August 28, 2012

that's why I despise rightwingers of the Bushbot type generally

they spent years being wrong about almost everything --as well as historically -- much of which had a strong moral component to it, e.g. lost blood and treasure in Iraq, yet they still sit on their moral high horses polishing their equally unearned (but self-granted) mensa awards.

Their immorality/amorality are showcased in their lack of remorse over the blood needlessly shed, their attitudes towards the poor and disadvantaged they try to enshrine, etc, and their lack of foresight rivalling that of the common earthworm, as well as their inability to draw the correct conclusions from the same body of fats we all share, points directly to either their complete lack of critical reasoning skills, or their service for the evil their immorality/amorality spawns.

This is why I've struggled for the last ten years in detemining what is their most defining and shameless characteristic -- their willingness to claim the moral highground as ijmmoral/amoral pucks they are, or their willingness to claim the sharpest tools in the box award as those who've been historically and currently wrong about almost every issue of significance, ranging from the efficacy and benefits of SS, to that of the most important issue of this or any other time, AGW.

This is also why I've long thought civility is way overrated. There is no getting over, around, or under their mountain of denials, there's just going through it/running them over. While their complete abandonment of the 9th Commandment has pretty much eliminated whatever attitude/behavioral modification value shame use to have in this country, at least running them over provides us an outlet for our frustrations, and helps keep the emperor naked, whether they find that condition embarassing or not.

What you wrote about is in my estimation, the best evidence for the myth of a "liberal" media. It's not just that he still has a soapbox, but also that those that got most of it right, don't.

August 27, 2012

no doubt dude

that's why we on the left (not just dems) are like herding cats.

I had Catholic and conservative parents, and learned my own parentling skills from them by doing in most cases, the polar opposite.

The "authoritarian" aspect is what slays me almost the most about them. While it does benefit them greatly by supplying so much cohesion as they are buffeted by the winds of reality, it also keeps them far removed from it, kinda the way their endless lying keeps them together, while being an affront to their god, and being wrong about almost everything of significance keeps them together, but far removed from being "right". Shame and stupidity both like company just like what their sad (and disgsuting) plight should lead them to - misery.

I find the Maslovian heirarchy of needs, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs interesting to, in terms of arguing and establishing which camp -- the faith-based/authoritarian or reality-based/independent -- shows the most potential for full maturity as defined by self-actualization of the individual, as well as a consistently applied moral construct without which much of the rest is artificial garbage maintained by the authoritarianism they are subjugated by. Given the rampant "otherization" their camp engages in, the quality of their morality is easily called into question by the excess of prejudice alone. They don't solve problems, they create and perpetuate them, including the content of this discussion. And as the faith-based camp, acceptance of facts is outta the question.

Their reliance on and fealty to authority, whether it be some religious figure "lying for the lord" (like Mutt is free to do as a Mormon http://www.mormonwiki.org/Lying_for_the_Lord) or pols and pundits doing it for essentially the same "the ends justify the means" reason, is a problem because of who and what they rely upon as an authority imo, not that they bow to authority. Morality is the authority we all bow to, it's just that theirs is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and therefore worthless as such and not even worthy of such a designation for that matter.

I'm a lefty an a lifelong atheist, but I still understand and appreciate the wisdom and beneficial applications of the golden rule, and a great deal else some religions can teach us about the betterment of our societies and mankind generally. I am also a bit of a moral relativist, because our needs change with time and circumstances. I think that is where our "independence" comes in and distinguishes us from them and their slavery to authority-seeking men. We are slaves to the best ideas and solutions that relieve human suffering in all its many and varied forms -- the highest moral calling -- as opposed to them clinging to inflexible/immutable dogma that more often than not, stands in the way of that.

