Give Obama the finger


No, not that one – the big red one. Apparently it all started with Jan Brewer. Then Erin Sherbert of the SF Weekly wrote this headline:

Obama Coming to San Francisco, Where Nobody Will Wag Their Fingers in His Face



John at The City Square reports:

Naturally, the SF Bay Area Patriots responded by making the theme for this rally to be “wag your finger” at Obama.


I think they have hit on the perfect anti-Obama theme. Those big foam fingers are cheap and easy to make. They come in different colors and can be customized. Every different group (left and right) can join in protesting Obama and his policies.

Imagine a diverse group of protesters appearing wherever Obama goes, all wagging big foam fingers. But the fingers are red, white, blue, green, pink or whatever depending on whether the protester is Tea Party, OWS, environmentalist, feminist or in favor or marijuana legalization.

That way if you’re a lefty and want to protest Obama’s policy of remote-control assassination but don’t want people to think you support the Tea Party, you can make your cause and your affiliation (or lack thereof) clear.  Groups could have the name of their organizations printed on the back and sell them as fundraisers.



Talented Taylor Swift


Taylor Swift won two Grammy awards last weekend, bringing her total to six. Not bad for a 21 year-old. The video above was made when she was only sixteen. Taylor wrote it in twenty minutes when she was a fifteen year old freshman in high school.

I wish I had the interest on all the money she has earned since then.

This is an open thread.

Here’s the song that won Taylor her fifth and sixth Grammys:



Amazing


This is from the New York Times:

Inside the brain-and-cognitive-sciences department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are what, to the casual observer, look like dollhouse versions of surgical theaters. There are rooms with tiny scalpels, small drills and miniature saws. Even the operating tables are petite, as if prepared for 7-year-old surgeons. Inside those shrunken O.R.’s, neurologists cut into the skulls of anesthetized rats, implanting tiny sensors that record the smallest changes in the activity of their brains.

An M.I.T. neuroscientist named Ann Graybiel told me that she and her colleagues began exploring habits more than a decade ago by putting their wired rats into a T-shaped maze with chocolate at one end. The maze was structured so that each animal was positioned behind a barrier that opened after a loud click. The first time a rat was placed in the maze, it would usually wander slowly up and down the center aisle after the barrier slid away, sniffing in corners and scratching at walls. It appeared to smell the chocolate but couldn’t figure out how to find it. There was no discernible pattern in the rat’s meanderings and no indication it was working hard to find the treat.

The probes in the rats’ heads, however, told a different story. While each animal wandered through the maze, its brain was working furiously. Every time a rat sniffed the air or scratched a wall, the neurosensors inside the animal’s head exploded with activity. As the scientists repeated the experiment, again and again, the rats eventually stopped sniffing corners and making wrong turns and began to zip through the maze with more and more speed. And within their brains, something unexpected occurred: as each rat learned how to complete the maze more quickly, its mental activity decreased. As the path became more and more automatic — as it became a habit — the rats started thinking less and less.

This process, in which the brain converts a sequence of actions into an automatic routine, is called “chunking.” There are dozens, if not hundreds, of behavioral chunks we rely on every day. Some are simple: you automatically put toothpaste on your toothbrush before sticking it in your mouth. Some, like making the kids’ lunch, are a little more complex. Still others are so complicated that it’s remarkable to realize that a habit could have emerged at all.

Take backing your car out of the driveway. When you first learned to drive, that act required a major dose of concentration, and for good reason: it involves peering into the rearview and side mirrors and checking for obstacles, putting your foot on the brake, moving the gearshift into reverse, removing your foot from the brake, estimating the distance between the garage and the street while keeping the wheels aligned, calculating how images in the mirrors translate into actual distances, all while applying differing amounts of pressure to the gas pedal and brake.

Now, you perform that series of actions every time you pull into the street without thinking very much. Your brain has chunked large parts of it. Left to its own devices, the brain will try to make almost any repeated behavior into a habit, because habits allow our minds to conserve effort. But conserving mental energy is tricky, because if our brains power down at the wrong moment, we might fail to notice something important, like a child riding her bike down the sidewalk or a speeding car coming down the street. So we’ve devised a clever system to determine when to let a habit take over. It’s something that happens whenever a chunk of behavior starts or ends — and it helps to explain why habits are so difficult to change once they’re formed, despite our best intentions.

