March 8, 2012

Bradley Manning's idea as dangerous as leaks:

I heard Lawrence Lessig quote this on Pacifica, and it kind of gave me chills. It's from the chat log with the informant who narc'd on him.

(03:15:49 PM) bradass87: i cant separate myself from others

(03:16:12 PM) bradass87: i feel connected to everybody… like they were distant family

(03:16:24 PM) bradass87: i… care?

***

(03:24:10 PM) bradass87: we’re human… and we’re killing ourselves… and no-one seems to see that… and it bothers me

CONTEXT

This is the right attitude for most problems, which doesn't mean you ignore bad acts or intentions by others, but deal with them in this spirit, sort of like the Unabomber's brother did when he turned him in, but sought certain guarantees about how he would be treated.

I think the absence of this is why so many of us are angry about the actions of the very wealthy. We don't begrudge them their wealth--we resent them treating us like cattle to slaughter at will, to give our jobs to people who work for starvation wages (and prevent those people from demanding more), take our houses when they realize our mortgage payments aren't making them richer fast enough, and even take our lives when it will increase the profit margin of their insurance companies, or when some oil rich country won't give their oil away for a song and so must be killed.

Theoretically, this has already been said with ''Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,'' but those at the top are doing unto others and us as they would do unto cockroaches. The law needs to bring their behavior to some happy medium between amorality and the Golden Rule, and their ability to influence the law needs to be reduced to that of any other informed, active citizen.

That is the idea and consequence of Bradley Manning's actions that they fear as much as pulling back the curtain of platitudes in front of the ugly actions of our government on behalf of the very wealthy.

March 7, 2012

ice cream shop offers Santorum shake

March 6, 2012

The 'white' slave children of New Orleans: Images of pale mixed-race slaves

This aspect of slavery has always fascinated me and underscores how arbitrary race-based slavery was since many members of the ''slave race'' looked identical to their white masters.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKOK5EYs
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2107458/The-white-slave-children-New-Orleans-Images-pale-mixed-race-slaves-used-drum-sympathy-funds-wealthy-donors-1860s.html#ixzz1oKNn8pQ6

March 5, 2012

How is it THIS is the slur that broke Limbaugh's back?

I'm not complaining. I look forward to the day when he makes his living signing autographs at conservative conventions and klan rallies, but it seems like he's said things a lot uglier than this over the years. Other right prominent right wing talkers have said worse, and hell even Republican POLITICIANS have said worse and often survived.

Is it just that the mood of the country has finally changed and too many people have no stomach for this ignorance and bullying anymore?

March 5, 2012

TOON: THIS MODERN WORLD--Back to the parallel primary!

[font size=4]
See full-sized and older THIS MODERN WORLD toons at Daily Kos.[/font]

March 5, 2012

PIC: Mitt Romney or Mr. Burns?

I'd like to think something like this could keep a guy out of the White House, but Baby Bush was everything Romney is and stupid and cruel on top of it, so who knows.

March 1, 2012

Who Should Decide Your Health Care Choices, You or Your Boss?

If the Democrats don't make a talking point out of that title, they should be fired for incompetence.

Another way to put it: when it comes to a conflict between you and your boss, the GOP will side with your boss every time.

February 29, 2012

Do Businessmen Make Good Presidents? Public Radio sidesteps Bush/Cheney answer

When I heard the host ask the question and continue with,

I assumed they were going to go for the obvious recent example in American history: George W. Bush and his Halliburton CEO VP, Dick Cheney.

Instead, the story went on to talk about Vicente Fox, a president of Thailand, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy, and even non-president, Donald Trump.

As odd as the absence of Bush and Cheney was the absence of a very obvious question: do businessmen in office use their skills for the public good, or do they simply use the office to help their business and cronies who will reciprocate later? I'm sure their are lots of the first kind, but far more often, businessmen see public office as a way to pursue business by other means, just as their campaign donations are far from altruistic, and a pretty strong relationship exists between an industry's donations and getting a favorable outcome on legislation that effects them.

Another odd twist on this story was how they described Romney's business experience, as doing ''business turnaround as a management consultant.''

Isn't that a bit like calling a cannibal as doing health turnaround as a weight loss consultant?

NPR and Public Radio International do the public a disservice when they practice historical revision like this, and making conservative epic catastrophe that which shall not be mentioned.

February 28, 2012

Blue Dog Democrats have a Facebook page. This is my post to their wall

Go like it quick, before they take it down! [font color=red]on edit: it looks like my comment fits the general sentiment on their wall.[/font]

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Blue-Dog-Democrats/160211630734694?sk=wall

I would rather vote for Democrats who look out for the interests of average Americans rather than split the difference or even agree with Republicans even when it hurts middle and working class Americans like starting unnecessary wars, deregulating banks and Wall Street, and trade deals that gutted our manufacturing base those were Republican ideas that couldn't have been enacted without Blue Dog support. Blue Dogs even embrace right wing education reforms that want to break teachers unions and replace public schools with corporate run charter schools so Wall Street can siphon off some of our tax money meant for schools as profits.

Blue Dogs want your vote, but they want the money of big corporations and Wall Street banks more, first as campaign donations, then as big paychecks as lobbyists, CEO's, and do-nothing corporate board members when they leave office.

Blue Dogs should be honest about what they are: Republicans who don't have the stomach to suck up to the religious right, racists, and homophobes of that party's base, but do want to prove to the rich that they are more competent and reliable servants than the out of the closet Republicans.

February 28, 2012

Casting HBO's election 2012 movie...

Since HBO is releasing their 2008 campaign movie, I'm wondering who they will get to play the Republican primary candidates.

Some suggestions:

Mitt Romney: John Hamm or James Van Der Beek (just for the giant forehead real estate)



Santorum is a tough one. Maybe Crispin Glover, not for looks, but similar degree of weirdness:

http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Crispin+Glover+BAFTA+Los+Angeles+2010+Britannia+UfxGTPR-uv0l.jpg

Newt could be any number of elderly men or women. For example, imagine Edie McClurg with a white wig:



She's definitely got the smarm to be Newt.

Or Dwight from the Office:



Ron Paul is tough. Ian McKellen has the look, but he's got too much gravitas. Maybe some helium would fix the voice.



There might be someone more appropriate to play Herman Cain than Mike Tyson, but Tyson would eat that person and get the part any way:



John Huntsman could be played by any local newscaster who isn't busy.

Michelle Bachmann? I would again have to go with Jon Hamm, which would require some cgi when she is in scenes with Romney.