A close friend of mine sent me an interesting article today (thank you Young Tim… even though you ain’t that young anymore…). Yes, it’s an op-ed piece. But it’s written by a gentleman named Paul Krugman. You can read up on Paul here http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/columnists/paulkrugman/index.html?inline=nyt-per but among other things he is a Nobel Prize winner in economics. He also has a PhD from MIT. His academic achievements and proof of his overall intelligence are well documented in the brief bio referenced above. In short, he is a brilliant man and I am very proud to say that the article sent by Young Tim validates what I have stated here before. Of course, Dr. Krugman is more articulate and less emotional in his discourse but his message is the same. The Republican Party has degenerated into an immature pack of whining juveniles who will stop at nothing to get their toys back.
Here is a link to the piece in its entirety. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html What Dr. Krugman basically states is that the GOP will utilize lies and deception to regain power. He tells how this is bad for America because they will oppose sound policy just because it comes from the left and a win from the left is a loss to the right (even if it’s a win for America). The tragedy is that it used to be what he refers to as “one of our great political parties”. But its downfall is a direct result of its domination by “radicals”. Where have we heard this before? Why, here of course! I have ranted and raved that the party is imploding from within. I recently stated that although I knew several delusional radical right wingers, I couldn’t think of one that I personally knew on the left side of the fulcrum. I’ve stated point blank that the health care debate is no longer about what’s good for us, but about the right wing desperately fighting Obama in an attempt to discredit HIM, not support what’s good for US. But Dr. Krugman is far more eloquent than I could ever be so read what he says about this and then come back here and we’ll finish up!
OK. Are you back? Good. Then I can continue….
First, let’s talk about immaturity. Frankly, I love it. My favorite saying is that I can do nothing about growing old but I can choose to remain immature forever. I’ve been saying that for a long time but I recently learned that it was attributable to someone of note but I can’t recall who (Oscar Wilde maybe). I don’t want to lay claim to the quote. But I use it regularly. Immaturity keeps me young. And the guys I hang out with tend to be on the immature side. We tease each other about the most juvenile things. “You’re ugly”. “You’re weak”. “You’re stupid”. “Nice car. My grandma had one”. “You have a tiny penis”. It goes on and on, sometimes to the point where an outsider would think we are a bunch of fifth graders. So how can I use immaturity as a club against conservatism you ask? Well let me tell you!
The people I hang with are RESPONSIBLE. If they are in a business meeting with their boss, and the boss wants them to do something that they recognize is good for the company but might not be good for their personal ideology they don’t tell the boss that implementation of that plan will result in the employees developing explosive diarrhea that they will rub all over the bosses office. If one of us faces a personal problem with our children my friends will offer what they consider to be sound advice, not jump up and down chanting “my kids are smarter than yoooour kids” while gloating over their superior child rearing abilities. If one of our dogs dies we aren’t “consoled” with wise cracks like “I didn’t like that leg humpin’ mongrel anyway”. Yes, we are immature. But we are not immature when immaturity would be inappropriate. This is what differentiates us from the GOP.
What else does this article validate? Well, it goes a long way towards bolstering my observation that the most intelligent people I know tend to be Democrats. Dr. Krugman didn’t earn a PhD from MIT by telling his professors that his penis was bigger than their penes (yes, that’s the plural… look it up). Shit, you don’t get into MIT unless you’re smarter than the average Joe. Earning your PhD there must be brutal! Now just to go on record, I don’t know for sure that Dr. Krugman is in fact a democrat. For all I know he might be a conservative who is concerned about how his party has de-evolved. But having read his article I think it’s a safe bet that he’s left of center don’t you?
Now please recognize that I do not, nor have I ever stated that all conservatives are stupid. It’s not true. I will reiterate that I place conservatives into three categories. Those that truly believe that the party’s tenets are better for America and believe it based on fact. I feel they are wrong. I feel they are disillusioned. Possibly misled. But they aren’t stupid. However, it has been my experience that they are “business smart”. They know how to make a buck. They know how to run a business. They do not necessarily know the arts, science, philosophy, etc. But they aren’t stupid.
Then there are the greedy sons of bitches who just want to maximize their own wealth and well being. They don’t give a shit about anyone else, other than those that can contribute to that wealth and well being (other greedy sons of bitches). They don’t really give a shit if other Americans are starving, homeless, or dropping dead for lack of health care. The ends justify the means so as long as the ends includes a continuation of their preferred life style the rest of us can go fuck ourselves.
What’s left is the majority of Republicans. They are the morons. I’ve addressed them before but basically, they have consumed the Kool-Aid and continue to vote against their own best interest. This is where Republicans have historically outflanked Democrats. They have a superior propaganda machine and they are far more willing to lie as long as it gets them what they want. “Death Panels” is the penultimate example. The Republicans are willing to claim their proposed existence and the morons of the party believe it. ‘Nuff said.
This is getting long so let me tell you what about Dr. Krugman most excites me (and to my friends, let me jump ahead of you by stating up front that it isn’t the size of his testicles). What most excites me is that Dr. Krugman earned his PhD and Nobel Prize in economics. It sends a message that not all of those business savvy individuals are on the right side of the political spectrum. And through that message we can all garner hope that the GOP as we know it will continue to destroy itself without any help from the rest of us and that America will still survive because we won’t forfeit our economic wisdom. There will still be people available with the knowledge to guide us in that arena who are also willing to care for ALL of our citizens, not just the rich and powerful. In closing, I know for a fact that Rush, Coulter, Beck, and Hannity do NOT hold a PhD from MIT. But I suspect they hold each others' itty bitty wieners (especially Coulter’s).
Peace,
Common Sense
Monday, November 30, 2009
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Beware The Dreaded Scales of Doom….And the Semi Naked Baristas Too
Some things just amaze me. I was watching the 11:00 news tonight and they were sensationalizing two problems that appear to have absolutely no effect on anyone. It both amused and annoyed the hell out of me. They had devoted two segments of time to nothing. I mean nothing. It fits right in with my post on FOX yesterday. But it wasn’t FOX. It was KOMO News 4. What did they cover you ask? Well let me tell you…
Some consumer advocate reporter guy went to Sea-Tac airport to expose the inaccuracies of the scales used to weigh your baggage. They are apparently regulated by the state Board Of Weights And Measures. The board however says that they are supposed to be notified if any scales show inaccuracies or don’t reset to zero. Plus, any malfunctioning scales should immediately be taken out of service. So of course, I’m expecting to see the uncovering of a huge rip off. As you all know, airlines are charging for checked baggage now. There is a 50 pound limit on each bag and if you go over you pay extra. The fee ranged from 39 bucks (either Northwest or Southwest, I don’t recall) to a whopping 125 bucks charged by those “friendly” skies of United.
So, Consumer Advocate Guy goes to “Chief Scale Guy” at the Board of Weights and Measures. They rig a bag with dumbbells and socks (yeah, dumbbells and socks… and I think a teddy bear… I didn’t get it either) so it weighs 50 pounds. Then Consumer Advocate Guy goes to the airport and starts checking on scales. To everyone’s horror there are a big bunch of scales that don’t reset to zero. These scales are supposed to be reported and taken out of service remember. But shame on the airlines. They haven’t followed procedure and have left those thieving monstrosities in operation. In almost every case, the number they reset to was the difference in the registered weight. In other words, if the scale reset to 1.5 pounds, the bag weighed in at 51.5 pounds. Reset to 2 pounds and the bag weighed in at 52 pounds. In some cases, the scales reset to a negative. But there too, if it reset to -1 pound, the bag weighed in at 49 pounds. You get the picture. It’s like a set up! A huge conspiracy to rip us off even more than the charge of the checked bag fee.
