• Tips gratefully accepted here. Thanks!:

  • Recent Comments

    r u reddy on Happy Pioneer Day
    tdraicer on We want answers from the pols:…
    katiebird on Word Crimes
    Sweet Sue on Word Crimes
    katiebird on Word Crimes
    Sweet Sue on Word Crimes
    katiebird on Word Crimes
    r u reddy on Obamacare subsidy rules overtu…
    quixote on We want answers from the pols:…
    Sweet Sue on Word Crimes
    Propertius on We want answers from the pols:…
    katiebird on Happy Pioneer Day
    riverdaughter on We want answers from the pols:…
    katiebird on We want answers from the pols:…
    riverdaughter on What’s in my Instapaper…
  • 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 occupy wall street OccupyWallStreet 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

    July 2014
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • RSS Paul Krugman: Conscience of a Liberal

  • The Confluence

    The Confluence

  • RSS Suburban Guerrilla

  • RSS Ian Welsh

    • The Beginning of an End of the Trans-Atlantic Alliance
      Ian described the proposed EU sanctions on Russia as “not shabby”, but while they are somewhat more serious sanctions than heretofore it’s only somewhat. The most serious ones are the ones on Russia’s financial institutions. Yes it’ll raise costs but will hurt London and Frankfurt including reputationally. It will also have the effect of encouraging [...] […]
  • Top Posts

THE most serious question at Sotomayor’s hearing was asked by… Franken?

Holy Hemiola, Republicans are a repetitive bunch.  Did any one of them ever have an independent thought?  The way they zeroed in on her “wise latina” word combination was like some SETI scientists looking for meaningful patterns in vast field of verbal graffitti, like none of the other billions of words Sotomayor has ever uttered made sense.  In some very no-so-subtle ways, they managed to communicate that a latina woman should show more deference to a southern white gentleman, that life experiences are strictly forbidden for Democrats but perfectly OK for Republican nominees like Concerned Alumni of Princeton Alito and “high tech lynching” Thomas, and that with 7 white men out of 9 members of the court (that’s 78% for those of you who are keeping track), this is a population that needs to be protected, the poor things.  Let me get this straight:  white males are the downtrodden of the earth, put upon and underpriveleged and that’s why we need so many of them on the court.  Women?  ehhhhh, not so much.  I would hope that women voters in Republican districts would keep this in mind when they go to the polls in 2010 but as my mom says, people have short memories.  They will forget what empty headed, arrogant, clueless, condescending jerks Jeff Sessions and Lindsay Graham were.

Franken, on the other hand, will be known for his Perry Mason moment instead of the most important question asked at the hearings.  Here’s the question:

Now, you may be wondering why Franken would be concerned with “net neutrality”.  I’m going to take a guess here that it’s for the same reason he was a founding member of Air America.  Back in 2003, corporate media controlled the horizontal and the vertical.  Well, it still does.  The propaganda might be coming from a pseudo-Democratic White House but it’s still propaganda and there are precious few sources of push back.

Air America’s flagship station was a tiny station in NYC, WLIB, with a very weak signal.  In central NJ, just 36 miles away, I could barely pick it up on my car radio.  During some of the more critical news stories of 2003-2004, I couldn’t get it at all.  There was a competing station from Indiana, of all places, that was a superbroadcaster.  The Indiana station would crank up the volume up to 11 and blast right wing talking points, overwhelming that tiny whisper from Air America.  I noticed that Indiana wouldn’t always be blasting away.  It only happened when I wanted to hear a different opinion on an important news story.

That left me with live streaming Air America from the internet.  Now, I might live right in the heart of telecommunications R&D central, not far from ATT and Lucent and all the rest.  But my internet providers are very, VERY limited.  There are days that I swear they are blocking access or slowing down the download speeds to sites I want to access.  I’m sure I’m just being paranoid but isn’t this Franken’s point?