To understand this a little more clearly, consider again the chocolate-seeking rats. What Graybiel and her colleagues found was that, as the ability to navigate the maze became habitual, there were two spikes in the rats’ brain activity — once at the beginning of the maze, when the rat heard the click right before the barrier slid away, and once at the end, when the rat found the chocolate. Those spikes show when the rats’ brains were fully engaged, and the dip in neural activity between the spikes showed when the habit took over. From behind the partition, the rat wasn’t sure what waited on the other side, until it heard the click, which it had come to associate with the maze. Once it heard that sound, it knew to use the “maze habit,” and its brain activity decreased. Then at the end of the routine, when the reward appeared, the brain shook itself awake again and the chocolate signaled to the rat that this particular habit was worth remembering, and the neurological pathway was carved that much deeper.

The process within our brains that creates habits is a three-step loop. First, there is a cue, a trigger that tells your brain to go into automatic mode and which habit to use. Then there is the routine, which can be physical or mental or emotional. Finally, there is a reward, which helps your brain figure out if this particular loop is worth remembering for the future. Over time, this loop — cue, routine, reward; cue, routine, reward — becomes more and more automatic. The cue and reward become neurologically intertwined until a sense of craving emerges. What’s unique about cues and rewards, however, is how subtle they can be. Neurological studies like the ones in Graybiel’s lab have revealed that some cues span just milliseconds. And rewards can range from the obvious (like the sugar rush that a morning doughnut habit provides) to the infinitesimal (like the barely noticeable — but measurable — sense of relief the brain experiences after successfully navigating the driveway). Most cues and rewards, in fact, happen so quickly and are so slight that we are hardly aware of them at all. But our neural systems notice and use them to build automatic behaviors.

Habits aren’t destiny — they can be ignored, changed or replaced. But it’s also true that once the loop is established and a habit emerges, your brain stops fully participating in decision-making. So unless you deliberately fight a habit — unless you find new cues and rewards — the old pattern will unfold automatically.

Fascinating stuff. I’m really interested in stuff about brain chemistry (dumbed-down for a social science major) and how it affects behavior and personality.

But the article is titled How Companies Learn Your Secrets.

That’s right. They aren’t doing all this fancy research in order to make the world a better place for humanity, they are trying to make YOU a better consumer. And by “better” I mean “easy to manipulate.”

Why shouldn’t they? There are no laws against it. Every year they get better at it. The old fashioned way was to sell you the products you need, but the more efficient way is to convince you that you need the products they sell. Products, services and candidates.

David “Spoony” Atkins:

I’m what they call a Qualitative Research Consultant, or QRC for short. Here’s my website. There’s even a whole association of us who meet regularly to discuss ideas and tactics. Together with the AAPC, the MRA, the AMA, ESOMAR, and a whole host of other organizations you’ve never heard of, we have more power and control than you know. We’re extremely good at what we do, and we do it all behind the scenes, appealing to and manipulating your subconscious brain in ways that your conscious brain has little to no control over.

Give us a little money to test some things out, and we can work magic. Our business is persuasion, and we’re very good at it. Just watch PBS Frontline’s series, The Persuaders to get just a small inkling of what you’re up against. We can make a company that earns a 38% gross profit margin manufacturing purely propriety products seem hip, cool and progressive. We can take sugar water and sell it back to you as a health drink, and even Whole Foods shoppers will believe it. We can take 30 different brands of vodka with almost exactly the same ingredients, and make you understand instantly just what kind of person drinks which brand, and how much you should expect to pay for each, without a moment’s thought. For any given category of products, I can show you a bunch of different brands, and you’ll be able to tell me a wealth of information about each one, despite the near absolute similarity of their actual products to one another. One exercise we QRC’s like to conduct involves actually turning a brand into a person in a group discussion; it’s called personification. And you wouldn’t believe how effectively and universally we can tailor a brand’s image, right down to what kind of car that “person” would drive, and what music he/she would listen to.


Each of us is unique – we all respond a little differently. The more they know about you, the better they know how to push your buttons. So where do they find out about your buttons?

You tell them. Do you use any kind of shopping or member discount card? Do you shop online? Do you use a bank or credit card to pay for your purchases? Does your cell phone track your movements? Do you Facebook or use Google services? Do you enter personal information (like their addresses and birthdays) about your friends into Facebook? Do they enter your personal information in their accounts?

Somewhere out there people are compiling information about you. They know your shopping habits, what websites you visit, who your friends are. In most cases you have given them permission to gather this info. They share it with each other, and with the government too.

You are probably being watched right now.



Serious Smut


Hard to believe we’re living in the 21st Century, ain’t it?