Except it didn’t happen. In fact, Consumer Advocate Guy even stated that there were NO instances where the airline was going to charge. He even tried to goad someone into charging him. The scale reset to 2.5, the bag weighed in at 52.5, and he point blank stated “Uh oh… you’re going to charge me aren’t you”. The ticket agent said “Nah, 52.5 is OK”. It was like watching a poorly scripted comedy skit. WTF is KOMO thinking? Are they ripping a page from the FOX News playbook and trying to inflame the masses with this huge problem of inaccurate measures at the airport? This is news? “Hey everybody! The airlines are putting themselves into a position where they could rip you off…. If they wanted to… but apparently they don’t want to… so they’re not ripping you off”! Is this pathetic or what?
So, on to the next item. There was a coffee stand that operated not far from my son’s high school. My daughter is in middle school now but when she was in elementary, it was right on the way when I dropped her off. It was an independent drive through that sat in a gas station lot. I like independents. They represent the American way. The little guy trying to take down Starbucks a few notches. Plus, I’m boycotting Starbucks since their head honcho Howard Schultz sold our Sonics to a scumbag from Oklahoma City and to no ones amazement they moved the team to Oklahoma City (they’re the Thunder now). Well, it either went under or they sold it because suddenly it became a framework of 2x4’s. But it was there for quite awhile. My wife and I bought quite a few lattes there when we took the kids to school. It operated for years without any apparent problems and no one batted an eye.
Well, it’s back. But it’s changed hands. Ironically, I actually saw it today because I had to attend a meeting at my son’s school and drove right by. It’s now “Knotty Bodies Espresso”. The baristas (one who makes and serves coffee drinks for you non Seattle people… I think we drink more coffee here that the entire population of Columbia) are attractive young women in bikini tops and thongs. Well, the locals are up in arms! The news covered the story and showed the throngs at City Hall threatening to boycott the place and the gas station it sits in. And you guessed it… there are suddenly “permitting problems” that might hamper its operation. They are saying it isn’t even legal to drive through and get coffee! You need to walk through. Funny how the last place didn’t have any permitting problems isn’t it? It’s the same shack with a different exterior in the same location. I guess the last one got lucky and operated illegally for 5 or more years.
But here’s the fun part. When I drove by, there was a guy with a camera who I assumed was taking promo shots for the grand opening or something. Wrong. Some genius had the idea that it would discourage people to frequent the place if there was a threat that their picture might suddenly pop up on the Internet buying coffee from some babe in a bikini. Is this person living in an alternative universe? Shit, I’ve been really laying off the coffee lately but I plan on cruising through the place tomorrow on the off chance that I may become an Internet sensation. I’ll even wave at the camera! I might even wave more than one finger!
So what we have here is a classic example of the media fueling the moronic masses into a frenzy over what isn’t really news at all. The last time I checked public nudity laws didn’t cover bikinis. They covered nudity. Here’s a suggestion. If you don’t want to buy your coffee from a babe in a bikini…. STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THE PLACE! Oh yeah, they are trying to bolster their case because the gas station, and therefore the bikini babes, sits near a park. Of course the only window to the joint is facing away from the direction of the park. And it’s a little window (even though some wimpy Mama’s boy who likely was wearing a pocket protector referred to it as a “fish bowl”… trust me, it’s not). So of course anyone under the age of 18 who happens to catch a glimpse of these bikini babes is destined to a life of sexual perversion. Why? Because they aren’t at the beach! It’s common knowledge that seeing a bikini babe at the beach is OK but that if you remove the bikini babe from the beach she becomes a Medusa that drives our youth into a life of crime and debauchery. You didn’t know that? Just ask Rush Limbaugh. He’ll explain it to you if he isn’t too wasted on Oxy. This kind of stuff drives me nuts!
Look for me on the Internet. I’ll be holding a quad grande non-fat latte and sporting a “shit eatin’ grin”. Oh, I might have a finger up too.
Peace,
Common Sense
Some consumer advocate reporter guy went to Sea-Tac airport to expose the inaccuracies of the scales used to weigh your baggage. They are apparently regulated by the state Board Of Weights And Measures. The board however says that they are supposed to be notified if any scales show inaccuracies or don’t reset to zero. Plus, any malfunctioning scales should immediately be taken out of service. So of course, I’m expecting to see the uncovering of a huge rip off. As you all know, airlines are charging for checked baggage now. There is a 50 pound limit on each bag and if you go over you pay extra. The fee ranged from 39 bucks (either Northwest or Southwest, I don’t recall) to a whopping 125 bucks charged by those “friendly” skies of United.
So, Consumer Advocate Guy goes to “Chief Scale Guy” at the Board of Weights and Measures. They rig a bag with dumbbells and socks (yeah, dumbbells and socks… and I think a teddy bear… I didn’t get it either) so it weighs 50 pounds. Then Consumer Advocate Guy goes to the airport and starts checking on scales. To everyone’s horror there are a big bunch of scales that don’t reset to zero. These scales are supposed to be reported and taken out of service remember. But shame on the airlines. They haven’t followed procedure and have left those thieving monstrosities in operation. In almost every case, the number they reset to was the difference in the registered weight. In other words, if the scale reset to 1.5 pounds, the bag weighed in at 51.5 pounds. Reset to 2 pounds and the bag weighed in at 52 pounds. In some cases, the scales reset to a negative. But there too, if it reset to -1 pound, the bag weighed in at 49 pounds. You get the picture. It’s like a set up! A huge conspiracy to rip us off even more than the charge of the checked bag fee.
Except it didn’t happen. In fact, Consumer Advocate Guy even stated that there were NO instances where the airline was going to charge. He even tried to goad someone into charging him. The scale reset to 2.5, the bag weighed in at 52.5, and he point blank stated “Uh oh… you’re going to charge me aren’t you”. The ticket agent said “Nah, 52.5 is OK”. It was like watching a poorly scripted comedy skit. WTF is KOMO thinking? Are they ripping a page from the FOX News playbook and trying to inflame the masses with this huge problem of inaccurate measures at the airport? This is news? “Hey everybody! The airlines are putting themselves into a position where they could rip you off…. If they wanted to… but apparently they don’t want to… so they’re not ripping you off”! Is this pathetic or what?
So, on to the next item. There was a coffee stand that operated not far from my son’s high school. My daughter is in middle school now but when she was in elementary, it was right on the way when I dropped her off. It was an independent drive through that sat in a gas station lot. I like independents. They represent the American way. The little guy trying to take down Starbucks a few notches. Plus, I’m boycotting Starbucks since their head honcho Howard Schultz sold our Sonics to a scumbag from Oklahoma City and to no ones amazement they moved the team to Oklahoma City (they’re the Thunder now). Well, it either went under or they sold it because suddenly it became a framework of 2x4’s. But it was there for quite awhile. My wife and I bought quite a few lattes there when we took the kids to school. It operated for years without any apparent problems and no one batted an eye.
Well, it’s back. But it’s changed hands. Ironically, I actually saw it today because I had to attend a meeting at my son’s school and drove right by. It’s now “Knotty Bodies Espresso”. The baristas (one who makes and serves coffee drinks for you non Seattle people… I think we drink more coffee here that the entire population of Columbia) are attractive young women in bikini tops and thongs. Well, the locals are up in arms! The news covered the story and showed the throngs at City Hall threatening to boycott the place and the gas station it sits in. And you guessed it… there are suddenly “permitting problems” that might hamper its operation. They are saying it isn’t even legal to drive through and get coffee! You need to walk through. Funny how the last place didn’t have any permitting problems isn’t it? It’s the same shack with a different exterior in the same location. I guess the last one got lucky and operated illegally for 5 or more years.