The disgust they muster and maintain for us is cultivated, grown, and supplied, only for the purpose of maintaining authority and the power that comes with it. I find it unsurprising that cons are more susceptible to it http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/10/disgust-and-politics/ because of the need to hide from that which they should be directing at themselves, as already argued. This can be seen in some individual issues as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/homophobia-homosexuality-gay_n_1412846.html I don't see how what we're seeing today can be ingrained/hardwired into them biologically, because collectively and individually they are far removed in too many ways from their predecessors on too many issues. And besides, who cares if it is? Being immoral/amoral, apathetic and greedy assholes is bad and/or stupid no matter the cause, no?

The bottom line is, if they have nothing to hide about themselves, why do they have to lie so much about their opposition in defense of themselves and their political/public policy pursuits? Much like with the Medicare thing, it's always a "your side is worse!", full of lies defense, no?

August 26, 2012

Rage is a symptom, not a cause

As I've been arguing it since I wandered into the internets over a decade ago, and started interacting with rightwingnuts I wouldn't give the time of day "out here", the cause of the rage is morality-based, and largely hinges on/is tethered to, a thing known as disgust. If as Saint Raygun once famously declared, morality and politics are inseparable, then I'd say it is their immorality/amorality that is the fundamental cause of their evil.

That is the primary chord in the rightwingnut minion their masterminds sought to pluck from the beginning -- disgust, which naturally results in the rage you write of.

This is why they were over time, given a license to lie freely without fear of political or financial reprisal, because the lies have been piling up and retaining some vestige of truth to them no matter how thoroughly debunked they are -- to maintain, or indeed, constantly increase the disgust their minions have and hold for their opposition, to be found in everything from their racism, homophobia, islamophobia, to the anti-war people hating the troops and loving the terrorists, or hating success and loving the lazy.

so after a while they learn to seek out rage triggers as a way of escaping their anxieties and blocking their awareness of their own inadequacies.

There's a lot of truth in this comment imo, but in my "model" so to speak, I'd argue that disgust is used as the building block of denial and the long and very high wall they've produced from it. After being on the wrong side of history over just about everything of significance that has moved this country and humanity forward, and more recently the many and varied failures during the Bush years (lost treasure replaced by much blood, etc), of course they have a great deal to feel inadequate about, and more importantly, shame.

The disgust and denial they produce from it is an individual and collective ego survival mechanism to hide from their historical failures as well as those they currently pursue, like for example, another round of "trickle down". It is also what provides the moral justifications (in their minds) for the costs they've extracted as an ideological movement in terms of human lives lost and human misery. How else do you explain for example, over 50% of them still believing wmds were found in Iraq? Their manufactured disgust for their ideological opposition keeps them from drowning in the Sea of Shame where they belong. It's why they are so horribly dishonest and in denial about so much, and why they are so dependent on such things as scapegoating, deflection, projections -- an array of tools designed for and intended to, provide that figurative bowl of water Pontius Pilate used, to wash their hands and dark souls so as to maintain a self and ideological-wide perception that they have the moral high ground.

The reality is, they are in the untenable position of claiming the moral high ground and being the smartest tools in the proverbial box, when they've stupidly been historically wrong about almost everything of significance, while only paying lip service to the good book upon which their morality is based.

Their rage and the endless search of a fix, is a product of the morality-based disgust that's been cultivated and grown in them for so long, and a putting of it into action -- an outward manifestation of it. It is nothing more imo, than an effort to deny and hide from, the disgust they should be feeling for themselves.

This is why it is such an intractable and ever-escalating problem, because obviously the only means of breaking this cycle is for them individually (as some do) is to risk their self-identity and world view, and to take responsibility for having supported it in the past. Some manage to do this, as we've seen recently with posts about conversions from individuals or relatives, but even then a lot of denial remains present because rarely is there ever any commentary about those individuals role as a prior participant feeling remorse for that role. More often than not, this is avoided (as we can see for example, from a Bartlett, Frum, etc) by them becoming a worse critic of their former brethren in evil than many of those who have long opposed them are, like a reformed alcoholic or cig smoker.

"Fear of self is the greatest of all terrors, the deepest of all dread, the commonest of all mistakes. From it grows failure. Because of it, life is a mockery. Out of it comes despair."