Who owns the internet?  Is it the corporations who laid the cables or us?  Do we have a right to access it to exercise our first amendment rights or is it possible for a Supreme Court judge to say, “I said you have a right to free speech.  I didn’t say Verizon FIOS had an obligation to carry your words to the rest of the world.  If you want to be heard, buy a megaphone and try not to get arrested for disturbing the peace”

The corporations might say they own the cables but *WE* paid for them.  Everytime we made a phone call or emailed our mothers or purchased that electric raclette grill from amazon or downloaded Lady Gaga from iTunes, we pay for laying down new lines through the hefty fees added to our bills every month.  Isn’t that the excuse that these companies are always making for raising the rates?  They have to add new lines, update the technology?  Ok, we paid for that.  Did we forfeit our right of free speech when we entered into an agreement with these companies?  That is essentially the question Al Franken asks.  Sotomayor responds that it depends on the policy established by Congress.

Ahhh, back to those bastards.  So, if Congress gives away the store to ATT, FIOS, Embarq and the like, is our only recourse to vote them out of office?  And if we want to run alternative candidates, how to we make sure these candidates get a fair hearing?  The internet has the capacity to change the electoral landscape by allowing candidates to circumvent the corporate media gatekeepers.  But if you don’t have free, unfettered access, is this really possible?  Is it possible that in 2010, we will see candidates who want to primary incumbents blocked by service providers from doing so?

The problem is not a hypothetical “maybe”.  It could happen now.  The question goes to the very heart of our system of democracy.  The right to free speech, to be heard, to foment insurrection if necessary, was the first right that was granted to us in the Constitution by people who knew what it means to need to overthrow your government.  These days, we would prefer to overthrow our government at the ballot box. But if you can only make your voting decisions based on disinformation, if it is legal for corporations to promote disinformation for its own benefit and if those corporations are granted the protection of “personhood”, doesn’t this infringe on the rights of the individual to be heard and have the power of full citizenship?

We need only look to Iran for the answer to this question.  Their election was highly questionable, so highly questionable that they demanded a recount or a new election.  Instead, the government cut off their access to the internet, their ability to organize and then ruthlessly suppressed the protestors.  Could it happen here?  Hell, yes.  All we need is a bunch of hyperbolic blowhards on cable news networks terrifying people into thinking it could provoke another 9/11 and we’re there, baby.

How do we prevent that from happening?  That’s essentially what Franken is asking.  How do we exercise our free speech when someone else has our voice and can turn down the volume?  Does that old playground boast, “It’s a free country, I can say whatever I like” still have any real meaning?  Sotomayor’s answer, to me, was less than satisfying.  I think she will be deferential to the corporation’s lawyers when the issue finally makes it to the USSC.  I’ve been wrong before but let’s just call it a hunch.  It’s like her answer on abortion.  Yes, women have a right to privacy with their doctors- under certain circumstances.  Maybe I’m dense or something but if someone else is setting the “circumstances” under which you have a right to privacy, then there isn’t much privacy.  But I digress.

The more important issue is freedom of speech.  It precedes all others.  It allows you to question authority and persuade your fellow citizens.  Without it, there would be no discussion of abortion or gun rights or health care.  Or at least, no competing opinions.  And as technology has changed the way we access our information, allowing us to benefit from the internet’s advantages of speed and relational information, those of us who do not control that access will be at a severe disadvantage as citizens.  We might as well be wearing a gag.

Which is just how the monopolies like it.

Podcast of the day: Control of the media has been going on ever since there was a printing press.  Check out Melvyn Bragg In Our Time’s Seventeenth Century Print Culture.  King Henry VIII was one of the first to crack down on the press by banning the vernacular bible and forbidding women and servants from reading it.  They might get the notion that they knew what it meant.  Sounds like Lindsay Graham’s kind of guy.


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

“On Being Sane in Insane Places”: Sarah Palin and the Rosenhan Study

The media doesn't "get" genuine

The media doesn't "get" genuine

In 1973, David Rosenhan, a sociologist, conducted a study (Warning, PDF file, scroll down) of the difficulty people have in overcoming being labeled as having a mental illness. Rosenhan and seven colleages got themselves admitted under false names to different mental hospitals around the country by claiming they were hearing voices, a common symptom of schizophrenia. Once they were admitted to the hospitals and diagnosed as schizophrenic, these “pseudopatients” behaved completely normally and were completely truthful about their life histories.

Despite the fact that these people did not act “crazy” in any way, they were kept in the hospitals for periods of time ranging from 9 to 52 days. None of the mental health professionals who examined the pseudopatients ever detected that they were sane, although other patients noticed and sometimes accused the pseudopatients of doing undercover research.

