• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    Sweet Sue on The Doomsday Code
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on The Doomsday Code
    Sweet Sue on The Doomsday Code
    Sweet Sue on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    Joseph Cannon on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    katiebird on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    katiebird on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    katiebird on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    riverdaughter on About Kos and Netroots Na…
    katiebird on About Kos and Netroots Na…
  • Categories


  • Tags

    abortion Add new tag Afghanistan Al Franken Anglachel Atrios bankers Barack Obama big pharma Bill Clinton Chris Christie cocktails Conflucians Say Dailykos debate Democratic Party Democrats Digby DNC Donna Brazile Economy Elizabeth Warren feminism Florida Fox News General Glenn Beck Glenn Greenwald Goldman Sachs health care Health Care Reform Hillary Clinton Howard Dean Joe Biden John Edwards John McCain Jon Corzine Karl Rove Keith Olbermann Matt Taibbi Media medicare Michelle Obama Michigan misogyny Mitt Romney Morning Edition Morning News Links Nancy Pelosi New Jersey news NO WE WON'T Obama Obamacare OccupyWallStreet occupy wall street Open thread Paul Krugman Politics Presidential Election 2008 PUMA racism Republicans Sarah Palin sexism Single Payer snark Social Security Supreme Court Terry Gross Tim Geithner unemployment Wall Street WikiLeaks women
  • Archives

  • History

    September 2009
    S M T W T F S
    « Aug   Oct »
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    27282930  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

    • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • If China is with you, you are not isolated in the world
      The shooting down of Malaysian Airlines MH17 has led to a vituperative barrage in the Western media (and social media), blaming Russia.  This barrage has been fomented, in large part, by the White House, which has been relentless. Many act as if Russia is horribly in the wrong, isolated, and alone. China’s Xinhua wrote this: [...]
  • Top Posts

New word – “beck”

dictionary


From SEK at The Edge of the American West:

beck v. trans. beck-ing, beck-ed, to be baselessly attacked by an idiot with a megaphone, then have those accusations alter your life for the worse because it’s politically expedient for your spineless superiors to demote or fire you

SEK predicts Yosi Sergant from the NEA will be the next Obama adminstration official to be becked. He also details the ridiculous hypocrisy in the latest conservative attacks on the National Endowment for the Arts:

Wait wait wait—I thought conservatives were upset because the White House created an office, installed it five federal agencies, then used them to fund a clearly partisan policy agenda to the tune of $2.2 billion. You mean to tell me all those links are about an August 10th conference call that tried to wrangle up support for the current President’s National Day of Service—a call in which not one cent of the NEA’s $155 million budget was dispensed or even offered?

Egalia at Tennessee Guerrilla Women has more on that topic:

Republican scandal-monger Andrew Breitbart (who has an, um, revealing obsession with all things BIG), creator of the BIG Government and BIG Hollywood websites, claims that the White House is soliciting partisan art via the NEA. By partisan, Andrew “BIG” Breitbart appears to have in mind art that promotes public service, or art about controversial subjects such as access to education and health care. Breitbart claims to have obtained a tape of an “explosive!” conference call in which progressive artists allegedly conspire with the White House on the subject of creating progressive art. Shocking, I know. And FDR is rolling over in his undoubtedly progressively partisan grave.


WPA Art

WPA Art


People need to wake up and smell the coffee. This isn’t just another right-wing attack on Obama, it’s part of an all-out war on liberalism.  I know some of you chortle with glee seeing Obama getting treated like a piñata, but you need to understand:

RIGHT-WINGERS LIKE GLENN BECK AND ANDREW BRIETBART ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS!

We cannot afford to spend the next 3 1/2 years sitting passively while watching the wingnuts undermine, dismantle and destroy every liberal/progressive program, policy and idea.  Clapping and cheering for those same wingnuts just because Obama is being discomfited in the process is short-sighted and stupid.

Nor can we rely on our DINOcrat POTUS to defend all the progress made since the New Deal.  He is a Quisling who will  let anyone or anything be becked to satisfy his compulsive need for “post-partisan” affection (and donations) from the disciples of Ronnie Raygun.

Quit worrying about the tender feelings of the teabaggers and stop looking for commies under your bed.  Call, write and/or visit your congresscritter and tell them how you feel.  Send letters to the editor of your local birdcage liner.  Go out in the street and bang pots and pans.  Go to the window and yell that you’re mad as hell and aren’t gonna take it anymore.

Most importantly, TURN OFF FOX NEWS!


digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

About these ads

243 Responses

  1. From The Anonymous Liberal:

    But unless Breitbart’s got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking. Neither the NEA nor the White House organized this call and the staffers on the call basically gave boilerplate cheerleading remarks. There is nothing in the call that suggests that NEA money or grants were being funneled to progressive artists or anything of the sort. And the White House is of course free to participate on calls with supporters and encourage them to be pro-active. That’s what the Office of Public Engagement does.

    What’s ironic (though not at all surprising) is that the very kind of allegation that is being leveled here was repeatedly proven to have occurred during the Bush administration, and in far more significant contexts. Monica Goodling was hiring and firing prosecutors, both U.S. Attorneys and DOJ line prosecutors, based on political criteria. Lurita Doan used the General Services Administration to “help” GOP candidates for office (and was eventually forced to resign). There were many other such examples, and the reaction to all of them by the Andrew Breitbarts of the world was a collective yawn.

    • “But unless Breitbart’s got a lot more, this is the political equivalent of jaywalking.”

      Agreed. It does not console me that this issue is getting more play and more credence than Bush 2′s crossing of lines. I don’t like the sense of powerlessness I feel as compared to the conservatives’ voice in our country.

  2. I honestly don’t know what to make of this:

    • From Newshoggers:

      You know there is Batshit crazy and then there is Glenn Beck – unpredictable out of left field batshit crazy.

    • Beck’s entire shtick is a totally warped worldview and bizarre reading of history. When Hillary called herself a progressive, Beck proceeded to “inform” his audience about progressivism. McCain has often pushed himself as a Teddy Roosevelt Repub. Not surprising that Beck would consider that the worst thing ever.

  3. OT: Interesting times we live in. According to the Gray Lady…

    Senior regulators say they are seriously considering a plan to have the nation’s healthy banks lend billions of dollars to rescue the insurance fund that protects bank depositors. That would enable the fund, which is rapidly running out of money because of a wave of bank failures, to continue to rescue the sickest banks.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/business/22bailout.html?_r=1

  4. Bill on LKL last night, on Carter’s comments about the racist opposition to Obama:

    • Sums it up nicely: if Obama were white the same people against would be against. And that you have to win these fights on the merits. That is, no trying to win based on race baiting.

      He gave Carter the benefit of the doubt about his perhaps hyper sensitivity. I personally think Carter jumped the shark on this one.

      • I think the Big Dawg is wrong about Obama wanting to win the HCR fight on the merits.

        Obama fights like an Iraqi soldier. (Talk tough until you see the enemy, then drop your weapon and raise your hands.)

        • I think what Bill is saying is just about the WH distancing itself from Carter’s comments.

          • I don’t trust POTUS. He could have called Carter within moments of the first comment and shut this thing down. He didn’t. He allows comments like this to float and fester in the msm” long enough to cause damage, then makes an appearance or statement to reconcile the situation. He did it to Hillary during the primaries. It’s a dangerous tactic.

          • It’s what team Obama calls “staying above the fray.”

            But, Bill’s not gonna point that out. I think some koolaid drinkers will be annoyed with him as it is for saying the same people who oppose Obama on healthcare would oppose him on it if he were white.

          • getfitnow….
            you have hit the nail exactly.

