads me to believe that while both writers claim to have spoken to SEALs who might have taken part in the operation, there wasn't much communication going on. (That's as it should be.) Neither man talked to people at the White House; that much is clear. Mr Pfarrar can be excused because while he's critical of the president - presumably because the man is a politician - his main concern is with the warriors carrying out the raid. Mr Weisman has no such excuse; he plays to Fox News stereotypes with enthusiasm and despite trying to provide a window into the political decision making, makes no effort to not be partisan and simple. His otherwise quite exciting book is marred, and ultimately rendered silly, by such foolishness. (Tom Clancy does the same thing.) Of the two, if you want to know how such an operation happens, I'd head for Chuck Pfarrar's "SEAL Target Geronimo".
All in all, I'd say both writers missed the opportunity to provide the definitive popular account of this daring raid. But of the two, Mr Pfarrar's account is probably the most accurate and the one I would put on my bookshelf.
Carolyn Ann
Cognitive dissonance #2,014
America wants Afghanistan to respect women's rights. As various Republicans do their level best to erode them over here.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Mittens loves him some Haley... (Oops. Got that one wrong.)
Helping spread the muck,
Carolyn Ann
Thursday, March 15, 2012
What a difference a day makes
Wow! What a difference a few hours can make, never mind a day! I'm not going to say what news we received this afternoon, but suffice it to say it was Very Good. :-)
A side affect is that we're not going to be in New Jersey for too much longer. Perhaps a year, maybe two. That's a pity, considering how much effort we've put into this house - and how much more I need to do. And the fact that I've really gotten to like this place, its remoteness, the woodland and how quiet and rural it is. Brilliant star-lit nights and all that. :-)
Still, the news was Good and it's a very positive step for the future.
Now I really have to knuckle down and get some work done! :-D
Carolyn Ann
A side affect is that we're not going to be in New Jersey for too much longer. Perhaps a year, maybe two. That's a pity, considering how much effort we've put into this house - and how much more I need to do. And the fact that I've really gotten to like this place, its remoteness, the woodland and how quiet and rural it is. Brilliant star-lit nights and all that. :-)
Still, the news was Good and it's a very positive step for the future.
Now I really have to knuckle down and get some work done! :-D
Carolyn Ann
They really don't like him.
Mittens has lost his aura of inevitability. Not that he had any such thing in the first place. :-) He was never going to win Alabama, for instance.
Anyway, I decided to crunch some numbers:
Anyway, I decided to crunch some numbers:
| Candidate |
States won
|
Pct of vote
|
Mittens
|
19 | 45% |
| Rickety | 9 | 23% |
| Newt | 2 | 14% |
| Ron | 0 | 15% |
| "Not Mittens" | 14 | 37% |
"Not Mittens" is defined as Rickety+Newt.
As you can see, Mittens is enjoying a 45:37 lead over the "Not Mittens" crowd. Considering that Rick and Newt weren't on the Virginia ballots, this isn't the lead the man should be getting. It also seems like Mittens was the only one on the Guam ballot. He did exceptionally well in the islands, in general. If you take the islands, except Hawaii, out, his lead drops to 42:37.
If Newt dropped out, we can assume many of his supporters would head to Rickety; how many is impossible to say. He is definitely "the spoiler", especially for Rickety. It would create problems for Mittens if Newt dropped out.
All in all, the only conclusion possible is "they really don't like Mitt Romney and aren't too keen on anyone else, either!" That leads me to think that if Rick Perry had gotten his act together, he'd be out front and Mittens would be outspending him simply to catch up. As it is, he's vastly outspending the other candidates and only managing to squeak ahead.
.
If I were a GOP supporter, I'd be mightily concerned.
Carolyn Ann
As you can see, Mittens is enjoying a 45:37 lead over the "Not Mittens" crowd. Considering that Rick and Newt weren't on the Virginia ballots, this isn't the lead the man should be getting. It also seems like Mittens was the only one on the Guam ballot. He did exceptionally well in the islands, in general. If you take the islands, except Hawaii, out, his lead drops to 42:37.
If Newt dropped out, we can assume many of his supporters would head to Rickety; how many is impossible to say. He is definitely "the spoiler", especially for Rickety. It would create problems for Mittens if Newt dropped out.