But here’s the fun part. When I drove by, there was a guy with a camera who I assumed was taking promo shots for the grand opening or something. Wrong. Some genius had the idea that it would discourage people to frequent the place if there was a threat that their picture might suddenly pop up on the Internet buying coffee from some babe in a bikini. Is this person living in an alternative universe? Shit, I’ve been really laying off the coffee lately but I plan on cruising through the place tomorrow on the off chance that I may become an Internet sensation. I’ll even wave at the camera! I might even wave more than one finger!
So what we have here is a classic example of the media fueling the moronic masses into a frenzy over what isn’t really news at all. The last time I checked public nudity laws didn’t cover bikinis. They covered nudity. Here’s a suggestion. If you don’t want to buy your coffee from a babe in a bikini…. STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THE PLACE! Oh yeah, they are trying to bolster their case because the gas station, and therefore the bikini babes, sits near a park. Of course the only window to the joint is facing away from the direction of the park. And it’s a little window (even though some wimpy Mama’s boy who likely was wearing a pocket protector referred to it as a “fish bowl”… trust me, it’s not). So of course anyone under the age of 18 who happens to catch a glimpse of these bikini babes is destined to a life of sexual perversion. Why? Because they aren’t at the beach! It’s common knowledge that seeing a bikini babe at the beach is OK but that if you remove the bikini babe from the beach she becomes a Medusa that drives our youth into a life of crime and debauchery. You didn’t know that? Just ask Rush Limbaugh. He’ll explain it to you if he isn’t too wasted on Oxy. This kind of stuff drives me nuts!
Look for me on the Internet. I’ll be holding a quad grande non-fat latte and sporting a “shit eatin’ grin”. Oh, I might have a finger up too.
Peace,
Common Sense
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Beck and FOX and My Friend Ted…
It’s been awhile since I posted but I read two articles yesterday that got me going again. One was on the recent skewerings of Glenn Beck and condemns Jon Stewart, Andy Cobb, and The Onion for making light of his physical problems of late. The other was on FOX news and its ridiculous claim of Fair and Balanced. And then there’s my “friend” who we will call “Ted” to protect his anonymity. This may be too much to go after in one post. But I’m going to try. Let’s start with Beck.
Glenn Beck had some botched hemorrhoid surgery recently and then had to undergo an appendectomy. Jon Stewart did a fairly funny (not hysterical… at least not to me… I’m sure it’s on YouTube) bit on Beck’s internal organs. Andy Cobb (who I guess has become a little bit of a YouTube sensation) did a little video which quotes an erotic fantasy from one of Becks books… that involves him and his sister. And The Onion (always a personal favorite) did a video in which a newscast covers the tragic story titled "Victim in Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck."
Now, the article I read was by some guy named Gary Sussman. I’m really not sure who he is (can anyone enlighten me?). He’s written a lot of articles on TV shows. Stuff like “so and so will be returning to The Edge Of Wetness (see Johnny Carson)” or what programs are improving vs. getting weaker as they age. I’m not sure how this qualifies him but WTF… I’m hardly qualified and I write this shit so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. But Gary, come on. Glenn Beck has placed himself squarely in the sights of liberals, and probably centrists, with his mindless babble. When you do the shit that Glenn Beck does you become a target. If Gary thinks mocking Glenn Beck’s illness is out of line might I suggest he tackle more relevant topics like why George Bush sent thousands of US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq? I’m guessing any one of those brave men or women would trade their medical problems for Beck’s botched hemorrhoid surgery any day. Did you know Glenn Beck has stated he would like to see Michael Moore dead.
Oh, and before I forget… I to need to be fair and balanced. When Beck wrote that piece on sex with his sister, it was not written because he’s a pervert who wants to have sex with his sister. It was apparently written as a means of comparing sex with your sibling to gay marriage. See? He’s not a pervert. He’s an asshole. I say we needle him incessantly about his botched hemorrhoid surgery. How did he get those hemorrhoids in the first place? From his wife?
Now is the Onion piece out of line? I’m not a big fan of anything that makes fun of death or in any way implies someone would be better off dead. There are of course obvious exceptions. Osama Bin Laden immediately comes to mind. Have at it with that bastard. But as a general rule implying someone should be dead is kind of a low blow. But I think Beck opened up that can of worms when he opined about Michael Moore don’t you? The Becks, Limbaughs, Coulters, etc. of this world are fair game as far as I’m concerned. They have brought it on themselves.
With regard to the FOX News piece, the author (an obvious liberal) states a case for why FOX is un-American. And it’s a good case. He claims they make a mockery of the news media by slanting everything to the right. He goes on to say that they set a bad example by demonstrating that the creation of news out of opinion sells. And he’s right. Just listen to any self respecting conservative sing the praises of that horrid network. Do you want to find out if a network is slanted one way or the other? Check the demographics of its viewers. How is it possible that SO many conservatives think FOX is the definitive news source in America while so many liberals do not? Same thing for MSNBC. How can so many liberals think that’s the definitive news source when so many conservatives do not? But here’s the difference. If you ask a liberal what his favorite news station is, you won’t ALWAYS get MSNBC as your answer. But if you ask a conservative... go try it.
Which brings me to Ted (again, not his real name). Ted was a friend of mine from college. He’s a really bright guy. We reconnected via Facebook and I was genuinely glad to hear from him. But as we conversed over time he showed himself to be a VERY radical right wing nut. HIS favorite network was FOX. I asked him once what he thought about Limbaugh and he said something like “I thank God every day for that man”. He referred to our President as “Obiwan” (which I don’t really take issue with as such… I refer to GW as THE MORON… of course GW IS a MORON). Well, we got into it a little and he fucking de-friended me! One day, I wondered why I wasn’t seeing his daily moronic post about some right wing bullshit and when I checked up on him, he wasn’t my friend anymore!
So, in light of that, I am now free to express my utter amazement at how conservative principals can turn a bright successful middle aged man into a fucking dolt! He believed Obama was a socialist. He ranted and raved and spit his filth about the “libtards” and the “sheeple”. He told me what a great guy Karl Rove was. Now to be fair, I wouldn’t be all that crazy about an ultra liberal who was way out there. But where are they? I know a fair amount of ultra conservatives but I honestly can’t think of any truly ultra liberals that I know personally. At least none that I would lable a "conservotard". I’m beginning to think that these right wing-nuts are a bunch of cry babies who are terrified of what amounts to nothing! I think liberal America is FAR more willing to compromise and thereby far more realistic to the reality that TOTAL acceptance of one and only one viewpoint is not good for the country.
Way back when I was a frat boy (yeah I know… sue me). I belonged to a pretty hip frat that liked to party like there was no tomorrow. But we had our share of book worms and wannabe doctors and lawyers etc. When I first pledged I asked one of the older brothers how these guys got in (I was having a hard time understanding why you would want the guy next door bitching at you to turn down the music while you were engaged in the merriment of youth). He told me the frat needed balance. Every brother had his reason for being there and too many partiers or too many ultra serious students wouldn’t be good for the long term health of the fraternity. Ha! Look at that. A twenty year old kid had more wisdom than the collective conscience of the entire far right. Go figure.