Psychologist David Seabury (1885-1960)

They are as evil and ugly as they are, and rely upon rage and the offensive offense as defense it produces, because they have no other means of hiding from the reality that is their ugly and evil selves.

Chris Mooney has been looking at the rightwing brain in search of a common denominator to explain its inner workings. I've never thought one needed to look beyond the dynamics behind building a cult, which they closely resemble if not identical to. In the case of the movement conservatives, only the goals and elements have been changed to hurt the innocent. The modern cons in this country are not unlike the German people in the wake of WW11, minus the stark object lesson littering their landscape in the form of death camps that couldn't be denied.

Imo that will be the only silver lining to the upcoming ravaging of the planet AGW has in store, and that will require socialistic solutions that can be laid directly at the con feet -- as well as the guilt for the need to.

August 13, 2012

actually it's always more fun reading descriptions of rhetoric/behavior

that must be totally imaginary, because otherwise they'd be quoted/cited, and then on the basis of the known merits or lack thereof, stomped in the DU dirt.

That must be why it's only talked about, but never actually accomplished. The idea that there's no foundation for fears/concerns that medicare and SS will remain wholly untouched in any negative way whatsoever is preposturous.

Fears or concerns over a "cutting" aren't alleviated by things like "not a slashing!" http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=is%20obama%20going%20to%20cut%20ss&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CEkQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2011%2F07%2F07%2Fsocial-security-cuts-debt_n_892070.html&ei=tjgoUJ_xCcTrygGG8oGgCA&usg=AFQjCNET_1DfeE-E9tDau3v7JefOzXkRPw when the position the fear/concern flows from is NO cutting at all. As a matter of fact, resorting to an exaggeration like "slashing" indicates knowledge that they are on the right runway, and merely being accused of overshooting it, since ANY cuts at all is the complaint, leaving a "slashing" unrequired. It's a pretty simple concept, yet you seem to be struggling with it. Why is that?

(Pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about whether “cutting” benefits was different from “slashing” them, Carney demurred.)

http://www.alternet.org/story/151561/is_obama_on_the_brink_of_cutting_social_security_the_dangerous_game_over_the_debt_ceiling


And why for example would "the dems"

As part of his pitch, Obama is proposing significant reductions in Medicare spending and for the first time is offering to tackle the rising cost of Social Security, according to people in both parties with knowledge of the proposal. The move marks a major shift for the White House and could present a direct challenge to Democratic lawmakers who have vowed to protect health and retirement benefits from the assault on government spending.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-debt-talks-obama-offers-social-security-cuts/2011/07/06/gIQA2sFO1H_story.html

be presented with a challenge unless the "changes" aren't as innocuous as the Obamabots want to believe? And furthermore, if it was part of some alleged bargaining effort and a bluff ("Xth"diminsional chess I say!!!!&quot http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/07/19/obama-wants-to-cut-medicare-and-social-security-benefits/ as some have alleged, it sure is a good thing it wasn't called, no, then he'd have looked like an idiot.

The fears and concerns are well grounded on the basis of the fact that it contributes nothing to the deficit alone, but is being included in budget negotiations, much less all the other reasons, starting with as far as I know, the lack of a clear and concise statement as pres that we'd be seeing the same or better bennies going forward. http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html Can you provide the readers with such? I haven't seen it yet, so end the "debate" right here and now, no? Surely such a statement was warranted after the unneccesary doubts were raised in the dem leadership and many reasonable and rationale dems, and after the Tapper inquiry, no? Or do you think it best that the exceptionally stupid so-called dems, just charge all those people with "not being real" dems" and be done with it? Gotta love that "liberal" tolerance, no?