Just what you want to hear: Planned Parenthood works around the clock to hook your kids on sex

Recently, American Life League came out with a six-minute exposé of Planned Parenthood that was so appalling that I would have had a hard time believing it was true had it not been about Planned Parenthood. The video included clips and images from PP educational materials — cartoons and the like — and the gist of the clips was that teens should learn to pleasure themselves and each other as soon as possible.

[...]

The point of the ALL’s video was simple: Planned Parenthood has a vested interest in hooking the next generation on sex. They’re in the abortion business. They depend upon unwanted pregnancies to stay in business. They know no unwanted pregnancy occurs without sex, so they encourage sex — albeit “safe” sex.


My personal experience is that you don’t need to teach kids about sex – they’ll discover it on their own. But if you want to avoid things like teen pregnancy, STD’s along with massive amounts of guilt, shame and embarrassment, you DO need to teach kids about sex.

BTW – When you try to repress the normal human sex drive, it pops out anyway but in perverted ways – like pedophile priests, bestiality and rape.


A rock and a hard place


As Occupy Boston struggles with a sex-offender ban, its weaknesses have been laid bare

It was after 10 pm on Tuesday, January 10, in the stale, bright basement of the Arlington Street Church, where now-nomadic Occupy Boston was holding a meeting. At issue was something that would seem straightforward: a proposal to prevent level-three sex offenders from being a part of Occupy. But suddenly, it felt as if the entire movement could be splintering. Two nights earlier, the sex-offender proposal was blocked. And now, as the Occupiers attempted to deal with the aftermath, the room filled with a tense whirlwind of emotional outcries about feeling triggered and targeted by misogyny, sexism, and homophobia.

Within the first half-hour of the assembly, it was clear that a typical GA wouldn’t work for the night’s anxiousness. So instead, it became more of a Quaker-style community speak-out, with rows of about 75 chairs reorganized into a circle. The facilitator told the group to “let a spirit guide them,” and to speak as they felt inclined, without being called on. Someone handed out stress-relieving clay; the room even took a moment for “spiritual grounding” as someone from the Faith and Spirituality working group sounded a Tibetan singing bowl. It all worked surprisingly well for the first three hours.

But eventually, it broke — people started lashing out, yelling, antagonizing, walking out of the room. A new hand gesture was soon established for the night’s GA — a fist covered by an open hand, to signal oppressive language or verbal abuse — but it wasn’t working. Overall, the night confirmed that, as one Occupier put it, “Shit’s boiling over right now.”

The fight over whether to ban level-three sex offenders has become an even larger issue — highlighting the weaknesses of the open, consensus-based process that Occupy GAs rely on. And according to representatives from other Occupy cities, the issue isn’t unique to Boston.

“As it went on, it became really painfully obvious how broken things are and how far we have to go to repair them,” Women’s Caucus member Ariadne Ross said the next morning. “By the end of the night I was feeling worse than when we started.”

[...]

The conversation surrounding sex offenders began percolating after December 20, when the GA passed a “Mutual Aid Working Group Proposal” allotting cash to help homeless persons who’d been displaced by the dismantling of Occupy’s Dewey Square camp — a pool that at least one registered sex offender attempted to access.

So on December 27, an Occupier named Sarah Barney brought a proposal to the GA to ban sex offenders. Her proposal generally states that if a member of Occupy Boston is found to be a level-three sex offender (a person convicted of a sexual crime whom the court deems to be at especially high risk for reoffending), the Safety working group would ask them to leave for one week, during which time the GA would vote on whether the accused should be asked to leave Occupy Boston permanently.

For Barney, a mother who often brought her five-year-old son to Occupy Boston, the issue was larger than the mutual-aid proposal.

“It stemmed from one specific incident, finding out that someone who lived at Dewey Square had gone to jail for nine years for two counts of sexual assault and rape of children under the age of 16,” said Barney.


When Occupy Wall Street began they intentionally adopted a strategy of “occupying” public spaces in defiance of the law. They didn’t want permission, they wanted to engineer confrontations with the police in order to get publicity and sympathy. That strategy worked fairly well for the first month or so.

It was easy to foresee the flaw in that plan – the encampments would be magnets for the professional homeless and other dregs of society. Free food, shelter and a group of people who refused to cooperate with the police is a criminal’s dream.

At first the Occupiers didn’t mind these newcomers. It swelled their numbers and provided a core group willing to physically live in the encampments through the oncoming winters. But some of these newcomers were predators. The rebels without a clue found themselves dealing with people their sheltered lives had not prepared them for.