Peace,
Common Sense
Glenn Beck had some botched hemorrhoid surgery recently and then had to undergo an appendectomy. Jon Stewart did a fairly funny (not hysterical… at least not to me… I’m sure it’s on YouTube) bit on Beck’s internal organs. Andy Cobb (who I guess has become a little bit of a YouTube sensation) did a little video which quotes an erotic fantasy from one of Becks books… that involves him and his sister. And The Onion (always a personal favorite) did a video in which a newscast covers the tragic story titled "Victim in Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck."
Now, the article I read was by some guy named Gary Sussman. I’m really not sure who he is (can anyone enlighten me?). He’s written a lot of articles on TV shows. Stuff like “so and so will be returning to The Edge Of Wetness (see Johnny Carson)” or what programs are improving vs. getting weaker as they age. I’m not sure how this qualifies him but WTF… I’m hardly qualified and I write this shit so I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt. But Gary, come on. Glenn Beck has placed himself squarely in the sights of liberals, and probably centrists, with his mindless babble. When you do the shit that Glenn Beck does you become a target. If Gary thinks mocking Glenn Beck’s illness is out of line might I suggest he tackle more relevant topics like why George Bush sent thousands of US soldiers to their deaths in Iraq? I’m guessing any one of those brave men or women would trade their medical problems for Beck’s botched hemorrhoid surgery any day. Did you know Glenn Beck has stated he would like to see Michael Moore dead.
Oh, and before I forget… I to need to be fair and balanced. When Beck wrote that piece on sex with his sister, it was not written because he’s a pervert who wants to have sex with his sister. It was apparently written as a means of comparing sex with your sibling to gay marriage. See? He’s not a pervert. He’s an asshole. I say we needle him incessantly about his botched hemorrhoid surgery. How did he get those hemorrhoids in the first place? From his wife?
Now is the Onion piece out of line? I’m not a big fan of anything that makes fun of death or in any way implies someone would be better off dead. There are of course obvious exceptions. Osama Bin Laden immediately comes to mind. Have at it with that bastard. But as a general rule implying someone should be dead is kind of a low blow. But I think Beck opened up that can of worms when he opined about Michael Moore don’t you? The Becks, Limbaughs, Coulters, etc. of this world are fair game as far as I’m concerned. They have brought it on themselves.
With regard to the FOX News piece, the author (an obvious liberal) states a case for why FOX is un-American. And it’s a good case. He claims they make a mockery of the news media by slanting everything to the right. He goes on to say that they set a bad example by demonstrating that the creation of news out of opinion sells. And he’s right. Just listen to any self respecting conservative sing the praises of that horrid network. Do you want to find out if a network is slanted one way or the other? Check the demographics of its viewers. How is it possible that SO many conservatives think FOX is the definitive news source in America while so many liberals do not? Same thing for MSNBC. How can so many liberals think that’s the definitive news source when so many conservatives do not? But here’s the difference. If you ask a liberal what his favorite news station is, you won’t ALWAYS get MSNBC as your answer. But if you ask a conservative... go try it.
Which brings me to Ted (again, not his real name). Ted was a friend of mine from college. He’s a really bright guy. We reconnected via Facebook and I was genuinely glad to hear from him. But as we conversed over time he showed himself to be a VERY radical right wing nut. HIS favorite network was FOX. I asked him once what he thought about Limbaugh and he said something like “I thank God every day for that man”. He referred to our President as “Obiwan” (which I don’t really take issue with as such… I refer to GW as THE MORON… of course GW IS a MORON). Well, we got into it a little and he fucking de-friended me! One day, I wondered why I wasn’t seeing his daily moronic post about some right wing bullshit and when I checked up on him, he wasn’t my friend anymore!
So, in light of that, I am now free to express my utter amazement at how conservative principals can turn a bright successful middle aged man into a fucking dolt! He believed Obama was a socialist. He ranted and raved and spit his filth about the “libtards” and the “sheeple”. He told me what a great guy Karl Rove was. Now to be fair, I wouldn’t be all that crazy about an ultra liberal who was way out there. But where are they? I know a fair amount of ultra conservatives but I honestly can’t think of any truly ultra liberals that I know personally. At least none that I would lable a "conservotard". I’m beginning to think that these right wing-nuts are a bunch of cry babies who are terrified of what amounts to nothing! I think liberal America is FAR more willing to compromise and thereby far more realistic to the reality that TOTAL acceptance of one and only one viewpoint is not good for the country.
Way back when I was a frat boy (yeah I know… sue me). I belonged to a pretty hip frat that liked to party like there was no tomorrow. But we had our share of book worms and wannabe doctors and lawyers etc. When I first pledged I asked one of the older brothers how these guys got in (I was having a hard time understanding why you would want the guy next door bitching at you to turn down the music while you were engaged in the merriment of youth). He told me the frat needed balance. Every brother had his reason for being there and too many partiers or too many ultra serious students wouldn’t be good for the long term health of the fraternity. Ha! Look at that. A twenty year old kid had more wisdom than the collective conscience of the entire far right. Go figure.
Peace,
Common Sense
Thursday, October 29, 2009
What Would Jesus Do (continued)
So, as I was saying yesterday, I’m a little confused by these Christian bumper stickers. What exactly is up with that? But as I promised… here’s my point.
What I’m REALLY confused about is the dichotomy surrounding the apparent Christian adherence to the Republican Party. Now I understand certain fundamental tenets that would appeal to the average Christian. The rights of the unborn, prayer in school, the preaching of family values (although hypocritical it does seem to be discussed more among conservatives than liberals… at least publicly). But what about feeding the poor? Insuring that everyone is medically cared for? Cleaning up after Katrina? The “golden rule”? Granted, I’m just a casual observer but aren’t these things better addressed by Democrats?
If we examine the general opinion on welfare (feeding the poor), which party seems more supportive? Welfare requires taxes. Plus, I’m sure I don’t have to get into the myriad of emails that circulate about illegal aliens, community activism, and “redistribution of wealth”. And a quick aside on this redistribution of wealth issue. Whenever we see this we assume it’s redistribution from those who have to those who have not. But if you think about it, what do we have now? A twenty five percent tax on a person who makes twenty grand a year is going to hurt that person a lot more than that same tax on a person who makes a million. Now, throw in the tax deductions (which the average person making 20 grand doesn’t have) and suddenly an argument can be made that we are redistributing from the have nots to the haves. Sure, taxes go to things that the rich might not feel like supporting (unless of course they are into that golden rule thing) but they also go into schools, roads, assorted public works, etc. We all benefit from those. So is it fair that the poor shovel twenty five percent of their incomes into this fund while the rich shovel in less? But back to my point. Which party really seems to have a higher desire to actually feed and care for the have nots?
How about health care? We are currently locked in a horrific debate about the pros and cons of a public health care option. I think we all agree that under the current system there are a lot of our own citizens who don’t have access to adequate health care. Which party seems more inclined to give it to them? Shouldn’t a real Christian jump on the chance to do whatever it takes to get insurance and health care to everyone regardless of any perceived imperfections in the proposed system? Should the priority be what is the positive effect on the have nots or what is the negative effect on the haves?
Which party was in power when Katrina destroyed New Orleans? Do we really think the response was adequate? There is another one of “those” emails out there that tries to brush off Katrina by raising comparisons with the democratic response to the mid-west floods. It’s filled with blatant lies. Do the research. I think two or three people died in those floods. The dollar damage was astronomically less than that of Katrina. Many of those victims were able to return to their homes when the waters receded. The mid-west floods were nothing like Katrina.