Once they had been given the schizophrenic label, everything the pseudopatients did or said and even their personal histories were interpreted by psychiatrists and other hospital staff as reinforcing their diagnoses. For example, some of the pseudopatients took notes during their time in the hospital. This innocuous behavior was interpreted as delusional and a sign of deep psychological disturbance.

So how does this relate to the situation Sarah Palin finds herself in? Palin is a perfectly normal person who got sucked into the insane world of presidential politics. It has been determined by the talking heads and media mavens of Washington and New York that Sarah Palin wants to be President. No one knows for sure if this is true, but now that she has that label, everything she says or does is interpreted to relate to her supposed presidential ambitions. Based on their assumptions about Palin, various talking heads, reporters, and bloggers have also labeled her ignorant and unqualified. Continue reading

Sarah Palin and the Bitch-Slap Theory of Electoral Politics

PDS

Don’t hate/blame/flame me for the sexist term in the title.  Blame Josh Marshall (the real one) for coming up with it.  Back before he was kidnapped and replaced with a Kool-aid zombie he was a pretty astute blogger.  In 2004 he discussed the Swiftboat attacks being made on John Kerry by the Bush/Cheney campaign and came up with the Bitch-Slap theory of electoral politics:

It goes something like this.

On one level, of course, the aim behind these attacks is to cast suspicion upon Kerry’s military service record and label him a liar. But that’s only part of what’s going on.

Consider for a moment what the big game is here. This is a battle between two candidates to demonstrate toughness on national security. Toughness is a unitary quality, really — a personal, characterological quality rather than one rooted in policy or divisible in any real way. So both sides are trying to prove to undecided voters either that they’re tougher than the other guy or at least tough enough for the job.

[...]

One way — perhaps the best way — to demonstrate someone’s lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves — thus the rough slang I used above. And that I think is a big part of what is happening here. Someone who can’t or won’t defend themselves certainly isn’t someone you can depend upon to defend you.

Demonstrating Kerry’s unwillingness to defend himself (if Bush can do that) is a far more tangible sign of what he’s made of than wartime experiences of thirty years ago.

Hitting someone and not having them hit back hurts the morale of that person’s supporters, buoys the confidence of your own backers (particularly if many tend toward an authoritarian mindset) and tends to make the person who’s receiving the hits into an object of contempt (even if also possibly also one of sympathy) in the eyes of the uncommitted.

[...]

So hitting back hard was critical on many levels.

Did you really think that all the unhinged attacks on  Sarah Palin were just misogyny gone wild?  Think again.

Until we manage to change it we live in a sexist, patriarchal culture.  Our culture devalues “feminine” attributes and equates “female” with “weak.”  That was the purpose behind calling John Edwards the “Breck Girl” and MoDo’s “practically lactating” comment about Al Gore – to “feminize” the candidates.

One of the problems that Hillary Clinton faced was establishing her toughness.  She had to vote with the hawks on military issues and with conservatives on “law and order” issues or run the risk of being portrayed as weak.  She built up a solid record in the Senate and more than held her own in debates yet nonetheless she was attacked for allegedly crying up in New Hampshire.

But Sarah Palin came to the table with two advantages that Hillary didn’t have.  First of all Sarah is a Republican, and GOP candidates enjoy the presumption that they are tough on crime and military issues.  But she also grew up hunting, fishing and engaging in other “manly” activities.  Sarah can easily out-macho the chickenhawks and drugstore cowboys – how many men in this country have actually killed and eaten a moose?

Continue reading

Thursday: The problem is still the media

Beware innocent looking paperboys

Beware innocent looking paperboys

We don’t know what they’re up to but they got the candidate THEY wanted, not the candidate WE wanted. They did it in 2000 and 2004 and they only way we will ever have a choice going forward is if we neutralize their toxic messages.   The progressive blogosphere was supposed to be the cure to that but they failed utterly, eventually being subsumed by the media itself.  Had Clinton won the primary, the media would have suffered a devastating blow and I think the political power brokers knew that.  So, I think we can assume that they maintained the current system so that they could use it in the future.

Who do we trust?  First hand accounts are always valuable.  There are also indicators that can’t be spun by the networks.  The Dow, for instance, reacts to economic data, not media commands.  We could also keep an eye on the foreign press, which if not necessarily more reliable will certainly present a different point of view.  InsightAnalytical has a page of foreign press resources.