The Occupiers had painted themselves into a corner. They couldn’t deal with the sexual assault problem themselves and they couldn’t call the cops. They were terrified the publicity would harm the movement but they couldn’t cover it up. They tried to cover it up and that ended up making things worse.

They sowed the seeds of their own destruction.


If you need to set aside a special space where women can be safe, women aren't safe


BWVAKTBOOM


This new ad campaign by PETA enters some serious WTF territory:

Living With BWVAKTBOOM

All over the world, regular guys are choosing a vegan diet, unaware of the erotic consequences. As a result, an epidemic is spreading among their “loved” ones: BWVAKTBOOM, “Boyfriend Went Vegan and Knocked the Bottom out of Me.”

For years, women have been open to the physical, emotional, and karmic benefits of veganism. But now, more and more men are discovering the perks of a plant-based diet. More specifically, a dramatic increase in their wang power and sexual stamina.

Unfortunately, the consequences of all this mind-blowing intercourse can often lead to sex injuries such as whiplash, pulled muscles, rug burn, and even a dislocated hip.


I’m not sure who this campaign is trying to target. I seriously doubt there are that many guys who wish they could perform more often. It’s more likely they are wishing they had more opportunities to perform with a partner. Are there really that many women who want their boyfriends transformed into non-stop hump machines?

Changing his diet is unlikely to affect a man’s technique. It might affect his waistline but it certainly won’t do anything about the size of his cucumber. Improved nutrition won’t make him more thoughtful or considerate either.



At least they’re in the same ZIP code


Occupy 90210 to Protest “Big Money” During President’s Visit

Occupy 90210 protesters will gather more than a mile from the home of a daytime drama TV show producer’s mansion Wednesday night when President Barack Obama visits the home for a $35,800-per-ticket fundraising dinner.

The group will gather at Will Rogers Memorial Park — which is indeed in the Beverly Hills 90210 ZIP code — to protest what they call the “corrupting role that Big Money plays in politics.”

[...]

“While Obama dines at a $35,800 a plate fundraiser in the home of a 1% TV producer, we will be one and a half miles away occupying Will Rogers Memorial Park,” according to the Occupy 90210 Facebook page.

Obama’s fundraising campaign in the run-up to the 2012 election in November is expected to shatter records. The fundraising effort in LA will benefit the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising committee for Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

“The buzz is that Barack Obama will have the first billion dollar campaign expenditure,” said NBC4 political analyst, Sherry Bebitch-Jeffe.

The Occupy 90210 event also serves as a fundraiser to support Hunger Action LA’s Veggie Voucher Program.


90210 is Spoony’s backyard. No word yet on which event he’ll be attending.

(h/t HelenK)


Fear is the mind-killer

Not Sarah Palin


Actress Who Plays Palin Found Her Selection ‘Pretty Terrifying’

The prospect of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008 was “pretty terrifying” to actress Julianne Moore, who plays Palin in HBO’s upcoming Game Change movie about the 2008 campaign, but not because she feared Palin’s policies. Instead, the self-described “longtime liberal” dreaded Palin might allow the GOP ticket to win: “I really felt like, ‘Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election’” since “she was so electrifying.”

[...]

Moore explained how she recognized Palin’s political appeal:

Here’s a woman who’s a parent, who’s an actual working mother, who worked her way up from local government, who was definitely middle working class, married to a commercial fisherman….She was incredibly relatable, she was attractive, she was young; she was speaking to a wide portion of the population that didn’t feel that they’d been noticed or seen or heard.

[...]

“I would say, as a registered Democrat and longtime liberal, I think that I speak for a lot of women when I say that when [Palin] burst onto the scene, the way that she did that was pretty terrifying because I really felt like, Oh my gosh, the Republicans might have this election,” Moore recalled of her first perceptions of Palin back in 2008. “She was so electrifying as a figure, it kind of blew everyone away.”


At last, some honesty.

The freak-out over Sarah Palin began within hours of the announcement that she had been selected as John McCain’s running mate. All the supposed reasons for the freak-out came later.

Is it just me or has the media been kinder to Sarah the past few months? Now that she’s no longer a potential candidate for this cycle they have no vested interest in tearing her down.

If (when) Mittrick Romneysantorum loses to Obama in November, will that make Sarah the front runner for 2016?