DOn't use this one

The news media have played a crucial role in Mr. Obama’s career, helping to make him a national star not long after he had been an anonymous state legislator. As president, however, he has come to believe the news media have had a role in frustrating his ambitions to change the terms of the country’s political discussion. He particularly believes that Democrats do not receive enough credit for their willingness to accept cuts in Medicare and Social Security, while Republicans oppose almost any tax increase to reduce the deficit.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/Obama-consumes----and-criticizes----news-coverage-820194/1

and please, feel free to point out my "propagandizing" here, which must necessaily involve a showing of half truths, falsehoods, distortions, etc, and not some childish and impotent BS about how the conclusion that SS and medicare bennies are under threat are completely unfounded. Hollow declarations like that only come from equally hollow heads.

have at it, or give me an "actual" tacit concession you're all wet.

what's next for BHO, a Gingrinch? -- "those who quote me accurately are lying!!!" http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/02/obama-and-social-security.html

August 12, 2012

Good question -- I've been asking it for years

and I won't bother to wade through all the responses here to see if any of the usual suspects have provided an explanation or evidence that the fear/expectation of such isn't perfectly rationale and reasonable.

I'm guessing it'll take this kinda form http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/grand-bargain-theyre-coming-our-socia and here's a goody http://www.americablog.com/2012/05/pete-petersen-hosts-bill-clinton-paul.html

The reality is, the third way suporters have nothing but their hopes and delusions that the deck isn't being stacked http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html as far as I can tell. As far as I am concerned, this was one of the primary reasons the PEE Partiers came into existence -- to pull the already well off center ideological dividing line in DC farther to the right, in an effort to provide cover/reasons for the dems to do what only they could -- exactly what you're talking about. http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/obama-wanted-cuts-to-social-security.html and more

That night, Obama prepared his party’s congressional leaders. He warned Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that he might return to the position under discussion the previous Sunday — that is, cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in exchange for just $800 billion in tax increases. Would they support him?

The Democratic leaders “kind of gulped” when they heard the details, [WH chief of staff William] Daley recalled. ... Reluctantly, Reid and Pelosi agreed to do their best to support the plan.

August 5, 2012

that sums it up somewhat nicely

I've been arguing since the early days of the Pee Party rise, that it was all about moving the already off center ideological dividing line further to the right, as a last hurrah for the monied interests.

It's rather obvious that they and their political masterminds have long been aware of the threats to the size of their coffers coming on several fronts. To name a few -- the health care problem, AGW, income inequality and all the problems that produces, and all of which will require dreaded socialistic solutions. Compounding their problems, there's also that looming brown demographic tsunami they associate with the very same "socialism" they dread. They are (and have been) trying to maximize the size of their coffers now so as to keep it healthy once events dictate it be eroded to maintain social order, much as they were accepting of before the New Deal..

It's kinda like the way they bought their tickets in 2012, minus the earth shattering.

The reason they've been able to get away with all of this, is because of the "liberal" media myth. We can hardly expect their partners in crime to be revealing the conspiracy they are a part of, now can we? The simple fact of the matter is, the truth is an existential threat to that crew, and the monkey wrench in their plans. The only unanswered question in my mind, is whether the pursuit of media ownership by lefty interests starting decades ago was simply a strategic or tactical error, or whether it's indicative of the fact that there simply is an insufficient enough amount of money with lefty interests left in this country to stand against the fascism/oligarchy, plutarchy -- whatever you wanna call it -- to prevent our serfhood.

I'd argue based on how far the dems have shifted rightward on so much in recent decades, that the goal sought long ago is reaching fruition.

August 3, 2012

I have oodles

and what few cons their was amongst them, (those I interact with regularly anyway) they were harshly shown the error of their ways back in the Bush years.

Someone being a relative doesn't mean squat to me in this context. My political povs, etc, were forged back in the waning days of the VN War, when I had an Archie Bunker-like, pro-war father with a buzz cut. Just because he was my dad didn't mean he got a pass from the condemnations, etc, that I'd offer the common racist, homophobic, apathetic, warmongering, torture-supporting, etc, Pee Partier of today.