All in all, the only conclusion possible is "they really don't like Mitt Romney and aren't too keen on anyone else, either!" That leads me to think that if Rick Perry had gotten his act together, he'd be out front and Mittens would be outspending him simply to catch up. As it is, he's vastly outspending the other candidates and only managing to squeak ahead.
.
If I were a GOP supporter, I'd be mightily concerned.
Carolyn Ann
Don't take Mitten's out of context, please.
I wish people would stop taking Mitten's words out of context! When he says "Planned Parenthood, we're going to get rid of that", he didn't mean he was going to get rid of Planned Parenthood. He simply meant he was going to get rid of all women's health care funding. Totally different, you see!
Carolyn Ann
It simply is. And I like that that makes the leaders of Goldman Sachs uncomfortable
When someone does something like Greg Smith, there's no debating whether it is the right or wrong thing to do. It simply is.
What he did was whistle blow in a dangerous way. From now until whenever, Goldman traders will have to justify their recommendations. Goldman managers will have to back up their promises with deeds. Goldman's clients will have to look in the mirror and wonder if they were duped. And populations, like Greece's will have to answer a whole series of questions. (Not least being "How did we get ourselves governments that promised so much and delivered so little, and then landed us with the mess we're now in?!?")
I've seen comments ranging from the "good on yer, mate!" to "he should have kept it in the family". None of them matter - his op-ed simply is.
And when the rich and powerful wish it wasn't, you know the man has to be on to something. He will definitely be hailed as one of the more devious whistleblowers, and that's as it should be. I admire the man. An honest man on Wall St? Who knew such a critter existed?
Carolyn Ann
What he did was whistle blow in a dangerous way. From now until whenever, Goldman traders will have to justify their recommendations. Goldman managers will have to back up their promises with deeds. Goldman's clients will have to look in the mirror and wonder if they were duped. And populations, like Greece's will have to answer a whole series of questions. (Not least being "How did we get ourselves governments that promised so much and delivered so little, and then landed us with the mess we're now in?!?")
I've seen comments ranging from the "good on yer, mate!" to "he should have kept it in the family". None of them matter - his op-ed simply is.
And when the rich and powerful wish it wasn't, you know the man has to be on to something. He will definitely be hailed as one of the more devious whistleblowers, and that's as it should be. I admire the man. An honest man on Wall St? Who knew such a critter existed?
Carolyn Ann
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Two dangers
The way I see it, there are two threats to American democracy. Both are direct in their danger, and both are favored by a single party (although, to be fair, the Dems do like their gerrymandering as well).
Citizen's United is the first obvious danger and gerrymandered districts is the second. Citizen's United allows unlimited cash to essentially buy elections; it substitutes money for expression and considers the corporation a person, one with nary a responsibility. A corporation can't sit on a jury, can't vote, can't be jailed. But, courtesy of some tortured reasoning, it can be a significant voice in an election. It allows, demands, the wealthy shout down and drown out the objector, the person who has a voice but no cash. They might as well as not have a voice, which would suit the Target's, Walmart's, Goldman Sachs' and the like just fine.
The second problem, the gerrymandered district, allows politicians to exploit voters and guarantee their own, state-provided, salaries. When districts are unfairly provided you do not have a democracy. You have the worst possible political system: self-appointed guardians arguing that the illusion of a democracy is the same as a true democracy. It's an insult to the voter and an insult to the principles these charlatans facetiously exploit.
Districts need to be apportioned fairly, by pure population count. No regard should be made for which way that neighborhood votes. No district should be oddly shaped, in order to provide the incumbent harpie the votes needed to retain their office.
Citizen's United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people. The Constitution provides no basis for that argument, and no basis can be found in either common sense or common law. Replacing speech with cash is not representative, it's distorting and exploitive. It effectively silences the voices corporations don't want you to hear, and it amplifies those they want you vote for.
Democracy is an imperfect system; it's failings are its strengths. A distorted democracy is not a democracy; it is an autarchy of, and for, the few. The powerful. The mendacious.
Carolyn Ann
Citizen's United is the first obvious danger and gerrymandered districts is the second. Citizen's United allows unlimited cash to essentially buy elections; it substitutes money for expression and considers the corporation a person, one with nary a responsibility. A corporation can't sit on a jury, can't vote, can't be jailed. But, courtesy of some tortured reasoning, it can be a significant voice in an election. It allows, demands, the wealthy shout down and drown out the objector, the person who has a voice but no cash. They might as well as not have a voice, which would suit the Target's, Walmart's, Goldman Sachs' and the like just fine.