The way to hell is paved with good intentions


Via Hot Air:

Preschooler’s Homemade Lunch Replaced with Cafeteria “Nuggets”

A preschooler at West Hoke Elementary School ate three chicken nuggets for lunch Jan. 30 because a state employee told her the lunch her mother packed was not nutritious.

The girl’s turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips, and apple juice did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines, according to the interpretation of the agent who was inspecting all lunch boxes in her More at Four classroom that day.

The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.

When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.

[...]

When the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. Three chicken nuggets, the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

“She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her,” her mother said. “You’re telling a 4-year-old. ‘oh. you’re lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food.”

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what disqualified the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

“With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy,” said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. “It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard.” The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said.


Wingnuttia has their collective knickers in a knot over this story. At first I thought that this was just some overzealous school employee misunderstanding policy. A lunch inspector for sack lunches? Seriously?

But this problem originates quite a bit higher on the food chain:

The state regulation reads:

“Sites must provide breakfast and/or snacks and lunch meeting USDA requirements during the regular school day. The partial/full cost of meals may be charged when families do not qualify for free/reduced price meals.

“When children bring their own food for meals and snacks to the center, if the food does not meet the specified nutritional requirements, the center must provide additional food necessary to meet those requirements.”


It’s all the fault of those damn nanny-state Progressives, New Dealers and Great Society Liberals. Back around the beginning of the 20th Century them Progressives got laws passed in every state making education mandatory for childrens until they were at least fourteen.

At first kids were on their own as far as lunch. Most either walked home (five miles through the snow, uphill both ways) or brought their lunch to eat. Some just went hungry. The first school lunch program started in Milwaukee (a hotbed of progressivism) in 1899. The idea spread and in 1946 New Dealer Harry S.Truman signed the National School Lunch Act which provided free or low-cost lunches to school childrens.

Here’s the kicker:
(more…)

Where do they find these people?


SFGate:

Liz Trotta says women in the military shouldn’t complain they are ‘raped too much’

Listen to the video above and you will hear Fox News commentator Liz Trotta say that women in the military are complaining that they have been “raped too much.”

How much is too much? I would say once is too much.

Trotta’s remarks arose during her Feb. 12 commentary on the Pentagon’s plan to allow women to serve closer to the the front lines. Women in the military have campaigned for this change. Because of the nature of war now, women essentially are serving in combat roles without combat training and yet they are denied career advancement and better pay because they technically are not allowed to serve in combat.The Pentagon’s new rules mostly catch up to the realities of the battlefield while keeping the ban on women serving in combat in place. Advocates for women in the military had hoped for more.

Trotta went on to say that the military is now spending $113 million a year to address sexual assault in the ranks — spending she says is unwarranted because women in the military should “expect” to be raped. The U.S. military has seen at 64 percent increase in violent sexual assaults since 2006.

I can’t imagine another employer, government or private, who would tell female employees they should not expect the same safety protections and civil treatment as male employees.


If the military wants to stop rape and sexual assault they should adopt the guidelines in the chart below. If that doesn’t work they should aggressively investigate and prosecute rape allegations and send the perpetrators to Ft. Leavenworth for extended periods of time.



Sarah Palin Suggests Santorum is Neanderthal

Put a fork in him. I’ll enjoy watching his stats plummet. Check it out:

I’m apparently late to the game. Thought it was new. Remember this?

And just a minute later:

(via)

Happy Valentine’s Day!

V.D. Open Thread


Today is my least favorite holiday of the year.


Don’t read this post unless you want to be pissed off


It started last week with objections to Chris Brown appearing on the Grammy Awards show Sunday night:

I’m Not Okay with Chris Brown Performing at the Grammys and I’m Not Sure Why You Are

I’m sick and tired of people acting like it’s no big deal that Chris Brown will be performing at the Grammys.

I’m frustrated that the mainstream media is covering this story like it’s any comeback story, like an exiled prince’s return to a former glory, like this is another political timeline — as though some rich and powerful old white men in the music business have not just issued an enormous ‘f**k you’ to every woman who has been, is or will be on the receiving end of domestic violence.

We should be furious.

Why aren’t we?

I mostly ignored the controversy because I’m cynical and I accept that the way it ought to be ain’t the way it goes. Justice is rarely seen in the vicinity of money and fame. That doesn’t mean I think it’s okay, that’s the way it is.

Then Buzzfeed reposted these tweets:

(more…)

I guess there are no hummers in heaven


Rick Santorum:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea … Many in the Christian faith have said, “Well, that’s okay … contraception’s okay.”

It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal … but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it—and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong—but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.