          • I’d agree and based on Obama’s own talk show comments it’s pretty clear that at least on this particular fight they want plausable deniability regarding that particular argument.

        • I thought he said it had to be won on the merits not that anyone wanted to win it that way. It’s a crap plan, which is why it can not be won on the merits, IMO.

        • Brilliant!

      • Agree.

        Big Dawg sums up what most of us have been saying.

        It’s OK to give an old southerner the benefit of a doubt, too. As long as we don’t buy into it…. and agree with him.

    • I love Bill Clinton!

      • He is so great. I watched Bill and he was so clear and in command of what he was communicating (even just reading the transcript, he is very clear). Then I watched a bit of Obama on Letterman and at one point Letterman’s eyes just glazed over because he wasn’t understanding what Obama was saying (Letterman’s response was “your job is so much harder than mine.”) Really Letterman is just too dumb and uninformed to know that Obama was obfuscating and that is why he wasn’t understandable. Even today on the morning news they are saying Obama needs to take pointers from Bill last night on healthcare, etc.

  5. Barack becked Hillary, and now he’s getting becked.

    It’s Karma.

    Carolyn Kay
    MakeThemAccountable.com

    • Hey there!

      Como frijole?

    • Carolyn Kay,

      Right on! Hey guys, I never watched Beck before either, but at least he’s countering the slobbering love affair the rest of the media contiues to have with obama. We don’t have a media to speak of and at least Beck is putting up information and facts on a board that can be checked out and confirmed. The rest of the media is just megaphone for obama to spread his agenda by confounding and confusing the American people while covering up for his constant flip-flops and outright lies.

      We should not throw out the baby with the wash when it comes to some of the work being done by Beck. He’s connecting the dots that the media shouldbe connecting with regard to obama and his ties to ACORN, SEIU, his Czars, the Tides Foundation, Soros, and other people, groups and organizations, which no one else is doing.

      Like many of you, I became an independent after the dem primary because I felt the DNC threw the women (and men) who supported Hillary under the bus. We really didn’t need a primary because they had already chosen obama to be the nominee.

      I happen to agree with Beck that both parties have betrayed us — the conservatives AND the liberals. After what they did to Hillary during the primary, I started watching Fox because it was the only news outlet that ever questioned or criticized the obama campaign and now his administration and policies. How can any self-respective progressive not see that neither Fox News nor the right wing part of the GOP can destroy liberalism — the liberals are doing it to themselves through their own actions and words and betrayal of anyone who doesn’t go along with their game plan.

      Bottom line, I don’t like to be told what news media NOT TO WATCH and what to believe by anyone for any reason. I want the freedom to take all information from any and all sources and research it myself and come to my own conclusions. That’s how and why I became a PUMA in the first place.

  6. I watched Glenn Beck videos to see why he has the highest ratings in cable. First of all–he is not very bright–I’m not saying he is wrong on everything, but he is not an intellectual. I *do* like that he discusses research from the internet, whether it’s kooky or not–my biggest frustration in the primaries was that the MSM ignored the findings of legit stories on the internet…anyway.

    As I kept watching, I felt weirded out because he comes across as soo superficial and…funny, like is he acting? He’s so histrionic. How can the way he is be real??? lol. Then my boyfriend said he knew why so many people like Beck: it’s because he’s like an evangelical preacher. Yes! I thought, that’s it–that’s the feeling he gives off to me. (The way I described Beck above it how I feel about many (not all) evangelicals…there is an apparent and obvious phoniness –it’s palpable.) I actually think Beck is a born again Christian anyway, but he comes off as a theatrical *preacher* and I think this is why his ratings are off the roof. For some reason that I’ll never figure out….millions of people are *drawn* to that specific kind of personality.

    • Sounds kinda like a 1-man Jerry Springer Show.

    • When Krauthammer started the Van Jones/Wright comparison, my reaction was that Wright actually reminded me more of Beck… they are so theatrical…

    • Beck is a converted Mormon. Most evangelical Christians consider Mormons to be cultists which is one reason why Romney has such a hard time getting votes in the South.

      • I was kind of amazed back in 2007 that the media seemed to think Romney would do well with the fundiegelicals because he is a devout Mormon. I couldn’t believe that they were so clueless that they didn’t know what most evangelical Christians think of the LDS church.

        It’s not exactly a big secret.

        • The fundies/conservatives were so unenthusiastic about McCain that conservative talking heads like Laura Ingraham and Limbaugh turned to Romney as their last hope to defeat him. It was funny to watch.

          • Rightwing media pundits pulled Repub voters so far right that many didn’t even vote in 2008 because they considered McCain a “liberal” – especially since he supported Illegal immigration reform.

    • Reminds me of Obama 2. The backside.

    • Beck is a Randite, which means he’s probably not religious.

  7. You know one thing I have to say about Beck is that he has succeeded in getting more of a reaction from the left than he ever deserved. It’s effortless enough to point out that Beck’s saying something absurd (when isn’t he?), but when the left started their boycott of him, I rolled my eyes. You put sponsor pressure on MSNBC and you might get an apology, maybe even a suspension or a firing. You boycott Beck and you get a commie witchhunt.

    • The right wing is already paranoid, and stuff like boycotts just feed into it.

    • This is true.

      And I’ll add…

      From the very start, Beck went for a female audience. He strategically “tears up” on a dime. And gets all gooey about his kids and such.

      Quite frankly…. the man is a genius actor. Like so many alcoholics can be. (If you grew up with one you can spot their tactics a mile away.)

      And, if you know anything about those who love Alcoholics…. their defense mechanisms are unwavering. Beck is playing an audience that will not be moved by boycotts….. or any such thing.

      Personally, I can’t stand the man.

      But I have more sense than to go around attacking him…. in front of his adoring audience.

  8. “Most importantly, TURN OFF FOX NEWS!”

    I rarely watch any TV at all, but statements like that REALLY make me want to tune in to Fox News.

    I could *never* only pay attention to one side of things….on any subject. Sorry.

      • The thing is…I have to pay attention (at least mildly) to the other side, because how else will I know what the hell they are up to–what are they thinking? What are they doing? What are they talking about that the other side WON’T.

        That arts story you posted was from last week I think (?) About the NEA–National Endowment of the Arts. It doesn’t seem as sweet as you make it. I think a man was fired over it.

        After Obama-media, and the cult of personality propaganda lunacy I witnessed during the primaries–I have to agree, I do NOT want the president to actually team up and contract with the arts in such a big way. Media is already pro-Obama on a freaky level–from sitcoms to movies to the news. How much propaganda can I put up with? I turn on the TV like once a week, only to watch my already recorded programs. Next I gotta worry about art galleries and stage actors…eh.

        • Cable “news” is really just propaganda.

          You can access the other side online, and it is much harder to manipulate people with the written word. I can read a transcript or a news story in much less time than it takes to sit and watch someone tell it to me.

          The best part about getting your information online is you can immediately access multiple points of view and analysis. When you watch television you are a passive receptor.

          Except for major breaking stories or live events I haven’t watched television news in 10-15 years

          • “Except for major breaking stories or live events I haven’t watched television news in 10-15 years”–myiq2xu

            Wow, well, you got me beat, I haven’t watched cable news (on the TV) since Nov. 4th. pfft.

          • I keep an eye (jaundiced) on all of them mostly through youtube/internet, but sometimes there is nothing like live trainwreck, if you’re tuning in for a quick laugh. Like the other day I flipped over to CNN during a commercial break and saw Larry King yelling at Larry Elder essentially asking him why he doesn’t have a racial chip on his shoulder.