The second problem, the gerrymandered district, allows politicians to exploit voters and guarantee their own, state-provided, salaries. When districts are unfairly provided you do not have a democracy. You have the worst possible political system: self-appointed guardians arguing that the illusion of a democracy is the same as a true democracy. It's an insult to the voter and an insult to the principles these charlatans facetiously exploit.
Districts need to be apportioned fairly, by pure population count. No regard should be made for which way that neighborhood votes. No district should be oddly shaped, in order to provide the incumbent harpie the votes needed to retain their office.
Citizen's United needs to be overturned. Corporations are not people. The Constitution provides no basis for that argument, and no basis can be found in either common sense or common law. Replacing speech with cash is not representative, it's distorting and exploitive. It effectively silences the voices corporations don't want you to hear, and it amplifies those they want you vote for.
Democracy is an imperfect system; it's failings are its strengths. A distorted democracy is not a democracy; it is an autarchy of, and for, the few. The powerful. The mendacious.
Carolyn Ann
It's the least they deserve. It really is.
I hope Greg Smith is wearing his fireproof undies. Because Goldman Sachs will try to, and will, punish him every which way to Sunday. I also hope he got a lock on his money - because the people who now run Goldman Sachs are some of the most unscrupulous double-dealers in history. They actively helped Greek governments land the mess they're in now; they bet against their own clients and helped engineer both the boom of the Bush years and the resulting recession, all while pleading a cynics innocence. "Me? Li'l' ol' me? No sir, not me!" Lloyd Blankfein whined to Congress; "Not us, nowhere near that!" they told any and all.
They were in it. They bet against AIG as they ensured AIG would pay them first, helping bring it down and crashing the economy. They took our money and ran. And then turned around and whined we, their bail out, had no say in how they cooked their books and trampled common ethics. As they destroyed dreams and aspirations, they cackled their way to tax-payer funded bonuses and purchased Congressmen and women by the passel.
Hang the bastards by the balls. Them and their bought and paid for Congressional apologists. Hang all of the buggers, it's the least they deserve. That's what I say.
Carolyn Ann
They were in it. They bet against AIG as they ensured AIG would pay them first, helping bring it down and crashing the economy. They took our money and ran. And then turned around and whined we, their bail out, had no say in how they cooked their books and trampled common ethics. As they destroyed dreams and aspirations, they cackled their way to tax-payer funded bonuses and purchased Congressmen and women by the passel.
Hang the bastards by the balls. Them and their bought and paid for Congressional apologists. Hang all of the buggers, it's the least they deserve. That's what I say.
Carolyn Ann
America is hope
In response to a post by Being Liberal, on Facebook. He put up a picture that said America was founded on hope, not fear. So I said this:
Carolyn Ann
I'm not American, but I certainly agree that America was founded on hope, not fear. Hopeful nations do great things, are great in and of themselves. Fearful people produce fearful nations, of whom the best that can be said is that they may one day face their fears. Fearful nations are not great; fearful people produce cynical leaders who exploit that fear; even worse is the leader who is himself fearful. Great nations are not filled with fear. Hopeful nations, hopeful people, have no need for fear - they have hope, optimism and happiness. Fearful people have none of those, except the hope of more fear. Their fear is never eradicated, never far and always bidden. America is not that nation, not that people.The GOP doesn't represent the America I know and first fell in love with. They represent, pander to, the worst of America. The fearful, the vengeful piety that dogs all hope and destroys what it can in the pursuit of ensuring that their fears rules over all. That's not America. Not by a long shot it isn't.
Carolyn Ann
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Cheeky...
You might not know this, but Mittens wasn't going to give a speech this evening. There was some conjecture why not. And then the Dems sent this out on Facebook:
I've been to Alabama and Mississippi. I'm going for #3 and #4. :-D
Carolyn Ann
POLL: Tell us why you think Mitt Romney wouldn't give a speech after tonight's primary loss in in Alabama and Mississippi.
Why do you think Mitt Romney couldn't give a speech?