Again, I know most presidents don’t talk about those things, and maybe people don’t want us to talk about those things, but I think it’s important that you are who you are. I’m not running for preacher. I’m not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.


Are you shitting me? What fucking century did he grow up in? Are married couples supposed to cut a hole in a sheet lest they have too much fun?

I couldn’t believe Santorum really said that shit until I watched the video for myself. We like to joke that Republicans are batshit insane, but this one really is.

Watch it at 17:48:



The chickens are coming home to roost


Paul Krugman:

Severe Conservative Syndrome

[...]

How did American conservatism end up so detached from, indeed at odds with, facts and rationality? For it was not always thus. After all, that health reform Mr. Romney wants us to forget followed a blueprint originally laid out at the Heritage Foundation!

My short answer is that the long-running con game of economic conservatives and the wealthy supporters they serve finally went bad. For decades the G.O.P. has won elections by appealing to social and racial divisions, only to turn after each victory to deregulation and tax cuts for the wealthy — a process that reached its epitome when George W. Bush won re-election by posing as America’s defender against gay married terrorists, then announced that he had a mandate to privatize Social Security.

Over time, however, this strategy created a base that really believed in all the hokum — and now the party elite has lost control.

The point is that today’s dismal G.O.P. field — is there anyone who doesn’t consider it dismal? — is no accident. Economic conservatives played a cynical game, and now they’re facing the blowback, a party that suffers from “severe” conservatism in the worst way. And the malady may take many years to cure.


I used to read Krugman religiously. Then he started drinking the Koolaid and lost a lot of his credibility. But he has a valid point here.

I remember when Ronnie Raygun ran in 1980. He promised he could cut taxes and increase government revenue. My math skills are such that I need to unzip my pants to count to eleven and that still didn’t make any sense to me. But I was young and dumb and full of shit so I voted for him anyway.

Raygun promised to cut taxes and slash government spending. One of the first things he did after taking office was push through a tax cut. But he never delivered on the spending cuts, he ran up deficits instead.

For over three decades virtually every Republican candidate in the country has campaigned on promises to cut taxes, reduce the size of government, eliminate regulations and strengthen the military. They also support “fixing” or privatizing Social Security, outlawing abortion, protecting us from Teh Gay, throwing more people in prison for longer periods of time and improving our economy by shipping jobs overseas. They hate welfare and illegal immigration too.

It hasn’t just been the Republican candidates. There is a whole swamp full of bloviating gasbags and print pundits piling it higher and deeper. They even have think-tanks where they sit around trying to spin shit into shinola.

Krugman is right about all that.

But where the fuck have the Democrats been all this time? What have the lefty advocacy groups been doing?

With rare exceptions they’ve been entrenching their own positions while doing doodly-squat for us. Now we have a Democratic president who has been pushing a Republican agenda.

I am a liberal pessimist. I believe that things are going to have to get worse before they get better. But the sooner they get worse the sooner things will get better. The best way to do that is let the Republicans win.

Let them try to eliminate Social Security and Medicare. Dare them to overturn Roe v. Wade. Let them do whatever they want for a few years. The Democrats should go limp. Basically a repeat of what happened in 2004-2006.

The Republican way won’t work. Some of that shit the conservatives talk about is stuff they don’t really want to do anyway. If the Democrats don’t stop them they’ll either have to pass their agenda and face the consequences or admit they were lying in the first place.

If the Republicans get their way one of two things will happen. Either they will be proven right in which case we’ll all be better off. Or their way will fail miserably and they will be permanently discredited.


Joe Cool for President

Obama seeks return of the cool

Barack Obama had all the 2008 cool.

Now he’s trying to get at least some of it back.

A video of Hollywood A-listers singing a Will.i.am song about him, a Shepard Fairey painting with “HOPE” beaming in bold letters beneath his face, constant buzz on social media — the Obama cultural phenomenon four years ago lit up the youth vote like no campaign before. So as the president gears up for a reelection run that’s going to struggle with independents and moderates, his team is looking to revive the cool appeal — and reignite the young voters who’ve strayed.

[...]

There’s a lot of ground to make up.

“A little of the sex appeal is gone,” explained Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote, which helps young voters engage in the political process. “The butterflies in the stomach aren’t there.”

[...]

Keeping up with the pulse, the campaign joined Spotify to share its 2012 playlist with supporters. That’s the latest in an aggressive social media presence that includes Twitter accounts for the president and first lady, a Facebook presence, a YouTube channel, a Flickr page and a Google Plus profile. The White House also has tried to up his credibility with accounts on the microblogging site Tumblr and photo sharing platform Instagram.