And let’s talk about that golden rule as it applies to War. War is a necessary evil. I know it and you should too. Sometimes it’s necessary and appropriate. Sometimes it’s not. If we were to poll both parties regarding support for Iraq, which party do you think would be more inclined to approve? And for what? We never found WMDs. It’s been established that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. Yes, he was a bad man. There are a lot of bad men in the world. And there are a lot who are far worse than Saddam Hussein ever was. If we are inclined to go kick ass based solely on the fact that leaders are “bad men” might I suggest we start in Africa where people are being killed or starving to death if they are lucky enough to avoid a bullet. How did we, as a country, allow our focus to be taken off of Osama Bin Laden and placed on Iraq?
Now, just to show my “centrist” side (and prove I’m not a far left nut job) I fully support our actions in Afghanistan. THAT is where the Taliban was based. Here’s something to ponder. During the debates, Obama took some shit from the right when he said he might support action in Pakistan if we didn’t get the cooperation we needed from that government. He also recognized that our actions in Afghanistan were justified. It was Iraq he had a problem with. Well, I for one agree completely. And I also recognize that by invading Iraq, we were forced to dilute our presence in Afghanistan. I also find it interesting that we are suddenly reading about the Pakistanis killing a few Taliban here and there now when we didn’t before. I used to rant and rave about our so called alliance with this country when they were basically harboring terrorists along their border with Afghanistan. Now the guy who said he would consider action in Pakistan is in charge over here and they suddenly seem willing to do something about that. Amazing isn’t it? I’m hopeful that Obama won’t be swayed by those of us too liberal to see the Taliban as an enemy worth eradicating.
But here’s my point. What would Jesus do? My wife goes to church. I don’t. But she came home a year or so ago with a fascinating story about the sermon. I really don’t remember all the details but the gist was that it seemed to be a little political. She left with the impression that the preacher man was at least asking for more tolerance for the left from the right, and might have even been indicating the left had more going for it! The quote that I remember and which obviously had the most impact on me was “What would Jesus do? He’d FEED THE POOR”. It is the second time in my life that something coming out of a religion made total sense to me. Of course he would feed the poor! In anticipation of the question, the other instance was the response I got to the age old question of if there is a God, why do good people die way before their time? The answer was that maybe they were so good that God decided to call them to their “reward” early. If you believe that there is a reward of sorts waiting for us after we die, then that answer makes sense. I’m certainly hopeful there is something going on after our stint on earth. The thought of “eternal sleep” doesn’t excite me in the least. Hey, I love to sleep. But my love of sleep is based on how great it feels when you wake up!
So when you are contemplating your politics, you might do well to look at ALL aspects of the party line. Do we NEED prayer in school? You can pray at home. Should abortion be legal or illegal? Personally, I’m totally against abortion. I look at a baby and can’t imagine destroying it before it has a chance to see the world. But frankly, I’m far more against imposing my own moral beliefs on someone else. Especially when that someone is biologically equipped to be pregnant and I’m not. I’ll never get an abortion. But I’m not going to tell you what to do either. And how can you be against abortion but support killing people in other countries and being responsible for the deaths of our own brave soldiers for reasons that aren’t clear or may not be present at all?
Before you dig your heels in the sand and proclaim yourself a Republican, ask yourself “What would Jesus do… besides blow them all to hell”? Of course the obvious answer remains “HE’D FEED THE POOR!”
Peace,
Common Sense
What I’m REALLY confused about is the dichotomy surrounding the apparent Christian adherence to the Republican Party. Now I understand certain fundamental tenets that would appeal to the average Christian. The rights of the unborn, prayer in school, the preaching of family values (although hypocritical it does seem to be discussed more among conservatives than liberals… at least publicly). But what about feeding the poor? Insuring that everyone is medically cared for? Cleaning up after Katrina? The “golden rule”? Granted, I’m just a casual observer but aren’t these things better addressed by Democrats?
If we examine the general opinion on welfare (feeding the poor), which party seems more supportive? Welfare requires taxes. Plus, I’m sure I don’t have to get into the myriad of emails that circulate about illegal aliens, community activism, and “redistribution of wealth”. And a quick aside on this redistribution of wealth issue. Whenever we see this we assume it’s redistribution from those who have to those who have not. But if you think about it, what do we have now? A twenty five percent tax on a person who makes twenty grand a year is going to hurt that person a lot more than that same tax on a person who makes a million. Now, throw in the tax deductions (which the average person making 20 grand doesn’t have) and suddenly an argument can be made that we are redistributing from the have nots to the haves. Sure, taxes go to things that the rich might not feel like supporting (unless of course they are into that golden rule thing) but they also go into schools, roads, assorted public works, etc. We all benefit from those. So is it fair that the poor shovel twenty five percent of their incomes into this fund while the rich shovel in less? But back to my point. Which party really seems to have a higher desire to actually feed and care for the have nots?
How about health care? We are currently locked in a horrific debate about the pros and cons of a public health care option. I think we all agree that under the current system there are a lot of our own citizens who don’t have access to adequate health care. Which party seems more inclined to give it to them? Shouldn’t a real Christian jump on the chance to do whatever it takes to get insurance and health care to everyone regardless of any perceived imperfections in the proposed system? Should the priority be what is the positive effect on the have nots or what is the negative effect on the haves?
Which party was in power when Katrina destroyed New Orleans? Do we really think the response was adequate? There is another one of “those” emails out there that tries to brush off Katrina by raising comparisons with the democratic response to the mid-west floods. It’s filled with blatant lies. Do the research. I think two or three people died in those floods. The dollar damage was astronomically less than that of Katrina. Many of those victims were able to return to their homes when the waters receded. The mid-west floods were nothing like Katrina.
And let’s talk about that golden rule as it applies to War. War is a necessary evil. I know it and you should too. Sometimes it’s necessary and appropriate. Sometimes it’s not. If we were to poll both parties regarding support for Iraq, which party do you think would be more inclined to approve? And for what? We never found WMDs. It’s been established that Saddam Hussein had absolutely nothing to do with 9-11. Yes, he was a bad man. There are a lot of bad men in the world. And there are a lot who are far worse than Saddam Hussein ever was. If we are inclined to go kick ass based solely on the fact that leaders are “bad men” might I suggest we start in Africa where people are being killed or starving to death if they are lucky enough to avoid a bullet. How did we, as a country, allow our focus to be taken off of Osama Bin Laden and placed on Iraq?
Now, just to show my “centrist” side (and prove I’m not a far left nut job) I fully support our actions in Afghanistan. THAT is where the Taliban was based. Here’s something to ponder. During the debates, Obama took some shit from the right when he said he might support action in Pakistan if we didn’t get the cooperation we needed from that government. He also recognized that our actions in Afghanistan were justified. It was Iraq he had a problem with. Well, I for one agree completely. And I also recognize that by invading Iraq, we were forced to dilute our presence in Afghanistan. I also find it interesting that we are suddenly reading about the Pakistanis killing a few Taliban here and there now when we didn’t before. I used to rant and rave about our so called alliance with this country when they were basically harboring terrorists along their border with Afghanistan. Now the guy who said he would consider action in Pakistan is in charge over here and they suddenly seem willing to do something about that. Amazing isn’t it? I’m hopeful that Obama won’t be swayed by those of us too liberal to see the Taliban as an enemy worth eradicating.
But here’s my point. What would Jesus do? My wife goes to church. I don’t. But she came home a year or so ago with a fascinating story about the sermon. I really don’t remember all the details but the gist was that it seemed to be a little political. She left with the impression that the preacher man was at least asking for more tolerance for the left from the right, and might have even been indicating the left had more going for it! The quote that I remember and which obviously had the most impact on me was “What would Jesus do? He’d FEED THE POOR”. It is the second time in my life that something coming out of a religion made total sense to me. Of course he would feed the poor! In anticipation of the question, the other instance was the response I got to the age old question of if there is a God, why do good people die way before their time? The answer was that maybe they were so good that God decided to call them to their “reward” early. If you believe that there is a reward of sorts waiting for us after we die, then that answer makes sense. I’m certainly hopeful there is something going on after our stint on earth. The thought of “eternal sleep” doesn’t excite me in the least. Hey, I love to sleep. But my love of sleep is based on how great it feels when you wake up!