Option 1: Picking grits out of his teethCheeky! And cute. :-)
Option 2: Paying out $10,000 bets
Option 3: Too busy firing people
Option 4: Trees aren't the right height
I've been to Alabama and Mississippi. I'm going for #3 and #4. :-D
Carolyn Ann
Romney's staff doesn't believe (in?) him
Jut listened to some spokesdrone from Romney's campaign. The thing I picked up? He didn't believe what he was iterating. And that's what he was doing - iterating. Not speaking, merely listing silly things like "the economy Obama gave to us".
Carolyn Ann
PS Rickety is praying for Louisiana. And he's really invoking God. The Mrs says "just put your white hood on and be done with it!"
Carolyn Ann
PS Rickety is praying for Louisiana. And he's really invoking God. The Mrs says "just put your white hood on and be done with it!"
Robert - simplify your message!
Robert, Robert, Robert (Gibbs): it's not "long-winded explanation" against The One. It's "do you want the policies that got us into this mess, or the ones that are getting us out of it?"
It's very simple, really. Keep it simple.
Carolyn Ann
It's very simple, really. Keep it simple.
Carolyn Ann
Sensationalist news! British TV star to become a woman.
I have no idea who this person is... But she looks great! And good luck to her! :-)
Apparently "Big Brother" star Rodrigo Lopez is becoming Rebekah. Good for her! Although why it's anyone's business is beyond me.
Carolyn Ann
Apparently "Big Brother" star Rodrigo Lopez is becoming Rebekah. Good for her! Although why it's anyone's business is beyond me.
Carolyn Ann
Cognitive Dissonance? We're beyond that
The GOP is currently the main generator of Cognitive Dissonance in this country. We have Sarah Palin complaining that the Obama Campaign is turning her own words against her and we have state legislators arguing that your employer has the right to fire you - if, and only if, you're a woman, because you use contraceptives. Here's what Arizona State GOP Rep Debbie Lesko said:
I kind of guessed this would be "interesting" year for politics. So far all that's happened is a massive, collective, conservative cerebral train wreck. And the worst of it? We're only in March. They say crowds get mad collectively. Apparently all you really need is ideological proximity and common sense goes straight out the window.
What an idiot.
Carolyn Ann
“I believe we live in America. We don’t live in the Soviet Union,” Lesko said. “So, government should not be telling the organizations or mom and pop employers to do something against their moral beliefs.”We're beyond cognitive dissonance with that one. The government can't tell you not to use contraceptives, but your boss can?!? What the hell was Rep Lesko thinking? Was she thinking?!? Not only can the government require an official rape of a woman, this moron is now saying her employer can delve into her most private life?!? Because it might interfere with the employer's 1st Amendment rights? (How she gets to that, I have no idea!) The woman is denied her rights so a third party can enjoy expansive rights to subjugate their female employees. Whatever next? A requirement that women open their purses upon request?
I kind of guessed this would be "interesting" year for politics. So far all that's happened is a massive, collective, conservative cerebral train wreck. And the worst of it? We're only in March. They say crowds get mad collectively. Apparently all you really need is ideological proximity and common sense goes straight out the window.
What an idiot.
Carolyn Ann
How not to use analogies when explaining something
Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees. I've just realized I've been examining the trees of one particular thorny forest... :-)
Let me (sort of) explain. ("Please,don't bother do!" Cry my wonderful readers. :-D ) I'm working on the initialization, the startup, phase of a system. I need it to do certain things in order, and other things in no particular order. So, yup - I'm using threading. Ruby, the language I'm working in, has an "autoload" feature; it's a lazy loading system. That means you can make a note that you need something, but don't actually load it until you need it. A bit like shopping. You can go to the shops every time you need a can of peas or a loaf of bread, but it's more efficient to wait until you need more than a single item. ... Okay, that analogy doesn't work too well. :-)
Anyway, I need to do the autoloading bit in a mostly any old order way. But autoload isn't thread-safe, which means it could do something silly if this bit wants to use the autoloaded class and a moment later another bit also tells the system "load that for me, thanks!" What you end up with is either stalemate, a race condition or corrupted data. None of these are good.
So I concentrated on figuring out a thread-safe autoloader. Which turns out to be either easy or incredibly hard depending on how you approach the problem. It was looking to be unsolvable, to be honest. Like trying to figure out how walk around a tree simply by looking up at its branches. Like I said: I was concentrating on a single tree in a rather ornery forest.