The Obama 2008 campaign logo, a trendy graphic design ‘O’ rising over a red-and-white striped field, is back again this year with updates. It’s been modernized with matte colors replacing the glossy and more varied shades of red, white and blue. On BarackObama.com, the 2008 color palette and design has become more sophisticated, with bright blue replaced by navy blue, baby blue and white.

The changes, said Obama 2008 design director of new media Scott Thomas, are meant to allude to the cool while introducing the notion that Obama is now “more distinguished and more experienced” than he was four years ago.

Obama’s been trying to manage the expectations himself.

“I know that it’s not going to be exactly the same as when I was young and vibrant and new,” he said at a fundraiser last year. “And there was — posters everywhere, hope. The logo was really fresh. And let’s face it, it was cool to support me back then. At cocktail parties, you could sort of say, ‘Yeah, this Obama guy, you haven’t heard of him? Let me tell you about him.’”


Silly us, we thought electing a president was about competence, experience, hard work, accomplishment and policy. We voted for the nerdy old woman with cackles, cankles and pantsuits.

So thanks to all the Kewl Kidz we got stuck with an incompetent hipster doofus. Now they want to reelect him.

I picked a bad year to quit drinking.



Connecting Dots

So Sunday while I was surfing, I ran across this article at Little Green Footballs. Though I am aware of their work, I don’t normally read LGF, but I was drawn by the headline at Memorandum and clicked it. Here are the essentials:

I don’t even know what to say about this any more [sic]. There’s a real sickness running rampant in the right wing; the Fox News comment thread on Whitney Houston’s death is yet another disgusting deluge of outright racism: Singer Whitney Houston Dies at 48 | Fox News.

I read a few on that page and then clicked through, and yes, the comments are offensive as hell, with the n-word littering the discourse. Damning, no?

Now I’m not in the habit of defending FOX news by any stretch of the imagination. But here’s the thing; I’ve been reading FOX news for years now, not exclusively, but I treat them like I do CNN or MSNBC–they’re interesting for what they’ll tell you about that faction’s POV on a given subject, and sometimes they do just straight up report stories. In my years of reading them, I have never once witnessed a train wreck like that one. Never have I seen FOX commenters en masse racially attack someone.

I’m not saying it’s not real; I’m saying I’m suspicious. I remember all too well the online games that went down with operatives and volunteers in the 2008 primary, and I am aware of Cass Sunstein’s work manipulating online watering holes. Most of us were at DKos, Jeralyn’s place, and other prime online targets and we are well aware of the methodology. My suspicions primarily revolved around this information, and knowing that race is an easy exploitation device, one for which the Obama Administration has reached again and again.

So imagine the alarm bells that went off for me when I found this article on David Brock and Media Matters (via Dana Loesch on Twitter) at The Daily Caller (who, you may recall, broke the Journolist story):

Last spring, some at Media Matters headquarters and in other parts of the progressive world were caught off guard by an interview Brock gave to Ben Smith at Politico, in which he promised to wage “guerrilla warfare and sabotage” against Fox News. “It was insane,” says a coworker. “David was totally manic at the time. We were all shocked.” [Bolding mine]

Now this paragraph is 5 pages deep in an article that discusses the web of media contacts that Media Matters has cultivated and the methodologies they use when a reporter is resistant to working with them.  It’s pretty damning stuff. There’s also a lot about founder David Brock’s mental and emotional status, which I think detracts from the overall article, but I suppose they hope it intensifies the  negative portrait they are trying to paint. (Still, I recommend you click through to it. I think it’s going to be hot today.)

They don’t need it. What has happened to the left, how it has completely adopted wholesale the methodologies they once claimed they despised, and, more important, the policies they once claimed they despise, is self-evidently ugly and negative. What happens when there’s no one to tell the truth is that one must spend huge amounts of time reading between the lines looking for subtext, connecting dots, and trying to reverse-engineer strategy. Which will, in turn, get you accused of being conspiratorial (to come properly full circle with Sunstein).

But I’ve digressed. My point is that I’m now wondering if the comments on that FOX News article are an early indication the Obama administration’s online ground game with conservatives, and neutralizing FOX news this election year. And David Brock would have knowledge of such a campaign, which would certainly be sabotage, and may even bear some responsibility for perpetrating it via Media Matters vast web of members and contacts. I can’t know for sure, but I certainly smell something fishy.