So when you are contemplating your politics, you might do well to look at ALL aspects of the party line. Do we NEED prayer in school? You can pray at home. Should abortion be legal or illegal? Personally, I’m totally against abortion. I look at a baby and can’t imagine destroying it before it has a chance to see the world. But frankly, I’m far more against imposing my own moral beliefs on someone else. Especially when that someone is biologically equipped to be pregnant and I’m not. I’ll never get an abortion. But I’m not going to tell you what to do either. And how can you be against abortion but support killing people in other countries and being responsible for the deaths of our own brave soldiers for reasons that aren’t clear or may not be present at all?
Before you dig your heels in the sand and proclaim yourself a Republican, ask yourself “What would Jesus do… besides blow them all to hell”? Of course the obvious answer remains “HE’D FEED THE POOR!”
Peace,
Common Sense
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
What Would Jesus Do, Besides Blow Them All To Hell…..
Over time, I have seen several Facebook posts proclaiming devotion to Jesus Christ. Now I don’t have a problem with the devotion. I get a little annoyed with the proclamations. It’s not a big deal but something about it strikes me as irritating. I love my Harley. But I don’t put posts on Facebook shouting it to the world and asking for hoots from everyone else who loves theirs. I guess it’s kind of a personal deal. But again, it’s not a major irritant.
Now, on the other hand, there are bumper stickers. I actually wrote a letter to the editor of the now defunct “Eastside Journal” about what I’m about to tee off on. They are far more irritating than the Facebook posts. I think my “favorite” is the one that states “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”. Basically it says the rest of us are fucked (for the record, I’m a baptized and confirmed Lutheran… but I don’t “practice”, so I don’t know if I’m fucked or not. I like to think I’m not. Why? Because I’m a NICE GUY). Then there is the fish. I thought it was a riot when the Darwin fish came out. You know, the one with little legs and feet? But then, the Christians came out with the Christian fish EATING the Darwin fish. I think it said “survival of the fittest”. That was funny too. At least initially. Then I started mulling over that “turning the other cheek” stuff. I mean that Darwin chomping Christian fish is a little aggressive don’t you think? The Darwin fish wasn’t kicking the shit out of the Christian fish. The Christian fish wasn’t even pictured. The Darwin fish was just minding his own business. Why the hostility?
I had an idea I wish I’d followed up on. Maybe I will some day. If any of you do this and it takes off, I expect royalties. I was going to show the Christian fish eating the Darwin fish. Then put a big ass fish behind the Christian fish humping the shit out of it. Maybe even show a little pecker. Under it I’d put something like “now THIS is survival of the fittest”. I wonder what their answer to that one would be. An even bigger fish gobbling up the whole humping mess?
I saw one once that immediately pissed me off to the point where I was actually trying to catch the guy and give him a ration of shit. I was with my wife and we were on our way to a Sonics game (remember them…. Thanks a lot Howard Schultz you fucking idiot… if you don’t understand, Google Sonics/Howard Schultz). Had to give up the chase or miss the opening tip off. What it said was “My God can beat up your God”. Can you fucking believe it? It’s probably a good thing I didn’t catch the asshole. I mean, that’s taking the religious bumper sticker to a whole new level. Borderline dangerous really. It’s like pasting a sign on your back that says “kick my ass, I’m a douche bag”. Now to be fair, nowhere did it say he was a Christian. But I’m guessing he was because, well, the next paragraph tells you why.
I really need to ask why we don’t see more bumper stickers from other religious groups. I’ve never seen a “Jews Rule” or an “Allah’s ‘the bomb” bumper sticker have you? How about “Say hey Buddha, he ‘da man!” Maybe “Mormons… the other white meat”. Or “Give it up for the LDSs. We’ll hang out on your front porch when no one else will”. How come whenever I see a religious bumper sticker it’s a Christian bumper sticker? Is it what my mother used to call (when I was “acting out”) an attention getting thing? Is it a “neener, neener, neener, I’m a Christian and you’re not” kind of thing? Does anyone know what’s up with these stupid bumper stickers? You know the nice chrome fish you see stuck to the back of cars? Have you ever seen a chrome Star of David?
And please don’t bring up the gay pride stickers or the NASCAR stickers or the “my kid’s an honor student stickers”. Yeah, these can be annoying too. But they aren’t religions. It’s one thing to think Fords are better than Chevys. It’s another thing entirely to say your religion is better than someone else’s. I go to an annual Men’s Weekend with some close friends. We’ve been doing it for around 15 years. All we do is play poker, golf, and eat. It’s definitely a “guys in the cave” type of deal. We have golf shirts made up that say “12th Annual Men’s Weekend (or 13th, or 14th, whatever). One year we did hats too. There are two brothers who sometimes attend. They look a little alike. Both have short cropped hair. On the buff side of thin. Well, imagine them driving to the golf course, side by side, in their little “matchie-poo” golf shirts and golf hats, interacting as brothers are wont to do. Now place them around 30 minutes out of Ocean Shores Washington (very rural) where we do this thing. I can guarantee you there aren’t many democrats out there. Finally, imagine me placing a magnetic bumper sticker on the back of their car that says “Honk if you like gay porn”. Yeah, I did it. Now THAT was FUNNY.
But my point….. I think I’ll make you wait until tomorrow for my point. This post is long enough. Consider the title of the blog your clue and stay tuned!
Peace,
Common Sense
Now, on the other hand, there are bumper stickers. I actually wrote a letter to the editor of the now defunct “Eastside Journal” about what I’m about to tee off on. They are far more irritating than the Facebook posts. I think my “favorite” is the one that states “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven”. Basically it says the rest of us are fucked (for the record, I’m a baptized and confirmed Lutheran… but I don’t “practice”, so I don’t know if I’m fucked or not. I like to think I’m not. Why? Because I’m a NICE GUY). Then there is the fish. I thought it was a riot when the Darwin fish came out. You know, the one with little legs and feet? But then, the Christians came out with the Christian fish EATING the Darwin fish. I think it said “survival of the fittest”. That was funny too. At least initially. Then I started mulling over that “turning the other cheek” stuff. I mean that Darwin chomping Christian fish is a little aggressive don’t you think? The Darwin fish wasn’t kicking the shit out of the Christian fish. The Christian fish wasn’t even pictured. The Darwin fish was just minding his own business. Why the hostility?
I had an idea I wish I’d followed up on. Maybe I will some day. If any of you do this and it takes off, I expect royalties. I was going to show the Christian fish eating the Darwin fish. Then put a big ass fish behind the Christian fish humping the shit out of it. Maybe even show a little pecker. Under it I’d put something like “now THIS is survival of the fittest”. I wonder what their answer to that one would be. An even bigger fish gobbling up the whole humping mess?
I saw one once that immediately pissed me off to the point where I was actually trying to catch the guy and give him a ration of shit. I was with my wife and we were on our way to a Sonics game (remember them…. Thanks a lot Howard Schultz you fucking idiot… if you don’t understand, Google Sonics/Howard Schultz). Had to give up the chase or miss the opening tip off. What it said was “My God can beat up your God”. Can you fucking believe it? It’s probably a good thing I didn’t catch the asshole. I mean, that’s taking the religious bumper sticker to a whole new level. Borderline dangerous really. It’s like pasting a sign on your back that says “kick my ass, I’m a douche bag”. Now to be fair, nowhere did it say he was a Christian. But I’m guessing he was because, well, the next paragraph tells you why.