It would be nice to think that now that the media got what it wanted that it will do its job and report on the presidency of Barack Obama with a more critical eye.  Anyone who is thinking that should pass the bong because I don’t think that’s going to happen.  The people who elevated Obama are going to want something in return and if what Biden reported a few weeks ago is true, it’s a good bet that the rest of us peons are going to hate it with such intensity that we’ll be sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches by this time next year.

Keep alert.  Keep skeptical.  Find a buddy, hold hands, look both ways before you cross the street.  We’ll still be here.  We’ve got lots of friends and we’re going to work together to fix the misogyny in the media, broken election systems, the scarcity of women in political office and the millions of broken hearts in the GLBT community who were let down by the same people who put their favorite in the White House.  The country needs to be inclusive of all of its citizens.

The media needs to be reminded of that.

Ease up on Palin

I am watching CNN and they are still hitting on Palin.  There is just no stopping these people.  They can’t put the cudgel down.  They are recapping the chopped up interviews and the SNL skits.  What is *wrong* with the media?  Sarah was a good choice who rejuvenated the Republican ticket.  She wasn’t stoopid and she wasn’t a liability until Obama’s campaign and the media pounced on her and equated a well liked governor into little more than a talkng vagina.

Come on, Obamaphiles, now is the time to stop the misogynism.  Don’t ruin this day with something so ignoble as to making fun of on of the losers.    Call off the dogs.

Tuesday: “An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere”

Sarah Palin, Governor of Alaska, feminist

Martin Luther King Jr. said that.  Liberal Democratic women do not seem to understand this statement.  Basically, it means that discrimination, disrespect, misogyny directed towards Sarah Palin is really discrimination, disrespect, misogyny towards all women.  It’s just delivered by proxy.

It shouldn’t matter what political party the woman belongs to.  You have every right to disagree wih her politics.  But it is morally wrong to cheer on the abuse that has been hurled at her, and let us be clear about this, abuse that has been specifically gender related.

She is assumed to be dumb because she is pretty.  The media has screamed and thrown a fit to get  interviews and then proceeded to edit, chop and take her words out of context to reinforce their predetermined narrative.  I’ve watched exactly one interview and have focussed afterwards on Sarah’s live appearances and debate performances.  Peeps, Sarah is not dumb.  She’s got incredible political intuition and she’s a quick study.  After 4 years as VP, she would be a formidable opponent to Hillary Clinton.  If liberal women were outraged by the media’s treatment of Hillary, they are being hypocritical in turning against Sarah.  The injustice is just as bad, if not worse.

When there is constant criticism of her experience, even though she has more practical executive experience than any other candidate, when her clothes are the topic of faux outrage, when she’s been described as “flaky” and “dumb” by fellow PUMAs, when she’s tackled by a linebacker, ridiculed by Katie Couric (I won’t even go there), parodied in a pornographic film called Nailin’ Palin’ and finally hung in effigy, the injustice has gone way beyond the pale.

We are all diminished by this treatment.  If the media and the Obama campaign can take out two of the most powerful women in America through sexist behavior, what’s to stop your workplace from doing the same to you simply because you were graced with two X chromosomes?  Who is going to stick up for YOU when you complain about the cat calls and the ridicule and rough treatment at the hands of men?  The Obama campaign with the help of the nation’s media has declared war on our gender and so far, no one has been held accountable.  When it happens to you, where will you find allies?

What is really disappointing is that Hillary Clinton herself has become restrained by her own party loyalty to support the perpetrator of the crimes against women this year.  Obama does nothing to condemn this behavior and benefits enormously from the outcome.  And Hillary says nothing.  This is the woman we admired for saying that “women’s rights are human rights”, who was a target of this unfair treatment and she ends up reinforcing it by going along to get along.  She sacrifices her moral authority on the treatment of women in order to protect what is left of her political career.  Of all the things I have witnessed this year, this has got to be the saddest.  It shows how effective the injustice has been and diminishes her role as a leader. I’m glad that her surrogate, Linda Bloodworth- Thomasson is speaking out in Sarah’s defense but I’d really like to hear Hillary condemn it, even if it embarrasses the party she represents and its nominee.