          • ELDER: — and they were saying that Bush lied, people died. That bothered me. It bothered me when Hillary Clinton called him Alfred E. Newman. It bothered me when Harry Reid called him a loser and a liar. It bothered me when Charlie Rangel said of the then House controlled Republican Congress, they don’t say S word, a slur for Hispanics, or N word, a slur for blacks anymore — except he used the actual words. They just let’s cut taxes.

            KING: But you are angry at racism? You don’t appear angry.

            ELDER: Larry, do you want me to be angry?

            KING: Yes, I do. I tell you something, somebody’s anti-Semitic, I’m angry.

            ELDER: My father does not know who his father was. He grew up in the south. He got kicked out of the house by his mom.

            KING: Why aren’t you angry?

            ELDER: He grew up in Jim Crowe south. This is now 2009. We have a black president. We’ve had back-to-back black secretaries of state. I’m grateful that I live in America. And right now, it’s about hard work, accountability and not blaming other people. I’m not going to go there where I don’t see racism. You’re not going to make me.

            KING: I’m not going to make you anything. I’m just telling you me. Someone’s anti-Semitic, I hate it. Is it ever OK to heckle a president of the United States? I’ll ask after the break.

            http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0909/16/lkl.01.html

        • Kat is correct.

          Beck’s freakiness does not negate Obama’s.

          They are perfectly matched, in fact…. in the zealotry of their followers.

          Granted, the followers are different … and on the surface it would seem Obie’s are more powerful.

          But we shall see if that is the case….

          Will the media elite win out over redneck America?

          Neither one of them is on my side. So why should I care?

          • Neither one of them is on my side. So why should I care?

            Conservatives are trying to use this to kill the NEA

            Obama is not the government, he’s just temporarily in charge of it.

        • Wait, and the other point is that ARTISTS should not have to promote a President OR his agenda in order to get GRANT money from the government.

          Government can’t fund the arts and manipulate artists with money only to be used to promote the president…is anyone here an American artist?? It’s revolting.

          Obama’s propaganda man (the one who got fired over this NEA thing) was the man who came up with the “HOPE” poster theme and contracted with Shepard Fairey. No no no thank you.

          • Good point, Kat.

            I guess I can give Beck-O credit for playing his fools on the private dime.

            While Obie plays his on our public dollar.

            In today’s economy, though…. really…. what’s the difference?

            Think about it.

            SYD

          • From The Anonymous Liberal:

            The post claims, as Beck did previously, that this call proves that the Obama administration is using the NEA for partisan political purposes, and strongly implies (without actually saying so) that NEA money is somehow being funneled to progressives causes.

            But the call is actually far more benign. It appears to have been organized by a group of progressive artists who want to, through their art, raise public awareness about various issues they care about. Invited to participate on the call were a low-level staffer from the White House Office of Public Engagement and the former Communications Director at the NEA (he was apparently transferred to another position at the NEA after this story broke).

            When asked to speak, the White House staffer gives some boilerplate talking points about how the art community can really make a difference politically if they put their minds to it. The NEA communications guy is then given a similar chance to talk and says much of the same things, indicating how happy he is to be working at the NEA and encouraging the artists on the call to get involved.

            The call was initiated by the artists and there was no grant money involved.

        • I don’t think that man was fired–just moved to another position.

        • I got that same vibe from the NEA story when I heard it originally. One of the participants, an artist, was the one who leaked the story, because he felt uncomfortable about the way they were being steered/recruited to sell Obama’s agenda. That resonated as possibly true due to the entire Axelrod propaganda machine, and it’s relentless selling of all things Obama. Something potentially creepy about it.

          • speaking of selling all things Obama, has anyone else seen the Chia-Obama commercials? I thought it was an add for the next SNL show when I first saw it. When I realized it was real, I was astonished at the complete lack of taste. I think the white house has to approve these things and I can not believe they approved this one.

          • the Obama craze has sometimes made me think of the Chia craze (I’ve heard others say they are reminded of the pet rock craze, but that’s a bit before my time.)

  9. No matter.

    Beck gets a new word in the dictionary.

    Obama doesn’t.

    Beck 1, Obama 0.

    Again…. I have no horse in this race. So I can be objective….. la ti da…..

    (Oh and I don’t have cable teevee either. Never have. Can’t be bothered to watch the sexist behind curtain #1 – OR – the sexist behind curtain #2.)

    • “(Oh and I don’t have cable teevee either. Never have. Can’t be bothered to watch the sexist behind curtain #1 – OR – the sexist behind curtain #2.)”

      LOL I don’t have cable and only get 5 channels – three of which are PBS. I still get plenty of sexism!

      • Bwah… this is not the lady or the tiger I guess…we usually know what’s behind the door (boner pill ad).

      • Amen to that, Purplefinn.

        PBS lost a lot of credibility for it’s coverage of the 2008/2009 elections. That is for sure.

        Some of what they did put FOX and CNN to shame….

        all under the mantle of “objectivity.”

        • I agree, I finally turned off NPR. I don’t watch TV news. But during the primaries, I thought Bill O’Reilly’s interview with Hillary was excellent.

          • Anything worth seeing (like the Hillary interview) will end up on YouToob (sans commercials) and you can cut to the chase instead of listening to all the yakity-smackity.

        • I lived with NPR on in my car, but became increasingly uncomfortable with the way they were framing stories. Then, one day I heard a screeching hate-filled monologue against Hillary by one of the regular contributors, and I complained to the station via their online public feedback link. I said I was a long-time contributor and did not want to support the station if it was going to allow a forum for that kind of bias and hate speech. The president himself emailed me personally and called me “unAmerican” for trying to silence him, and if I listened, I should support the station. If not, “so long.” This was the PUBLIC FEEDBACK link, and I was expressing my discomfort with the tone of the piece–that made me “unAmerican?!” Why have a feedback link if you reject feedback?

          So long it was–I haven’t listened since. Another moment of realization last year re: how fascist elitist “liberals” can be with their sanctimonious self-righteousness.

          • I have had a more positive feedback experience with NPR. I’ve called them out on sexism, Hillary Derangement Syndrome, and a “Palin’s picking on poor Obama” attitude. I have received civil responses. I’m shocked that they would call you unAmerican and suggest that you pay up or not listen.

          • I stopped listening to them over the same issues. Haven’t gone back yet. I miss it, but I felt hugely betrayed by their attacks on Clinton which had nothing to do with policy, and by their adoring and uncritical acceptance of B0. Inexcusable, and from what I had considered the best on the air, unacceptable too.

            I am still angry at lefty media, and watch Fox regular news and Greta Von Sustern (sp?). But with a critical ear, and not much.

  10. myiq2xu:
    There were apparently over 60 representatives from the arts on the conference call. Some were higher ups, ones who receive grant money from the NEA–err, the government.

    I gotta be realisitc. The ones who would agree to promote Obama would absolutely get quid pro quo by way of grant money.

    Then, if that’s the way to get the grant money…it’s a manipulation of Art.

    If it was no big deal and just something the artists wanted to do on their own–they would have and they still can. They don’t need Obama’s art/ propaganda director to meet with them and tell them the theme of their work.

    • If you’re just gonna keep repeating right-wing talking points you’re on the wrong blog.

      • Excuse yourself? What are the “right-wing talking points” on this issue? I doubt there are many “right-wingers” who give a crap about the integrity of ART. I write and paint, if I want to write and paint about the president, I could meet up with my friends and do it. I don’t need tips from the government. Unless you were at the meeting–I don’t see how you know more about than I do by only reading one side of the issue.

        I’m a registered democrat, btw.

        • It seems to me that… if the artists in question want to take up political propaganda as an art form… they sould be required to recuse themselves from public funding.

          Is that off base?