Update: Hot Air is covering the DC storyand Ed Morrissey also notes the odd framing Tucker’s team put on it. It really serves to hide the most salient points of the exposé:

The actual story here might be the reverse of how Carlson et al frame it here.  This sounds as though the White House uses Brock and Media Matters to conduct a proxy war against its perceived enemies in the news media and to push its propaganda out through the MSM.  The DC’s descriptions of attacks on reporters and media outlets who don’t fall in line would make MMFA a very valuable pitbull for Jarrett and Obama, and one with some plausible deniability, at least until now.  This should really be the screaming red flag in the article, rather than some of the salacious tidbits about Brock.

Occupy AIPAC?

Will You Occupy AIPAC?

Dear friends,

We are excited to announce that plans for OCCUPY AIPAC are under way and we hope you will join us March 2-6 in Washington DC.

With the Occupy movement that has swept the country demanding social and economic justice, many have concluded that AIPAC—the powerful pro-Israeli government lobby that distorts U.S. policy in the Middle East— is a mandatory “occupy target”. Adbusters, the magazine that issued the initial visionary call for the takeover of Wall St. on September 17th, has declared: “The time has come for the Occupy Movement to demand an end to the Occupation of Palestine… We need a hashtag, #occupyAIPAC” (Kalle Lasn).


Yeah, this will settle all those unfounded rumors about antisemitism and the Occupy movement.


Some thoughts on Whitney and the downside of freedom


As we all know, Whitney Houston died yesterday. The cause of her death is “undetermined” but it’s a safe bet that drugs played a role in shortening her life if not outright killing her. You can expect to be hearing a lot about her in the next few days, and there will undoubtedly be some kind of memorial tribute for her at tonight’s Grammy Awards.

I was never a big fan of Whitney, but that’s because during her best years I was more into rock music. But it would have been hard to make it thru the late 80′s and early 90′s without being aware of her work.

In 2009, the Guinness World Records cited her as the most-awarded female act of all time.[3] Her list of awards includes two Emmy Awards, six Grammy Awards, 30 Billboard Music Awards, 22 American Music Awards, among a total of 415 career awards as of 2010. Houston was also one of the world’s best-selling music artists, having sold over 170 million albums, singles and videos worldwide.


She starred in a couple hit movies too.

In 1992 Whitney married Bobby Brown, and in the years that followed rumors began too circulate about their drug use. Her behavior started to become erratic and she began showing up late for interviews, appointments and rehearsals and canceling concert appearances. When she did appear it was noticeable that she had lost weight. Although Whitney denied using drugs it was obvious she wasn’t being truthful.

When the reality television show Being Bobby Brown aired in 2004 people were shocked by the behavior and deteriorated appearance of Whitney. To say that the clips of her were unflattering would be putting it mildly. Whitney separated from Brown in 2006 and filed for divorce. During the past few years until her death she was working on a career comeback.

Her autopsy will reveal whether she had put her demons behind her or not. But heavy drug use takes it toll – quitting does not repair the damage it only stops it from getting worse.

Which brings me to my point. When we see a great talent like Whitney’s ruined by drugs it is easy to react by demanding that such substances be made (or remain) illegal. The ravages of alcohol abuse were the reason for Prohibition.

But prohibition cures nothing and brings along evils of its own. Cocaine has been illegal in the United States since before any of us were born. Nixon announced the War on Drugs in 1970. Crack cocaine was singled out for special treatment in 1986 when the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were amended to increase the penalty for possession and sale to 100 times that of powdered cocaine.

The War on Drugs is invariably a war on drug users. The vast majority of people arrested with drugs are busted for possession for personal use. Most drug dealers do so to finance their own addictions. We are putting people in prison to protect them from drugs.

When it comes to personal behavior I am very libertarian. I am an adult, so as long as I am not harming anyone else what right does the government have to tell me what I can and can’t do? Drug prohibition did not save Whitney Houston. She made some bad choices, but they were HER choices.

Would locking her in prison have been a better answer?

The downside of freedom is that some people misuse it. Some problems just don’t have solutions.


Happy Birthday Abe!

Abraham Lincoln (February 12, 1809 – April 15, 1865)


On this day in 1809 a young boy was born in a one-room log cabin in Kentucky. Raised in Indiana and with only one year of formal education, this self-educated man became one of our greatest presidents. We could use a man like Abraham Lincoln again.

“Be not afraid of greatness; some are born great, some achieve greatness, and others have greatness thrust upon them.” – William Shakespeare


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 271 other followers