PUMAs, if you are still giving into consensus reality and telling your friends that you agree that Sarah is dumb because everyone else is saying it, stop and think about what you are doing.  Now is the time to tell your friends that their attitude is out of bounds and you don’t believe that Sarah got fair treatment from the media.  It is time to tell them to stop spreading the injustice because it will come back to haunt you.  Check out Team Sarah, a group started by Republican women to push back against the misogyny.  Or visit The New Agenda to see how you can advocate for women of all political persuasions.  We must do this ourselves.  No one else will do it for us.

When you stick up for Sarah, you stick up for yourself.  Let’s push this evil thing back into the bottle.

Monday: Didn’t the media give us 8 years of Bush?

Just sayin’.

So, does anyone have a theory why the media is shoving Obama down our throats this year? Is it that they want to teach us values? The first African-American president? If that is true, why couldn’t we have the first female president? Wouldn’t that have been just as valuable? Given the adoration from the press that Obama received and the horrific treatment Hillary and Sarah get, one gets the impression that the country is not ready for a female in high office. Except, I’m fairly certain that is not true. What seems to be the case is that the media is not ready. Now, why would that be the case? Who is behind the media collaboration to elect Obama and why?

And how do we put the media back in its place?

Oh, and markets around the world are crashing this morning. But I’m sure The Chosen One will make it all better. It’s either that or he will be blamed for the worst economic crisis to hit the country since the Great Depression.

In other news, Harriet Christian wanted me to pass on this invitation to those of you in the NY-CT-NJ tri-state area. There will be an event tonight in NYC for area PUMAs. This is an opportunity to get together, meet the press and plan activities with the McCain campaign, if you are so inclined. (We at The Confluence don’t tell anyone how to vote. We encourage you to vote your conscience, regardless of media interference.) If you are interested in attending this soiree, here are the details:

DATE: MONDAY, OCTOBER 6TH

TIME: 7:00-10:00 PM

PLACE: QUIGLEY’S NY GRILL

313 First Avenue (at 18TH ST.)

$25 Cover Charge includes Open Bar and Finger Food.

Saturday: Riverdaughter to the Media

Dear Media,

It’s been awhile. I don’t watch you guys anymore and I’ve advised many of my readers to abstain as well, although, I am aware of more than a few backsliders (Pat Johnson, I’m talking to you). We know what you’re up to and we’re not paying any attention to you anymore. We are listening to our consciences. And our consciences have a message for you: This nomination process is bigger than one person.

Hillary Clinton is our champion because she is the strongest ally of the American people. We 18,000,000 who voted for her represent a diverse population of both old and young, working class and professional, college educated and educated by life, black, white, latino, gay and straight. We are everyman. We voted for her in decisive numbers in virtually every big D state and swing state and with our votes, she whupped Obama’s @$$ in West Virginia and Kentucky long after you called the race for her opponent. Now, after you slavishly reported his every bowel movement during his European Grand Tour, we see that he is sinking in the polls.

Buy a clue, media, we don’t want Obama. After two months of fawning attention, he is slipping behind because time is his enemy. It gives the American people an opportunity to see him as nothing more than a posturing empty suit, a schmoozer of the nth degree and an opportunist who will turn his back on the people who got him this far. Witness the pathetic letter in The Nation written by the latest group he has screwed over– affluent and pretentious liberals. Hey, they had it coming to them. We tried to warn them but they purged us from their blogs when we started harshing their Obama mellow earlier this year.

But enough about the Kool-Aid drinkers who want their virginity back. I’m talking to the media here and there are some things you guys ought to know:

  • We know that the media is not our friend. You gave us the Iraq War and two terms of Bush. Frankly, nothing you say has any credibility anymore.
  • We are grateful that McCain is coming down on Obama’s @$$ over the race card. This is not “nasty” or “negative” politics. None of us wanted to be called racists, especially when our decisions were not motivated by race. It is a personal insult. I’m going to continue to use words like arrogant, cocky, snippy and schmoozer because they describe Obama perfectly. No one is going to get me to shut up and run over me because they choose to use race as a weapon. Believe me when I tell you that if Obama continues to go this route and he is nominated in spite of our best efforts, he will suffer a landslide defeat in November. Voters will get even in the voting booth. No one can insult us like that and get away with it.
  • About that nomination, you probably don’t pay attention to such things but the states that will win the Democrat the White House in November, specifically, MI, FL, NY, NJ, CA, MA, AZ, TX, PA, OH, and several others, spent mega- millions of dollars holding primaries that you in the media scoffed at after the RBC Hearing result in May. We believe that the vote was rigged and that Fl and MI were withheld in order to deprive our states of the critical mass of delegates that Hillary needed to win. We believe that Obama stole votes from her in MI and as a result, STOLE the primary. It has been clear to some of us since the day after Feb. 5, that the DNC has used all of its efforts to prevent Hillary from winning. And if that is true, then the party has committed fraud on its voters and their state treasuries by conducting sham primaries it knew would never count. Under these circumstances, the party can never be united.

Now, you can continue to push Obama down our throats 24/7 and you can continue to publish and propagate falsehoods about whether Hillary wants her name in nomination. But it makes no difference to US what you say. This convention and nomination is about OUR right to be heard. It is our right to settle the score with the DNC, who thought we would just fall into line while they try to make us irrelevent. Well, we’re not going to do that.

It doesn’t matter what you say or broadcast or publish or spin. There are 18 million of us out here who don’t have to listen to that anymore. We can just ay NO DEAL. You can castigate us and call us names (like, what’s left in the arsenal? Pedophiles? Vampires?) or put us on mute in the news. We will still say NO DEAL. David Axelrod can make us the hot new paraiahs and make us the target of insults and violence. But we don’t need to even identify ourselves. 18 million voters blend into the general population remarkably well. All we need to do is say NO DEAL.

The DNC knows we’re out here. They’re starting to get nervous. They’re starting to use you to plant misinformation and demoralize us. But we see right through this and not only are we not demoralized, we are actually kinda psyched about it. They are getting worried. Good.

Our movement is viral and growing. We ask for one thing: That Hillary’s name be submitted for nomination at the convention in order to honor all of the voters, the hard working American men and women, the states that paid for the primaries and the Democratic process. We intend to continue to hold the DNC’s feet to the fire until we get her name in nomination in a fair, open and authentic process in Denver.

In the whole scheme of things, the media is just getting in the way.

Sincerely,

Riverdaughter

Message to Hillary Delegates: Do your duty.

This is how THEY do it.

First, let me apologize beforehand.  I am not trying to make this about me.  I posted the clip of my FOX interview on Sunday, and I am posting it again, but this time it is to demonstrate the tricks of the con men and women that are supporting Obama, and how they will do anything to get him elected.

Our first example of posers to principles is a group called, of all things, News Hounds.

This is the interview as posted by NoQuarter.  Nothing new if you’ve already seen it in the previous post.

This is the link to the News Hounds. I wonder if Ed Rendell’s Hounds have anything to do with it? I don’t have time to research it. I don’t care. Whosever hounds they are, they aren’t very good. They can’t smell the ironic position they are in. The entire site is devoted to being media watchdogs for Fox, yet instead of playing the interview in its entirety, they chopped out the first half, where I talk about the RBC decision.
They don’t even have the excuse of editing for time. The clip is only 3:32 long, but nothing can get in the way of their narrative.
They do not want to talk about the ugliness of RBC. They want to save all their hate for Fox. There can be no critique of Democrats at this point. Later we will hold their feet to the fire.

The next item is a little more ugly business. This article is about Murphy, and accuses her of really not supporting Clinton. As evidence of this. The reader is told that an elections contributions search on Murphy shows only one donation to McCain and none to Clinton. This fits the narrative of their story, that we are all a Republican front group, and Murphy has been lurking in the wings, ready to assume the role of the outraged Clinton supporter to lure others to vote for McCain.
This is so ridiculous, and is easily debunked by doing a search for one’s self. I went to:

Huffington Post’s Tool
I’m so sure Arrianna Huffington is misreporting campaign contributions to help Murphy seem like a real Clinton supporter.

This article just wants to focus on a donation to McCain in 2000, but never wants to show you her donation to Clinton in Q2 of this year.

What a farce. This is the change we have been waiting for? Ordinary little smear artists and propagandists: We can all be one now I guess.