          I’m not an artist, BTW. So I am unaware of what kinds of ethics ya’ll operate under. But….. it seems a tremendous conflict of interest, at best. To paint posters of a candidate for president one year and apply for a gov’t. grant from his admin. the next.

          Just sayin’.

          SYD

      • Right wing talking points? You sound like DailyKos. Next you’ll be calling her a troll.
        Facts are facts and are non-partisan. If a news story is one you disagree with, that makes it a right-wing talking point? I don’t care if investigative reporters are cons or libs or Martians. If they dig up a story of corruption and the facts back them up, what the hell difference does their ideology make?
        So if facts come out that displease you, you’ll stick your fingers in your ears and go la, la, la, right-wing talking points.

        • Well said. Bravo.

        • gs,

          “Facts are facts and are non-partisan.”

          This notion is both true and false. It is true that there is something that is the case, i.e. it is a fact, but it is also true that every experience is mediated through a the way we learned to see the world.

          Brute facts, such as how we experience physical objects, are not open to much interpretation, though they admit some. For example, what is the exact color of that leaf? Some cultural groups do not use a color scale to describe things. Things are only described as lighter or darker. The next level of complexity involves lighter, darker, and red. The next level adds breen or blue. The next level adds whichever of green or blue is left. Other colors follow.

          The point to take here is that a group that did not use red as a way to describe a fact, would not see the object as you see it, and therefore, would disagree with the fact of your experience.

          Reasonable people see facts differently or even see what counts as a fact differently. In other words, all experiencing is theory-laden. How we experience a thing or situation is determined by how we’ve learned to experience things and situation.

          For example, some people have argued that a long history of lower scores on IQ tests by American Blacks means that they are genetically predisposed to be less intelligent than average Americans. The same people have argued that Asians are genetically predisposed to be more intelligent than average Americans.

          Other people dispute these claims indicating, for example, that IQ test scores are influenced by socio-economic status and its’ relationship to schooling opportunities and performance, which means that social factors account for the differences in test scores.

          Different groups see the fact of the IQ scores differently. In fact, that the measurement is being studied says something about why it was sought. That a fact is created or distilled can be a partisan act.

          When considering the presentation of a fact, therefore, it is wise tro consider the source. Facts can be partisan Trojan Horses.

          s

  11. “The call was initiated by the artists and there was no grant money involved.”

    myiq, this seems to fall into the category of “help, help Obama.” I’m reminded of the article you posted that stated, “Barack Obama had a gift, and he knew it. He had a way of making very smart, very accomplished people feel virtuous just by wanting to help Barack Obama.”

    On the other hand the NEA is not appropriately about policy, it’s about the Arts – presumably of any political stripe. Art to promote programs needs to be separate from the NEA.

    • From the first link in my post:

      All the outrage centers around a conference call designed, in the words soon-to-be-becked* Yosi Sergant, “to raise the visibility” for a program whose purpose is to encourage “all Americans and others throughout the world to voluntarily perform at least one good deed or another service activity on the anniversary of 9/11 each year, and on other days marked by terrorist events.” The problem, it seems, is that the NEA is supposed to be above partisanship, and supporting the President’s United We Serve initiative is seen by conservatives to be a partisan issue. Here are some of its highly partisan goals:

      We want to make Americans’ lives better by asking everybody to participate in shaping the life of their community and make the quality of life better.

      • From the web site:

        “The National Endowment for the Arts is a public agency dedicated to supporting excellence in the arts, both new and established; bringing the arts to all Americans; and providing leadership in arts education.”
        http://www.nea.gov/about/index.html

        It seems to me that it’s about art not presidents’ initiatives no matter how innocuous they sound. I would want to make my community better by insuring that our votes count.

      • But the artist who leaked the story about the call said the tenor of the meeting was clearly coercive. If there wasn’t a pattern of this among Obama supporters, I would be more skeptical, but I can just imagine what an LA artists group call felt like if you did not want to promote Obama’s agenda–not necessarly a progressive agenda, because those two things are not the same–but Obama cult-like worship, especially in places like L.A.

  12. Bill Clinton on Today Show right now.

    Several minutes in…and not a single err or umm. To the point and specific. And he’s being supportive of Paterson!

    • Here’s what Bill said on Larry King about Paterson:

      • Wonk the Vote,

        Thanks for video. Veddy interesting. As a New Yorker, I am following this…hmmm. Yes, I think O wants Cuomo. There are rumors that Giuliani might run…and he’d likely beat Paterson, but maybe not Cuomo. The screwy thing is…O may also be trying to help Bloomberg, because Thomson (democrat who is running against Bloomberg) was endorsed by Paterson only a few days before it came out in the media that O wanted Paterson to step down. Who knows.

        I guess Bill Clinton is just being loyal to Paterson, as a friend, and maybe he is mentioning that Paterson should be offered some other kind of position if O wanted to lure him away. We’ll see, but if Paterson stays…he will NOT win…imo.

  13. WTF?

    At the Value Voters Summit, anti-choice activist Lila Rose says “abortions should be done in the public square.”

  14. Blah blah blah:

    • Lovely Value Voters Summit – just lovely – and not one word about Republican politicians’ adultery, nor a call for their resignations…

      Sen. Vitter wearing diapers with hookers
      Sen. Enzi’s affair with a staffer
      Gov. Sanford’s longtime affair with a FOREIGNER

      But they prayed – that Obama wouldn’t turn America into a socialist state.
      lol

      • First they need to figure out what socialist means. It would be easier to support Republicans if all their talking heads didn’t appear to be either morons or manipulative charlatans.

  15. This one looks interesting:

    (h/t egalia)

  16. A Wolf in sheeps clothing. Deleted.

  17. HOLY SHIT! SUMMER IS OVER!

    Today is officially the first day of Autumn

  18. Well, the only way to beat people like Beck is with sound policy that improves the majority of American lives. Bill Clinton did it, and the day the wingers impeached him he had a 73% approval rating. I never focus on these infotainment figures, because in truth relatively few Americans watch them. But I think there is a lot of populist anger in this country right now and if the liberals don’t acknowledge that anger to enact good policies they will end up hoisted up on their own petards. Wingers are just exploiting the vacuum by the Dems refusal to take up populist policies. If the Dems screw this up, people will sway back to the Repubs, who will then certainly screw it up because their policies are anti-middle class, and power will swing back to the Dems. This is how the last gilded age looked.

    • All pendulum and no progress?

    • >>> the only way to beat people like Beck is with sound policy that improves the majority of American lives.

      Repubs learned their mistake of working with Clinton – and now they oppose everything Obama to prevent a Dem win on anything!

    • Well put Masslib. If Obama did not screw up the initial non-stimulus package, and then mismanage the health care issue so poorly–taking a clear, principled stand from the beginning and sticking with it–there would not have been the same climate for backlash. People are very worried about the economy, and that is creating openings for doubt and criticism.

    • Not only do you have to provide sound policy that benefits the vast majority of citizens, you have to tell them over and over and over again what you’re doing and why.

      The reason most people think “gummint” is always bad and that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes is because the left doesn’t educate.

      Carolyn Kay
      MakeThemAccountable.com

  19. Obama’s propaganda man (the one who got fired over this NEA thing) was the man who came up with the “HOPE” poster theme and contracted with Shepard Fairey.

    What comes around…

    I thought he got demoted rather than fired, though.

  20. This is a very interesting thread. I think Beck is a true wingnut and I do not watch him. But I think “turn off Fox News” is not an antidote. I never used to watch Fox News at all because I definitely have a liberal bias. I started to watch Fox in the Primaries because they were the only place that was even remotely giving HRC a break and O’Reilly’s interview with HRC was excellent in that she was strong, articulate and solid and he actually underlined her strengths.