As I washed the dishes I pondered the problem. I do a lot of thinking when I'm washing the dishes; unfortunately I don't wash the dishes very often. (If you saw the sink of my house in England, you'd quickly surmise that I did no dishes nor thinking. Something my Mom used to point out often... On both points.) Where was I? Oh, yes. I drew a mental picture of the overall problem; not for any real reason, but simply because it occurred to me it might be time usefully spent. And it dawned on me that I was tackling the wrong problem. I don't need a thread-safe autoloader (well, I do, but for a different reason*). What I first need is a way of describing what I need to do! A configuration system, in other words. With a domain-specific language. I know I just made the problem a tad more complex, but it's in a way that using a map to navigate the forest is more complex than simply wading in and seeing what happens and where you end up.
So now I've got a solvable problem. :-)
Carolyn Ann
*The reason for a thread safe autoloader might go away; it might not, also. But at least I know what it should do! Before, I had a vague idea what was needed but no clear idea of the constraints and potential solutions. Now I do. ... I'm not explaining this very well, am I?
Let me (sort of) explain. ("Please,
Anyway, I need to do the autoloading bit in a mostly any old order way. But autoload isn't thread-safe, which means it could do something silly if this bit wants to use the autoloaded class and a moment later another bit also tells the system "load that for me, thanks!" What you end up with is either stalemate, a race condition or corrupted data. None of these are good.
So I concentrated on figuring out a thread-safe autoloader. Which turns out to be either easy or incredibly hard depending on how you approach the problem. It was looking to be unsolvable, to be honest. Like trying to figure out how walk around a tree simply by looking up at its branches. Like I said: I was concentrating on a single tree in a rather ornery forest.
As I washed the dishes I pondered the problem. I do a lot of thinking when I'm washing the dishes; unfortunately I don't wash the dishes very often. (If you saw the sink of my house in England, you'd quickly surmise that I did no dishes nor thinking. Something my Mom used to point out often... On both points.) Where was I? Oh, yes. I drew a mental picture of the overall problem; not for any real reason, but simply because it occurred to me it might be time usefully spent. And it dawned on me that I was tackling the wrong problem. I don't need a thread-safe autoloader (well, I do, but for a different reason*). What I first need is a way of describing what I need to do! A configuration system, in other words. With a domain-specific language. I know I just made the problem a tad more complex, but it's in a way that using a map to navigate the forest is more complex than simply wading in and seeing what happens and where you end up.
So now I've got a solvable problem. :-)
Carolyn Ann
*The reason for a thread safe autoloader might go away; it might not, also. But at least I know what it should do! Before, I had a vague idea what was needed but no clear idea of the constraints and potential solutions. Now I do. ... I'm not explaining this very well, am I?
Economy improving... Republicans deeply disappointed
Republicans today were disappointed with news that the Fed thinks the economy is improving. They vowed to do whatever they could to destroy it. Because Mitch McConnell hates the fact that that Black Guy won the White House.
Carolyn Ann
Carolyn Ann
Patent trolls abound, Cap'n. There's the Yahoo coming up, now!
Yahoo has been reduced to patent trolling.
No longer can it put out actual products, so it's adopted Nathan Myhrvold's business model. But instead of suing the little guys, as Mr Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures does, Yahoo has chosen to go after Facebook. Nice move. If you consider "idiocy" to be cute.
It's getting to the point where Internet innovation has to come with a legal defense fund. On the other hand, it's probably a last-gasp effort at relevancy for Yahoo. They are now, apparently, intent on becoming the SCO* of the social internet.
Carolyn Ann
*SCO was a company in that once had a product. But then didn't because they forgot to develop it and compete in the marketplace. In a fit of pique, they started suing any and all (and IBM in particular) over a long-established system called Unix. You might have heard of it: it runs the internet. Anyway, they kept losing so often it became humiliating. And eventually they (mercifully) ran out of money. Mostly because IBM had legitimacy on their side. And still had bags of money when SCO managers were wondering about the going rate for pocket lint.
No longer can it put out actual products, so it's adopted Nathan Myhrvold's business model. But instead of suing the little guys, as Mr Myhrvold's Intellectual Ventures does, Yahoo has chosen to go after Facebook. Nice move. If you consider "idiocy" to be cute.