However PUMAs, the noble cat does not feed on this trash. Perhaps an Opossum would eat it, if it wandered to the garbage can hungry enough.
No my Pride, we don’t do this. We are on the right moral side of this issue. We cannot resort to their habits. PUMAs feed on live meat, the Truth.

I’m sure there is going to be a lot of this, and I don’t know if it is worth showing all of it when one of the purposes of it is to confuse people and distract them from the main arguments, so here it is again for you.

On May 31st the DNC broke its own Sunshine rules and went behind closed doors to negotiate a deal where Obama got delegates that came from voters who had chosen Clinton.
We will not condone this act of Anti-Democracy by voting for the candidate you installed. If we do, we are saying we are giving up our right to credible elections.

Super Delegates, listen. Nominate the winner of the popular vote before September, or hear us…

ROAR in November!

Not getting hassled, not getting hustled

(Opinions are my own)

Have you heard? It’s a new day in the Democratic Party. Here’s some people power for you:

the Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard — we will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists,” said Obama.

“We are going to change how Washington works. They will not run our party. They will not run our White House. They will not drown out the views of the American people.”

Less than 24 hours later, the NYT cheekily disabuses us of this fairy tale with a report on fundraising for the convention:

Brochures being sent to potential corporate donors by the Denver host committee say that “as a sponsor” of the convention, corporate executives will have access to as many as 232 members of Congress, 51 senators and 28 governors in what is being marketed as a “once in a lifetime” opportunity. In addition, the more a company gives — with donations of as much as $1 million being sought — the more “V.I.P. access and other benefits” are offered, according to the brochures.

I hope you enjoyed that brief moment contemplating a federal government free of influence-peddling. Was it good for you?

I’ve been pondering the next installment of getting The PeePul on board with the program, movement-style. Let’s start with a brief review. The first stage of the primary focused on Obama winning the vote of younger, white women. From the brain trust:

What the focus groups his advisers conducted revealed was that Obama’s political career now depends, in some measure, upon a tamer version of this same feeling, on the complicated dynamics of how white women respond to a charismatic black man.

Enter Obama Girl, remember her? She was shaking her booty on the A-train and extending her hand to male co-workers across races with her promise of ‘Baracking all night long.’ Her dowdy friend, a Hillary supporter, let her hair down and took off her glasses by video’s end. We learned nothing of this constituency except of their susceptibility to peer pressure.

Next, the ‘problem’ of older, black women. Think of the archetype, Esther Rolle in Good Times, the strong black woman with the weight of the world on her shoulders while she ponders a difficult decision. Each and every article was the same. We learned nothing of political priorities save the almost daily exposure to the furrowed brows of the “large number of undecideds.” One polite testimonial per candidate would be proffered with alarming regularity by suitable representatives, who were otherwise inscrutable.

The older black woman disappeared on the eve of the South Carolina primary, never to be heard from again. She was interesting until she made her decision.

Finally, phase three. The butterfly nets are out for the last holdouts from the movement: the Clinton supporters, an oddly incalcitrant bunch. Not responsive to treatment. Difficult to manage.

We see where this is going; what, with multiple references to dead-enders in the Wall Street Journal and The New Republic, no less. Let’s be clear: dead-enders are older, white women who didn’t embrace Obama. A partisan opines:

Even as a fervent Obama supporter, I identify with some of the frustration and the anger that older, white, liberal women feel at the failure of Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

I know, I know. Some of you are going to cry out that you’re not older; that you’re not white; or that you’re not women. I don’t care, and neither do those who are planning the intervention. Tough luck, you’re boxed in, so you might as well own it, along with your sisters who fit the mold, as Rev Wright would say. While a more accurate label might be people who don’t buy into the fairy tales of the new and improved DNC, we are now in phase three, which I dub: Charming Miss Havisham.

It’s a natural extension to the already Dickensian bitter and clinging. Miss Havisham in Great Expectations is a spurned old maid, a shut-in, wallowing in self-pity after humiliation and full of vengeance. Incalcitrant she is, denying good doctors access to assist with the healing.

I expect a full assault on the bat-shit crazy dead-enders, picking at the scabs of our discontent until we plead, nay beg, for permission to re-enter proper society, an event to be heralded by a Speech! Speech!

Not getting hassled, not getting hustled. And you?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 433 other followers