    I have been studying Fox News since that time kind of like a research project. Although there is a definite conservative bias throughout their news, there is actually more balance to them than the other networks—they are conservative but also populist. If you look at their full line up, they are really pretty middle of the road: Bret Baer, Shepard Smith, Greta Van Sustern—these are centrists. Geraldo Rivera is actually liberal and left and challenges Beck, Hannity and OReilly. OReilly is center right and falls more into the pundit than journalist category. Hannity and Beck are clearly to the far right.

    But some of the issues that Hannity and Beck push really do bother me. Hannity did a special report on what is happening in the San Joaquin Valley and what is happening there is a profound tragedy in the name of environmentalism. Water politics is a desperate business in CA. and you can see that in the fact that 40,000 people are unemployed there; go to the Coachella Valley further south and you see another desperate scene for CA agriculture—again fueled by environmental issues.

    As for the whole scene about the NEA. I love the WPA projects on the arts that can be found in many of our older buildings. But those were not art projects pushing an FDR policy theme. They were about putting people to work in public projects; they were about capturing American life and history. To me if you think the Obama machine is not using the government to advance a political agenda and a political power base with everything it has, then you learned nothing in the last election. I think the Obama Chicago politics and Axelrod campaigning are about the most dangerous thing in the USA today. The right wingers destroy themselves because they go so far that they just come off crazy. But O politics is slick, subtle, smooth—a con game that uses one man, race and seeks raw political power for power’s sake. At least right wingers have a core of beliefs and principles that they will go to the mat for even if I think they are nuts. O believes in nothing; he has no principles; he will sell out anybody and anything and he will use anything to do it.

    • Thank you.

      I always find that people who actually watch the very network ( that complete non-watchers condemn without watching) come away with a different viewpoint.

      I watched the O’Reilly interview with HIllary, and was quite impressed that he was much more professional than anyone at MSNBC or CNN were. At the time, Hillary was being completely trashed by other networks, in the subtle “creative class” support of Obama. Tweety and Olbermann (and Rachel, by going along) behaved worse than Beck does now, and I haven’t watched them since. Somerby calls Tweety and Olbermann “performance artists,” and suggests that if they are the best the liberals can do, then the liberals are in big trouble.

      There are “crazies” on Fox, yes. There are also “crazies” on MSNBC and CNN.

      But here’s the key: Watch the left, to find out what the right doesn’t want you to know. Watch the right, to find out what the left doesn’t want you to know.

      I tend to agree with the posters here who think anyone who watches only side—-on both sides—is poorly informed.

      And yes, O politics is slick, subtle, smooth. A huge con game. In its own way, it’s more offensive than Beck.

    • excellent jangles. I agree, especially with the analysis of Obama & Co.

    • When studies show that your viewers are consistently uninformed and biased towards the right I have a tendency to call what you are peddling propaganda rather than news.

  21. This isn’t a war on liberalism, it’s a class war. Those teabaggers are middle America, working class, those “bitter small town folks” and the “dunkin donuts” crowd that Dems’ spoke so distainfully about. Anybody wonder why people might be calling this administration a bunch of elitsts? All people see is bailouts going to big corporations, health care bills written for the insurance industry, while they simply get called names by their public officials and threatened with more taxes.

    Usually Dems manage to capture the populist voice, to convince everyone they are the people’s party. They have failed miserably this time around.

    • Amazing, isn’t it, how those who deeply resented being called bitter and clingy , who ran from other blogs who ridiculed them for not being in the “creative class,” paint an entire group with the same brush.

      It does speak volumes.

    • Bush left us in a BIG hole – and ANY successor would have trouble reversing 8 years in 8 months.
      I still believe the Repubs deliberately threw the 08 election – giving them 4 years to distance from Bush/Cheney accompanied by LOUDER bashing of Dems.
      Repubs saved their biggie – Romney – for 2012.

      • You are NOT using the “inherited” Obama meme on this site are you???

        Very little that Obama has done in the past 8 months has been designed to “reverse” Bush’s legacy. To the contrary, he has reinforced the corrupt banking community, extended his executive powers, laid the ground work for his own political sustenance with a give-away stimulus package, and invited the corporate/lobbying community into the White House to help draft all his legislation. It’s not about what Bush did anymore–it’s about what Obama is doing/not doing.

    • Why do we assume, that though? Most working class people are too busy working to attend these things. Remember the caucus and how hard those were to attend? Remember how Obama’s crowds were full of well off students and people paid to be there? Some of these people look to me like they’re solidly middle class, upper middle class, and above. Especially the ones who are travelling to attend these things.

  22. There’s no news links post today, so I’m going to leave a few morsels I found here while I was out grazing this a.m.:

    A D.C. whodunit: Who leaked and why?

    Bob Woodward’s Monday-morning exclusive on a 66-page report from Gen. Stanley McChrystal to President Barack Obama about Afghanistan policy was a rite of passage for the new administration: the first major national security leak and a sure sign that the celebrated Washington Post reporter has penetrated yet another administration.

    This is a capital parlor game that, for the Obama administration, has some dire implications. Unless the West Wing somehow orchestrated an elaborate head fake — authorizing what looks at first blush like an intolerable breach of Obama’s internal deliberations — the Woodward story suggests deeper problems for a new president than a bad news cycle.

    Woodward — like other reporters, only more so — tends to shake loose information when he can exploit policy conflicts within an administration. There is now a big one over a critical national security decision, along with evidence that some people who ostensibly work for Obama feel they can pressure him with impunity. It took several years within former President George W. Bush’s administration before deep personal and policy fissures became visible.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27414.html

  23. How Bill Got His Mojo Back
    Mocking predictions that he’d be sidelined or prove an irritant to his wife, Clinton is back in business, kicking off his annual meeting this week with an address from Obama.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-09-22/bills-back-in-business/?cid=hp:blogunit1

  24. So, they are making sweetheart deals with the insurers while “targeting” them re: premiums? Is this like the harsh rhetoric toward banks as they funnel billions to them, and talk about regulation but do nothing? Where’ the teeth in any of this?

    White House targets insurers over healthcare premiums

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The White House kept insurance companies squarely in its sights on Tuesday in the push for healthcare reform by releasing research showing that health insurance premiums have risen far faster than inflation in every U.S. state.

    Brian Deese of the National Economic Council said Obama’s reform plan would include tighter regulation of insurance companies.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE58L1L020090922

  25. Acorn: he barely knew them. Where have we heard this excuse before? Just a community organizing group in his neighborhood…

    Acorn Who?
    Obama heads for the high grass.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204488304574427041636360388.html

  26. “We cannot afford to spend the next 3 1/2 years sitting passively while watching the wingnuts undermine, dismantle and destroy every liberal/progressive program, policy and idea.”

    Myiq, I disagree with you. I’m not sitting back watching “wingnuts” undermine liberal programs and polices, I’m sitting back watching the Obama administration do it. It is the Left that is currently in power that is destroying what liberals have worked so hard for, for so many decades.

    Myself, I suspect that was the plan all along. I didn’t grieve the loss of Hillary simply because I’m bitter, I grieved because I saw it as the death of any kind of liberal reforms and the ushering in of several years of Republican rule. It was a squandered opportunity for genuine change. It was Hillary herself that said she didn’t want to see this country go backwards, to lose the progress we had worked so hard to get. She saw it, I saw it, and many others saw it. It was heartbreaking.

    Now there’s a tidal wave coming, one I and many others tried desperately to warn people about. There’s really not much that can be done except to take cover and make some popcorn.