Imo, it's the lack of the father against son, brother against brother, etc, condition, like that seen in the VN/civil rights and Civil War eras, and the interpersonal conflicts and the divisions that result, that explain in no small part the rise of the modern rightwingnut and their numbers. If my family was comprised of Pee Partiers, they'd not be seeing me at the thanksgiving table. Why would I wanna spend my time with a group of/a person that thinks I'm a infanticidal marxist muslim born in kenya who's the terrorists best friend and America hater supporter, or in the alternative, those that are likely also racists, homophobes, islamophobes, and part of the "let them eat dirt/die" crowd? Once those lines are drawn in the proverbial sand, there are only three choices available -- give them a pass by virtue of the family relationship alone and overlook it, treat them as you would any stranger of like mind, or divorce yourself from the relationship. Since I don't waste much time beating my head against the proverbial wall arguing with fools or tools, and can't in the interest of those all their povs and political support harm, remain silent, the third option works best for me. ANd in the case of those former Bushbotted relatives, it was they that after the silence and an examination of the evidence, that broke and offered a "You were right!", and apologized for all the "you hate the troops, love the terrosist" crap so prevalent in that crowd back then. It doesn't matter to me if that stuff comes as a direct and personal charge, or by way of implication based on what I support or condemn, the insult remains the same.

And besides, aren't we all defined by who and what we support, and hang with? There's nothing fair/just about giving family or friends a pass for things we'd ream the butts of strangers for, it just shows that the ones that do so, are willing to elevate due to self-interest, the value of relationships with people over the needs of those people that their vote would deny them. And if you give them the treatment you rightly would the stranger, what are the odds the realtionship is gonna retain the depth, breadth, and quality it had? Zero I'd say. To me the choice in this instance, is between preserving relationships with people who support various injustices, or serving the interests of those (often oneself as well) victimized by the injustices they support. I have an uncle Tom, but I'll never be one, because silence is consent, and tolerance for intolerance is an enabling of it.

I'd add also, that imo, that it has been the fear or existence of such alienation that explains in no small part the rise in support for gay marriage, etc, and in my long argued opinion on the other side of the coin, the widespread acceptance and tolerance for islamophobia since 9/11, that opened the door for so many racists to make inroads from the fringes of the public square where they once largely resided prior to it. Evil grows when good men stay silent. End of story. The same can be said as was seen by me in my relationship with my dad, for the changes in attitudes over the VN war, civil rights, etc. The enactment of the CRA in 1964 didn't change heartsd and minds, it was the collective effort of those of us that tenaciously championed those causes publicly -- and privately as I'm arguing for here -- that did. ANd the bottom line is, if the Pee Partiers, homophobes, racists, warmongers, torture-supporters, etc, pay no price for their povs, then there's no incentive for them to change.

“I’m always glad to get comments four years later,” McCain told Fox News, laughing. “Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.”

Sorry, I can neither like nor respect a war criminal, or anyone (an enabler) that does, whether a relative or not, when it's clear that they know exactly what it is they are supporting. You might as well turn McCain black and change torture to the CRA of 1964. How as a victim, do you respect someone who'd keep you a second class citizen? ANd I'd ask as well, on a personal level, how could a relative or what would they base it on, respect someone they paint as a lilly-livered traitor supporter (based on the aforementioned rightwingnut description of BHO) that isn't in their face correcting them? That's the fuel that keeps bullies big and small thriving, the knowledge there is no price for their dirty deeds, and that it is they that have all the "respect", albeit of the less than desirable kind, as all fear-based respect is.

We see the same thing in almost all of DC politicians across the ideological divide as well. The sad part is, while the rightwingnuts have spent decades freely and without fear of reprisal painting/defining our kind in the most egregious and dishonest ways available, there's been little reciprocity (well, recently Kucinich, Grayson, and Weiner come to mind) from their dem/liberal victims, despite them having the facts on their side to make and sustain the case against the brownshirts.

Civility is way overrated, and tolerance for their intolerance is gonna be the death of this republic. That is after all, why they feel free to argue, no matter how stupidly and stupid it is, that it is those that are condemning the chick-fil-a people, that are the only "real", intolerant ones.

SO yeah, I'd give any relative a hearty "fuck you" that attended a rightwingnut Chick-fil-a-fest, or a host of other things the modern rightwingnut stands for, and hope they didn't like it.

Does this answer your question...lol?