I really need to ask why we don’t see more bumper stickers from other religious groups. I’ve never seen a “Jews Rule” or an “Allah’s ‘the bomb” bumper sticker have you? How about “Say hey Buddha, he ‘da man!” Maybe “Mormons… the other white meat”. Or “Give it up for the LDSs. We’ll hang out on your front porch when no one else will”. How come whenever I see a religious bumper sticker it’s a Christian bumper sticker? Is it what my mother used to call (when I was “acting out”) an attention getting thing? Is it a “neener, neener, neener, I’m a Christian and you’re not” kind of thing? Does anyone know what’s up with these stupid bumper stickers? You know the nice chrome fish you see stuck to the back of cars? Have you ever seen a chrome Star of David?
And please don’t bring up the gay pride stickers or the NASCAR stickers or the “my kid’s an honor student stickers”. Yeah, these can be annoying too. But they aren’t religions. It’s one thing to think Fords are better than Chevys. It’s another thing entirely to say your religion is better than someone else’s. I go to an annual Men’s Weekend with some close friends. We’ve been doing it for around 15 years. All we do is play poker, golf, and eat. It’s definitely a “guys in the cave” type of deal. We have golf shirts made up that say “12th Annual Men’s Weekend (or 13th, or 14th, whatever). One year we did hats too. There are two brothers who sometimes attend. They look a little alike. Both have short cropped hair. On the buff side of thin. Well, imagine them driving to the golf course, side by side, in their little “matchie-poo” golf shirts and golf hats, interacting as brothers are wont to do. Now place them around 30 minutes out of Ocean Shores Washington (very rural) where we do this thing. I can guarantee you there aren’t many democrats out there. Finally, imagine me placing a magnetic bumper sticker on the back of their car that says “Honk if you like gay porn”. Yeah, I did it. Now THAT was FUNNY.
But my point….. I think I’ll make you wait until tomorrow for my point. This post is long enough. Consider the title of the blog your clue and stay tuned!
Peace,
Common Sense
Monday, October 26, 2009
Health Insurance, the NRA, and the Big Fat Idiot
Haven’t blogged in awhile. Had a big gig on Friday that I felt unprepared for and was focused on that. It turned out to be a great gig and I’m suddenly feeling more prepared for the next one. It appears that what we lack in proficiency (or more accurately, what I lack) we make up for in song selection. The crowd loved us. So I’m back.
I got an email from a conservative friend about insurance company profits. He attached an article that basically said they were some of the lowest out there (5-6%) and of course used that as a means to take apart the argument for reform. I Googled the subject and as usual, you can find whatever you are looking for. I found articles that showed REAL profits as high as 20%! That’s pretty healthy! I think this could be argued ad nauseum. After the economic collapse we should all be painfully aware that stated profits are as much a function of book keeping as they are a function of a company’s health. But does it really matter? Are we talking about profits or health care? If you are looking at it strictly as a business, then profit is the penultimate measurement of success. Personally, I tend to look at it as a means to keep me and my family healthy… or in dire instances… alive!
This is one of the many differences between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative asks how much money is being made. The liberal asks how many lives are being saved or how many people are forced to be uninsured. It’s like the NRA. I had a talk with an NRA representative who called me a week or two ago asking for membership or money. Probably got my name because I used to be a member. I pointed out that I lost interest in them because their arguments were too extreme. I believed we had a right to own guns. But I also believed we had a right to do what we could to make sure the WRONG people didn’t own guns. When I asked why the NRA had such a problem with background checks and waiting periods he told me that when you allow that, you open the door to further regulation up to and including the banning of gun ownership.
Well, it seems that when you talk about a public option with conservatives it immediately opens the door to that being the gateway to socialized medicine. If the conservatives are so certain that the government can’t run a decent health care program they shouldn’t be concerned about socialized medicine. If the public option sucks, people will abandon it in favor of private companies and we will return to the status quo in no time. The only difference will be those that can’t afford private insurance will suddenly have coverage. These people don’t have coverage now so the effect on insurance companies (and their profit, or lack thereof) will be nil. So what ARE we really arguing about?
Like I’ve said before (and will, I’m sure, say again), this argument’s bottom line isn’t really about health care. It’s about control. If a public option becomes available, and it WORKS, then the conservatives have another big problem on their hands. Any “win” for the current administration is a “loss” to conservative America. That’s why “The Big Fat Idiot” is on record stating he hopes the Obama administration is a failure. They are in trouble. America is sick and tired of them. And any “loss” will just further weaken their position.
And speaking of big fat idiots… You need evidence of Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting sub-human ethics? Read about his latest gaff. He latches on to an article about Obama’s thesis that turns out to be false (was labeled satire) and tees off on the guy. Then when informed the article is in fact satire, does he apologize? No. He plays on the fact that satire is only funny if it is based in fact therefore there must be truth to the article in question. This is GREAT news for all of us. Now, every American needs to read “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” to know the true nature of the guy. It wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t based on fact. He just completely destroyed any arguments against the book with his ignorant, inflammatory ranting and therefore has rendered himself pointless. We should all write him a thank you note. And tell him to shut the fuck up.
Peace,
Common Sense
I got an email from a conservative friend about insurance company profits. He attached an article that basically said they were some of the lowest out there (5-6%) and of course used that as a means to take apart the argument for reform. I Googled the subject and as usual, you can find whatever you are looking for. I found articles that showed REAL profits as high as 20%! That’s pretty healthy! I think this could be argued ad nauseum. After the economic collapse we should all be painfully aware that stated profits are as much a function of book keeping as they are a function of a company’s health. But does it really matter? Are we talking about profits or health care? If you are looking at it strictly as a business, then profit is the penultimate measurement of success. Personally, I tend to look at it as a means to keep me and my family healthy… or in dire instances… alive!
This is one of the many differences between a liberal and a conservative. The conservative asks how much money is being made. The liberal asks how many lives are being saved or how many people are forced to be uninsured. It’s like the NRA. I had a talk with an NRA representative who called me a week or two ago asking for membership or money. Probably got my name because I used to be a member. I pointed out that I lost interest in them because their arguments were too extreme. I believed we had a right to own guns. But I also believed we had a right to do what we could to make sure the WRONG people didn’t own guns. When I asked why the NRA had such a problem with background checks and waiting periods he told me that when you allow that, you open the door to further regulation up to and including the banning of gun ownership.
Well, it seems that when you talk about a public option with conservatives it immediately opens the door to that being the gateway to socialized medicine. If the conservatives are so certain that the government can’t run a decent health care program they shouldn’t be concerned about socialized medicine. If the public option sucks, people will abandon it in favor of private companies and we will return to the status quo in no time. The only difference will be those that can’t afford private insurance will suddenly have coverage. These people don’t have coverage now so the effect on insurance companies (and their profit, or lack thereof) will be nil. So what ARE we really arguing about?
Like I’ve said before (and will, I’m sure, say again), this argument’s bottom line isn’t really about health care. It’s about control. If a public option becomes available, and it WORKS, then the conservatives have another big problem on their hands. Any “win” for the current administration is a “loss” to conservative America. That’s why “The Big Fat Idiot” is on record stating he hopes the Obama administration is a failure. They are in trouble. America is sick and tired of them. And any “loss” will just further weaken their position.