  27. Dak

    So let me get this straight, banks want the ability to “loan” the FDIC money rather than having to actually fund it with increases of fees usually levied upon them. If I were Bair I’d tell them no,thanks your loaning abilities are one of the reasons we’re in this circumstance to begin with.

    • (see my answer on the morning links) I posted the link there. I was a little slow this morning because my computer started crashing really early sunday morning and I’ve had to re do EVERYTHING!

  28. RIGHT-WINGERS LIKE BARACK OBAMA AREN’T OUR FRIENDS EITHER!!!!!!

    *ahem*

    Period. He hands money to the banks which they then pass around among themselves, he hands insurance companies a HUGE transfer of wealth that will not save a single life, he keeps wars going, starts new ones … the ALL OUT ATTACK ON LIBERALISM!!!!!! is part of the *sshole-in-Chief’s agenda, too.

  29. simone,

    To describe any one as a “phobe” is to claim that the person has an irrational fear of something, which means that the person suffers a psychological disorder. It is fashionable to depict those who hold differing views as doing so because they are mentally unsound. To say people are homophobes is to dismiss their views as the product of their illness.

    I imagine that it is not your intent to clinicize your opponents as psychologically imbablanced and that you will claim that you are using the term ‘homophobia” in a mainstream fashion. The question is, is not myiq doing the same thing with the term teabagger?

    “Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth[1] or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.[2][3]

    Teabagging is also an erotic activity used within the context of BDSM and male dominance, with a dominant man teabagging his submissive partner, a woman, as one variation of facesitting and/or as a means of inflicting erotic humiliation. Teabagging is not always carried out with a solely “sexual” connotation. In some cases it can be carried out as a prank whereby a male might teabag a sleeping person for the mere humiliation and humor of the act. This kind of activity is sometimes carried out in domestic situations involving alcohol.”

    (from wikipedia)

    Hmm. It is true that teabagging is associated with gay sexual practise and the potentcy of the slag is tied to assuming that associating the insultees with gay practises is perjorative. Homophobe is a stronger version of this tactic as it says people who hold the view are psychologically unsound.

    I understand that terms like homophobe, teabagger, and bitch all involve politics that say things beyond what might be intended. For this reason, perhaps you will regulate your use of homophobe as a gesture of good will towards those who you think should be more careful with terms that carry anti-gay connotations.

    s

    • You’re doing it again.

      I’m gonna start calling you the “Ghost Whisperer” even though you don’t look anything like J-Love

    • I object to the teabagger label too. How about tea partiers instead?

    • Gary wrote something recently about how painful it is for him to hear people using the term “teabagger” and why. It’s very moving. It reminded me of when Maddow etc. First started using the term how upset we were and the arguments against it. Well worth a read.

      • At Electric Blue? I’d like to read it, but have to get permission for that site. I guessed he’d had too many trolls and changed his privacy levels. Just haven’t got to it yet.

        • Yep. I had never been there before that I can remember and I got access no problem, just clicked on the google link, so you might try that.

    • But really, even if the principle is the same, isn’t the effect different? With “teabagger,” you’re talking about a marginalized population. I doubt most people feel like being a homophobe is the equivalent of being scapegoated for mental illness. It’s like the difference between the n word and “honky.” maybe the same in principle, not so much in practice.

      • I thought so and agree with your points. I’ll try Gary’s site again, thanks.

      • S,

        Is it ever o.k. to describe a perspective as a condition, given that conditions come with prescriptions? Foucault has written well about the dangers of doing so. I’d rather end the cycle of abuse than merely change roles.

        What is the percentage of the population that are deeply concerned about LGBT citizens being extended the full franchise? Their numbers are diminishing, especially in the urban areas. In other words, the question of who is more marginalized depends on locale.

        Call bigots “bigots.” If we don’t, we end up with with the mess that now surrounds the use of the term “racist.”

        s

        • Of course it’s never okay, and it’s fine to call people out over it. My point is that the cycle is not going to end. Gary can stop using homophobe, but even after all these discussions of how very painful and personal it is, I don’t see teabagger going out anytime soon.

          • S,

            I doubt homophobe will fall out of usage anytime soon. It is doing the job it was intended to do when it was coined. In fact., I think it is a useful term, when properly used. For example, imagine what is involved in distinguishing your perspective from one that is similar by driven by an irrational fear. It’s a good way to dig down into presuppositions.

            Lots of suffering by many of many different perspectives is yet to come.

            s

          • similar, but driven…

          • Yes. Homophobe IS a useful term. Teabagger, OTOH, isn’t a useful term at all. Even apart from the fact that many find it offensive, it’s just stupid and pointless and doesn’t signify, but people like Maddow will still cling to it and the more people complain, the more defensive and defiant they’ll get. My point is is that the users of “homophobia,” overall have better intentions. Yes, words can be misused, but it’s not some calculated thing, it expresses sincere emotion. Sincere and well intentioned people can be reasoned with and asked to consider the feelings of others that are implicated with their word choices, and they may comply in spite of their own legitimate reasons for using a word. Those who are insincere never will so it’s an inherently unequal situation.

          • S,

            I don’t use the term, except to discuss the use of the term.

            I am against “newspeak”, regardless of the source, which tends to get me into trouble with plenty of well-intentioned folks on either side of the political spectrum.

            s

          • We’re not talking about Newspeak, it’s still not a thought or speechcrime to gratuitously offend, we’re just trying to remove the shock factor that offensive words and actions result in offense and point out the link from A to B. ;)

      • I avoided using the term for a couple months but it’s use is now common. It’s original usage described a sexual act, but despite what some people (like garych) say the term is not closely associated with homosexuality.

        • Most people don’t understand it, but Maddow and those who started it knew exactly what they were doing, and knowing that, it’s hard to turn the knowlege off. Especially if you feel personally slapped by the message behind it.

  30. After ‘Inappropriate’ NEA Conference Call, White House Pushes New Guidelines
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/after-inappropriate-nea-conference-call-white-house-pushes-new-guidelines.html

    • I went and read the transcript of the conf call.
      I think it’s sh*tty of the WH to try and use NEA for propaganda.
      Artists depend on grants; turning them into a marketing arm is so wrong.

      • I read it too. It seems all about getting artists to give their work to the cause for nothing-just like Axelrod was forever trying it on with artists and volunteers during the campaign.

  31. This one is easy. Just get rid of the hacktacular political appointments and bring in respected arts figures. Of course, not gonna happen because O doesn’t give a damn about the NEA. Frankly, there’s probably no downside to him in letting it go down, he can use that to suck up to the rightwing (“the NEA disappeared on my watch, with my help!”) AND try to rally his base (“we can’t let them win!”).

    • This reminds me of the Philadelphia libraries closing so many services. I don’t think this Administration gives two hoots for the Arts, either.

      It’s a heads we win, tails you lose situation for the Axelrahms of this world.

  32. Bill Clinton absolutely right on CNN:

    And I believe if he were white, every single person who opposes him now would be opposing him then.

    This goes for Republicans and PUMAs. We oppose Obama/the DNC’s stealing of the nomination and the misogyny of the primary.

    • Republicans oppose Democrats no matter what. Some of their opposition has racial overtones. Obama was able to be elected because he’s post-racial so their opposition to him is less racially-motivated.

      • Pretty much. Democratic Presidents cause rightwing freak outs, but it is also racially motivated/expressed. But instead of discussing it seriously, people like Carter are looking like they’re trying to score cheap political points and scapegoat any disagreement by focusing on examples that could happen to anyone and seem neutral enough.

        • It’s their Republicanism followed by racism.

          We oppose the very shocking behavior of Obama, the DNC, media, Wall Street, netroots, Third Wave of the last twenty months. The stealing/rigging of the nomination and worst misogyny this country has ever seen.