It's getting to the point where Internet innovation has to come with a legal defense fund. On the other hand, it's probably a last-gasp effort at relevancy for Yahoo. They are now, apparently, intent on becoming the SCO* of the social internet.
Carolyn Ann
*SCO was a company in that once had a product. But then didn't because they forgot to develop it and compete in the marketplace. In a fit of pique, they started suing any and all (and IBM in particular) over a long-established system called Unix. You might have heard of it: it runs the internet. Anyway, they kept losing so often it became humiliating. And eventually they (mercifully) ran out of money. Mostly because IBM had legitimacy on their side. And still had bags of money when SCO managers were wondering about the going rate for pocket lint.
War on Women Ad
Powerful ad.
A powerful, poignant and slightly disturbing ad from MoveOn.org.
Looking at the now-daily legislative assaults on women's rights, I'd say the GOP definitely has a problem with women. And if you think the GO candidate will tack to the center to get elected, just look around at the various Republican governors and legislators. They've moved further and further from the center!
Carolyn Ann
Simple, right? (If only.)
One of the odder things about the whole Rush Limbaugh thing is the hypocrisy of the "left". There's a lot of chit-chat about giving the man a pass because his words were political, or allowed and so on.
One thing people keep forgetting about freely expressed ideas is that along with an ability to offend, the listener can be offended! So while we need to preserve Rush Limbaugh's right to offend all and sundry, we can also state that there's also a reciprocal right to be offended!
Ideas have consequences; if you're not going to allow the offensive ideas their day in the sun, you also have to deny that someone can be offended. Both rights need each other. In fact, neither can logically work without the other. If you're not allowed to offend, you can't be offended because no one is allowed to actually offend you. (Don't think about it too much. It'll give you a headache.)
So women, and anyone right-minded, can be offended by Mr Limbaugh's words. It's not denying him the right to say them, it's not justifying them by arguing "everyone does it", it's not excusing them as "not the words I'd pick". It's simply saying that Mr Limbaugh's ideas are offensive and need to be countered.
Carolyn Ann
Scared? You might want to be...
It seems I'm not the only one who thinks the GOP is willing to destroy the economy to regain the White House, the Senate and the House. Michael Tomasky thinks so, too.
You think the State-level stuff is inane and extreme? Wait until the GOP figure out how to pull a trifecta. It wouldn't be long before we lived in a Christian theocracy where Rick Santorum was the center.
Carolyn Ann
You think the State-level stuff is inane and extreme? Wait until the GOP figure out how to pull a trifecta. It wouldn't be long before we lived in a Christian theocracy where Rick Santorum was the center.
Carolyn Ann
(Republican?) Newspapers embrace China's "harmony" principles
Some newspapers have decided to not carry this week's Doonesbury cartoons. Because they deal with a controversial subject.
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that as well. When has Doonesbury not been about something controversial?!?
According to The Guardian, some newspapers are running alternative strips in their place. Now, there's no question the newspapers can do what they want, but it's a bit hypocritical of them to decide that abortion, and Texas' onerous and odious new laws, can't be covered by a satirist. Of course, in the day of the web - banning something is almost certain to make sure it is seen by millions more. "What's all the fuss about?" And, of course, those newspapers can no longer claim to be totally independent of the various state Republican Parties.
At the moment they all look either like censor-happy organs of state Republican parties, or intellectual cowards. Or both. Either way, they're obviously into endorsing a Chinese-like "social harmony" pledge. Because there's no other way to describe the decision to not run a cartoon simply because it deals with a controversial topic.
Carolyn Ann
Yeah, I had to do a double take on that as well. When has Doonesbury not been about something controversial?!?
According to The Guardian, some newspapers are running alternative strips in their place. Now, there's no question the newspapers can do what they want, but it's a bit hypocritical of them to decide that abortion, and Texas' onerous and odious new laws, can't be covered by a satirist. Of course, in the day of the web - banning something is almost certain to make sure it is seen by millions more. "What's all the fuss about?" And, of course, those newspapers can no longer claim to be totally independent of the various state Republican Parties.
At the moment they all look either like censor-happy organs of state Republican parties, or intellectual cowards. Or both. Either way, they're obviously into endorsing a Chinese-like "social harmony" pledge. Because there's no other way to describe the decision to not run a cartoon simply because it deals with a controversial topic.
Carolyn Ann
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)