And speaking of big fat idiots… You need evidence of Rush Limbaugh’s disgusting sub-human ethics? Read about his latest gaff. He latches on to an article about Obama’s thesis that turns out to be false (was labeled satire) and tees off on the guy. Then when informed the article is in fact satire, does he apologize? No. He plays on the fact that satire is only funny if it is based in fact therefore there must be truth to the article in question. This is GREAT news for all of us. Now, every American needs to read “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” to know the true nature of the guy. It wouldn’t be funny if it wasn’t based on fact. He just completely destroyed any arguments against the book with his ignorant, inflammatory ranting and therefore has rendered himself pointless. We should all write him a thank you note. And tell him to shut the fuck up.
Peace,
Common Sense
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Space, The Final Frontier...
OK, buckle up! I’m about to show my less than liberal side (I warned you it was in there). Target, that beloved Middle America retailer is under fire for marketing an “Illegal Alien” costume. No, it’s not a migrant worker. It’s a real alien. From another planet. Complete with orange jump suit and green card. You can see it here.
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-alien-costume-controversy,0,4261573.story
OK, I’m a “touchy feely” guy who fully believes that everyone should be treated fairly and honestly. I give to charities. I pretty much vote the democratic ticket (there are exceptions). And as you know, I have a few problems with the extremely conservative fringe of our society. But I also think that we have a right to a sense of humor. Now if the costume DID portray a migrant worker, I would take issue with that. I mean there are a ton of mean spirited anti-human themes that come to mind that would also prove to be in bad taste. Make the costume a prison outfit to imply illegal aliens are criminals. I’d have a problem with that. Make the costume portray an indigent beggar to imply illegal aliens are a non-productive drain on society. I’d have a problem with that. Make the costume into some exaggerated caricature of a Mexican or South American person to bolster American’s distasteful habit of promulgating stereotypes. I’d have a problem with that. Portraying any ethnic group of people to imply the entire populace of that group is illegal. I’d have a problem with that. But come on! It’s a fucking Star Trek/Lost in Space/Creature From Another Planet type of alien! Lighten up!
I’m sorry but political correctness has been taken too far. The executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles has said the costume is “distasteful, mean-spirited, and ignorant of social stigmas and current debate on immigration reform." Really? I thought it was a clever play on words. You know… a-l-i-e-n? Like someone from another planet? Not someone from another country. I mean is there even a connection here? There are a plethora of books and movies out there that utilize the possibility of life on other planets as their subject matter. When ET wanted to go home, did we envision a tunnel under the US/Mexican border? If we talk about little green men are we suddenly guilty of degrading everyone who isn’t white (or any other color for that matter)? If Target decides to market a LEGAL alien costume portraying a little green man are we going to hear from the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Extra Terrestrial Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles? Hey, we can’t be too careful. We may have visitors here among us who would find that offensive. What if they aren’t green? They could be blue, pink, azure… we don’t know! It’s horrifying to think we might offend some guy named Zxplatralo from the Andromeda Galaxy.
We have Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have Americans living in trailers outside of New Orleans. We have Americans who have lost 30-50% of their life savings due to the tanked economy. We have Americans who don’t know where their next meal might be coming from. There’s the threat of a Swine Flu epidemic. Our jobs are being shipped overseas and down south. Corporations are revealing themselves to be con-artists. I could go on and on. Don’t we have more important things to concern ourselves with? This is a Halloween costume we are talking about people. An argument can be made that many of them are offensive by nature. The nurse in the skimpy outfit. The Native American in stereotypical garb. The hobo. People might take offense to an “army guy” (they kill), a cop (they deserve more respect), an axe murderer (too violent). If we live our lives in a manner that will not be offensive to anyone, well, we might as well stay at home with our hands tied behind our backs because there is someone out there who will find almost anything offensive.
So get real. If you want to go after someone, go after hate groups, or religious fanatics who show zero tolerance for those who think differently than they do, or Bernie Madoff. Don’t waste your time, or more importantly, OUR time with shit like this. There really are things far more important, and valid, to worry about. Now excuse me, I have a costume party to prepare for. This year I’m going as Rush Limbaugh. Talk about offensive!
Oh, and by the way. My apologies to anyone affiliated with "Family Ties". In my last blog I connected Kirk Cameron with them. It was pointed out to me that he was on "Growing Pains". My bad.
Peace,
Common Sense
http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-alien-costume-controversy,0,4261573.story
OK, I’m a “touchy feely” guy who fully believes that everyone should be treated fairly and honestly. I give to charities. I pretty much vote the democratic ticket (there are exceptions). And as you know, I have a few problems with the extremely conservative fringe of our society. But I also think that we have a right to a sense of humor. Now if the costume DID portray a migrant worker, I would take issue with that. I mean there are a ton of mean spirited anti-human themes that come to mind that would also prove to be in bad taste. Make the costume a prison outfit to imply illegal aliens are criminals. I’d have a problem with that. Make the costume portray an indigent beggar to imply illegal aliens are a non-productive drain on society. I’d have a problem with that. Make the costume into some exaggerated caricature of a Mexican or South American person to bolster American’s distasteful habit of promulgating stereotypes. I’d have a problem with that. Portraying any ethnic group of people to imply the entire populace of that group is illegal. I’d have a problem with that. But come on! It’s a fucking Star Trek/Lost in Space/Creature From Another Planet type of alien! Lighten up!
I’m sorry but political correctness has been taken too far. The executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles has said the costume is “distasteful, mean-spirited, and ignorant of social stigmas and current debate on immigration reform." Really? I thought it was a clever play on words. You know… a-l-i-e-n? Like someone from another planet? Not someone from another country. I mean is there even a connection here? There are a plethora of books and movies out there that utilize the possibility of life on other planets as their subject matter. When ET wanted to go home, did we envision a tunnel under the US/Mexican border? If we talk about little green men are we suddenly guilty of degrading everyone who isn’t white (or any other color for that matter)? If Target decides to market a LEGAL alien costume portraying a little green man are we going to hear from the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Extra Terrestrial Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles? Hey, we can’t be too careful. We may have visitors here among us who would find that offensive. What if they aren’t green? They could be blue, pink, azure… we don’t know! It’s horrifying to think we might offend some guy named Zxplatralo from the Andromeda Galaxy.
We have Americans dying in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have Americans living in trailers outside of New Orleans. We have Americans who have lost 30-50% of their life savings due to the tanked economy. We have Americans who don’t know where their next meal might be coming from. There’s the threat of a Swine Flu epidemic. Our jobs are being shipped overseas and down south. Corporations are revealing themselves to be con-artists. I could go on and on. Don’t we have more important things to concern ourselves with? This is a Halloween costume we are talking about people. An argument can be made that many of them are offensive by nature. The nurse in the skimpy outfit. The Native American in stereotypical garb. The hobo. People might take offense to an “army guy” (they kill), a cop (they deserve more respect), an axe murderer (too violent). If we live our lives in a manner that will not be offensive to anyone, well, we might as well stay at home with our hands tied behind our backs because there is someone out there who will find almost anything offensive.
So get real. If you want to go after someone, go after hate groups, or religious fanatics who show zero tolerance for those who think differently than they do, or Bernie Madoff. Don’t waste your time, or more importantly, OUR time with shit like this. There really are things far more important, and valid, to worry about. Now excuse me, I have a costume party to prepare for. This year I’m going as Rush Limbaugh. Talk about offensive!
Oh, and by the way. My apologies to anyone affiliated with "Family Ties". In my last blog I connected Kirk Cameron with them. It was pointed out to me that he was on "Growing Pains". My bad.
Peace,
Common Sense
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