          • Shocking because Democrats stole from Democrats and Democrats were misogynist against Democrats. More misogynist than Republicans ever were.

          • Shocking because Democrats stole from Democrats and Democrats were more misogynist than Republicans ever were against other Democrats.

          • I hope you don’t mind if I finish my thesis here.

            The left and right have a primal fear of the Clintons because women’s empowerment is a more intimate threat to men than black men’s empowerment. There’s nothing post-feminist about the Clintons. Neither has ever said the word, “post-feminist.”

            Whereas Obama is post-racial. He said it’s time to move past slavery and the “excesses of the 60s and 70s.” He also appeases whites and big business at every turn.

            The Clintons aren’t post-racial either. They never said it’s time to move past slavery and the “excesses” of the 60s and 70s.

  33. Dear Gary,

    Anti-gay bigotry is immoral.

    How is calling me a “fucking asshole” any different than calling someone a teabagger, in terms of how its’ force is connected to associating it with a practise associated with the gay community?

    It is well-documented in LGBT literature and elsewhere, that “homophobia” as it is used by GLBT advocates, other than those like me who only use the term where it accurately applies, means something less perjorative than what the word actually means. Notwithstanding, how can a person who calls someone a “fucking asshole” legitimately take umbrage with someone who is upset at being called a “fucking asshole” when the person who used the term says “When I say you are a “fucking asshole” it does not mean you are a “fucking asshole”, it means that I disagree with you and don’t like what you are saying.”

    A logically sound objection is not a canard, but I imagine your meaning of canard is also based on your unique stipulation.

    It is right to call out anti-gay bigots for anti-gay bigotry.
    It is hypocritical to knowingly use a word that means something worse that what you intend, while calling people bigots for doing something equivalent.

    Perhaps Maddow, Anderson Cooper, and a host of mainstream commentators are anti-gay bigots because they’ve used the term “teabagger.” Then again, perhaps they are merely lacking empathy. If they are merely lacking empathy, should we call them bigots?

    s

    s

    • Oh sorry, I didn’t know he called you a fucking asshole! You’re so not a fucking asshole! :)

      • S,

        When the term fits, I wear it. Frankly, I could care less about that.

        For me, it is worse to be called an anti-gay bigot or a racist, than it is to be called a generic swear name. I think we ought to be very careful when using those categories.

        s

    • Gary’s pissed, and there’s a lot for gay folks to be angry about.

      His article right before the Confluence vent is about about the verdict for a gay man’s murder called “Gay People are Worthless.”

      When you’re following cases like that which show how little our lives are really valued in the US and around the world, then reading liberals continually using the word teabagger, and then trying to justify doing so with long logic based rationals, it’s grating and discouraging. I’m speaking for myself, here.

      Trying to prove that teabagger isn’t really a gay slur because some straight people engage in that practice is really a bit over the top. Everyone knows what it means and who is targeted by it.

      I think the better part of valor is to learn from this and stop calling people by that term.

      • Trying to prove that teabagger isn’t really a gay slur because some straight people engage in that practice is really a bit over the top. Everyone knows what it means and who is targeted by it.

        Are you asserting that teabagging is a sexual act performed primarily by gay men? If so, do you have data to support that claim?

        I’ve heard the term for years and I never considered it connoting homosexuality.

        • No, I’m not asserting that, and I have no data.

          But let’s look at another similar word: C@cksucker. No-one calls women that. If it’s used, it means a gay man, or maybe a straight man that’s been bested or dominated by another. That’s what I was talking about. Some women might call themselves that in a joking way, but in colloquial use, it means gay man.

          • C@cksucker is not a similar term and I’m not using that one.

            The colloquial use of “teabagger” does not mean “gay man.”

          • E,

            In the title of a new post, Gary uses the term to describe what the Confluence can do. Is his use of the term gender-neutral?

            s

          • how about motherf*cker? there are all kinds of slurs based on particular sex acts … are we going to be the purity police on word origination now?

          • Oh Gary is just looking for things to be angry at the Confluence about–it goes way back.

      • E,

        I do not use the term, apart from discussions about the term, because of the objections that were raised.

        My issue was with simone who equated using the term “teabagger” with being a homophobe.

        s

        • Homophobia is a state of mind. Just because one person thinks another is homophobic (or racist, sexist, etc.) does not make it so.

          • I missed this. Leftists should call them tea partiers not teabaggers because it’s a homophobic slur. The Obama era left is no better than the right when it comes to dirty politics/using misogyny/homophobia to be Obama sycophants.

          • It is not a homophobic slur.

            Look up the definitions of tea bagging and virtually none of them define it as a homosexual activity.

            I find it highly ironic that a term popularized by a lesbian is deemed homophobic.

          • Cmon if GLBT say not to use the word, it’s best not to use it here.

          • It’s not on dictionary.com but urban dictionary and wikipedia say it’s a slur.

          • But do they say it’s a homophobic slur?

          • The urban dictionary says “also see f–bag.”

          • And no, it’s not “fuckbag.” The definition of “f–bag” is given as “another way of calling someone a f—–.” [slur]

        • Fine, it’s not homphobia, but There been endless discussions of how offensive and hurtful it is. That kind of thing, over and over, makes you angry. It makes you frustrated. It makes you feel invisible and like you’re screaming and nobody gives a damn. feeling as if your POV that hits close to your heart is dismissed almost as if you don’t matter feels awful. And when people are upset, they can’t always find the perfect word, just one that expresses how hurt they are and how they can feel disrespected even by people they know are on their side.

          • Exactly. Thank-you.

          • I’m getting really tired of wing nuts getting liberals to fight each other based on every one’s perceived insults. First, we’ve been treated to seeing every little things as racist–even the words of Bill and Hillary Clinton which were two people known to fight for civil rights. Are we going to just sit down and make a similar list of words for sexism, homophobia, or whatever the act of right wing hatred and they hold each other accountable when some one prefers a second level or third tier meaning or a synonym to the another one? I mean, this is going to be a pretty long list and we’ve already been told there’s a list of perceived ones also for being anti-Israel or anti-semitic, anti-Islam, etc.

            Then who gets to be the word purity police? Who gets to judge the true and implied meaning of the word? What kind of absurd level can we take this too?

          • *shrugs* If we want to get along, probably it makes sense to just have respect and not get into stupid standoffs over very little. Maybe there are some expressions that are important enough to tell our allies, “I don’t care how much pain this causes you, I’m gonna use it and you’re gonna lump it,” but lots of others don’t meet that standard. I mean, very rarely IRL if someone says, “Can you please not call me Sue, my name is Susan, Sue has bad associations for me” do we then go out of our way to repeatedly call her Sue in the name of free speech, because it’s not that big a deal and much bigger to her than us.

          • But are we foreclosed from using the name or word in Sue’s presence when not referring to her?

            “I hate the name Sue. Don’t ever call anyone else that either. And don’t ever mention suing anybody.”

          • No, but that’s not what we’re talking about. The word ‘Sue” isn’t intrinsically offensive. If some guy calls someone a racist or homophobic or sexist slur in my presence, of course I’m offended and it doesn’t matter whether they’re talking about me. (And you would be amazed how many people will call someone in your group a slur right in front of you and act like it’s not big deal–”I don’t mean you, you’re not one of them, you’re different.”). I’m sure gary would not freak out if you were making him a cup of tea and asked if he wanted a teabag, BUT if you stared him down creepily and leered at him and giggled while you were doing it, yeah, that’s offensive. And the rightwing protestors as teabaggers did not start as a little innocent wordplay reference to Lipton’s, which is why there’s a problem.

          • You’re assuming the term is homophobic. I disagree.

          • But the talking heads are snickering and giggling like 12 year olds, and I don’t think it’s because Salada and celestial seasonings are such funny words.

            Like Erica says, there isn’tt a lot of mystery here. You don’t associate the word with homosexuality, but you’re one of teh few. The reason it’s funnier to certain types than other sexual terms is because to the average overgrown 12 year old, of whom we seem to have a lot in the political and media classes, there is nothing more disgusting than coming into contact with a man’s genitals. And if you’ve ever walked into a room of 12 years olds when you hear them yelling, you’re gay! You’re gay! then I’ll bet you on what they’ve been doing.

          • I meant you don’t associate teh word with homophobia, not homosexuality

          • The snickering and giggling makes just as much if not more sense if you consider the term sexual but not homophobic.

          • The term is widely used in the left blogosphere.

            Did they all turn into homophobes?

          • The left blogosphere widely uses sexist terms, too. Does that mean they’re only sexist if they’re used by right wingers but their sins have been bathed away in the light of their righteous users?

          • I’m not trying to be the purity police or anything else. I have spoken up on many posts lately in which the word teabagger is used and expressed my personal discomfort with it. This isn’t about Gary or anyone else, btw.

            I fail to see how teabagger and c@cksucker are not similar words, as they describe very similar activities, but Myiq has a right to make that distinction, and if to him personally it’s not a gay slur–again, his opinion.

            I’m just saying that as a gay person who’s lived my whole life in the USA, I find the use of teabagger offensive and grating and I’d really prefer people to drop it. And it’s interesting to me that that isn’t just accepted by anyone on the blog except Seriously.

          • Well, I’ve started using Becksters, maybe I should say BeckBots because to me, that entire group is being manipulated by a few personalities but to me that word is in the same category as motherf**ker.

            How about Teabots?

          • Seems kinda easy to just stop using the term.

          • I find the use of teabagger offensive and grating and I’d really prefer people to drop it.

            What about the word “fuck?” I use that word a lot too, and lots of people find it offensive.

            How many people have to agree a word is offensive before the rest of us have to quit using it? Who decides if a word is homophobic, sexist, racist, etc?

            All the arguments I am seeing boil down to “In my opinion the term is homophobic therefore you should stop using it.”

          • “Seems kinda easy to just stop using the term.”

            It seems kinda easy to keep using it too. I’m still waiting for someone to make a convincing argument that the term is homophobic.

            “Because I said so” isn’t convincing.

          • Well, what kind of argument would you find convincing? “If this were really bad, we wouldn’t be doing it” certainly isn’t much of an argument either, especially when there are numerous arguments from gays and lesbians about why it is bad.

          • Use the f word all you want myiq. I really doubt it’s deeply offensive to many of the regulars on this blog, or we wouldn’t keep coming back.

            And I never said stop using teabagger “because I said so.”

            But it is offensive, it is grating, and I wish you and everyone who now goes along with the crowd and uses it would stop. Can I prove to you that it’s homophobic. No, obviously not. Do I have a compelling intellectual argument? Nope, and it seems clear no-one will ever have one for you.

            But it feels crappy every time I see it here. Jeez.

          • Erica, Seriously… you guys still around?

            I don’t use the word either. I call them tea partayers.

          • Yes, Wonk.

            I like that term, but to others it’s too polite. (civility can be a good thing at times…)

            I liked daks teabots, too. “I’m a little teabot, short and stout, I hate the bailouts, stamp them out”–or something like that.

          • Still here. I like teapartayers. If they think it’s too polite, they could just abandon the tea metaphor totally and come up with something Not teaish but appropriately harsh. :) although the teabot song is quite catchy, really. :)

          • I see what you mean. It refers to a homosexual act but it’s not intrinsically homophobic but if it makes GLBT posters here uncomfortable, it’s best not to use it.

          • It does not refer to a homosexual act.

            It is a sexual act practiced by some gay and some straight men.

          • Now I see.

            Also:

            In windsurfing and other watersports, an individual is “teabagged” when they fall beneath the water of a choppy wave.

      • Gary’s pissed

        Gary is frequently pissed about a lot of things. He thought nesting was oppressive.

        • I often disagreed with gary when he was here, but that’s not the point. This isn’t some weird thing dreamed up by gary that no one else thinks is valid. in fact, I remember all of the arguments gary uses used about the word used here, and quite vehemently too. There was a great deal of well-reasoned outrage about this.

          • Gary’s outrage is only well-reasoned if the term is homophobic.

            Gary thinks it is. I disagree.

            I might defer to Gary’s opinion if he was still a front-pager here, but he told us to fuck off a long time ago. The situation when he left was similar to this one.

            He thought Joseph Cannon was an anti-semite, and got offended that everyone didn’t agree with him. We were willing to take Cannonfire off the blogroll but that wasn’t good enough, so he left.

          • But it’s not just gary’s opinion. Gary wasn’t here when the talking heads started using this term and people explained all the problems with it in a well-reasoned way.

          • If everybody (except me) agrees it’s homophobic then why are so many non-homophobes still using the term?

            The people using the term are liberals and progressives, not wingnuts.

          • Exactly. And that can make it so much more hurtful.When you’re talking to people who you know are on your side, you expect them to say “Okay, not a big deal, I didn’t know how hurt and upset you were, sorry.”

            Why are so many people who are not homophobes using a term that is really upsetting to lots of gay people is a better question imo. And again, nobody with a lick of sense thought that the kinds of comments Obots made were not sexist, they just didnt care, because beating the b—– was more important to them. Maybe teh same thing is happening here, it’s become so important to insult teh protestors that being hurtful to gays is a secondary issue.

    • Steven, I remember hearing back during the Civil Rights movement that the n-word was “just a regional pronunciation of ‘Negro’” and that no harm was meant by it. I didn’t buy that excuse then, and I don’t buy the excuse about “teabagger” or the disquisition on “homophobe” now. (By the way, why is it worse to be called out for a mental illness, which is an involuntary condition, than to be called out for bigotry, which isn’t?)

      Several people have pointed out why “teabagger” is offensive to them. I find it offensive, too; I imagine most LGBT’s do, regardless of what Maddow says. Best just to drop it. Aren’t there enough pejoratives for “ignorant right-wing white people” that you and myiq can express your disdain without it?

      • os

        I do not use the term. I am not arguing in favor of using the term. I am arguing that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

        A ghost poster said that people who use the term teabaggers are homophobes. I pointed out the hypocrisy of using the term homophobe while critiquing someone who used the term teabagger.

        GCH said that it is a right wing talking point to show the problems with using the term “phobe” to describe people who disagree with your perspective. Foucault has clearly articulated the political power relations tied to describing deviance from the norm as a medical condition.

        GCH is upset with the use of the term teabagger, I understand why he is upset, which is the reason that I only use the word in discussions about the uses of words. He called me a fucking asshole for expressing a legitimate concern.

        {Why is teabagging off limits when fucking asshole or (later) suck my cock are not, given that they are all potential references to gay sex practises?}

        s

  34. Forcing people to use the term “tea partier” requires us to be polite and respectful to the members of that movement.

    I ain’t gonna do that.

    Teabagger is derogatory but I disagree that it is homophobic. The term was popularized and is still used by Rachel Maddow, which makes me doubt that “everybody knows” it is a homophobic slur.

    BOHICA refers to anal sex yet I’ve never seen anyone claim it is homophobic.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

    • did you read the guy was still fired?

      Police say an ACORN worker caught on video giving advice about human smuggling to a couple posing as a pimp and a prostitute had reported the incident to police

  35. Hard to differentiate this blog from any of the others doing Obama’s bidding.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers

%d bloggers like this: