I Have Blogstalkers

January 18, 2009

They’re always watching – that’s why I blog naked.


How low can they go?

October 24, 2008

As noted in the previous post, the young woman in Pittsburgh lied to the police about being attacked.  That story is disgusting, but this is worse:

Earlier today, John Moody, executive vice president at Fox News, commented on his blog there that “this incident could become a watershed event in the 11 days before the election. If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee.

“If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting.”

(emphasis added)

Let’s see, 20 year-old female McCain volunteer tells police she was attacked because of the “McCain” sticker on her car.  Initial reports treated the story as true, the McCain campaign expressed sympathy, some people on both sides expressed skepticism.  Others who believed the young woman felt that the very real misogyny emanating from Obamanation was to blame, but no one I saw proclaimed that Obama’s “quest for the presidency was over.”

Today the young woman recants, and admits she lied.  Her motive for lying has not been reported, but she is obviously disturbed.

Media conclusion:  It’s all McCain’s fault.

Of course Teleprompter Jesus isn’t even responsible by the media for the things he himself does and says, let alone what one isolated supporter does.


With “Friends” Like These . . .

October 23, 2008

So I’m over at TGW and I see a post on how this election may increase the percentage of women in Congress from 16% to 19% and I decide to post this comment:

Gravatar I was still a kid when “Women’s Lib” supposedly happened. That was damn near four decades ago.

By this point women should occupy something like 45%-55% of elected offices.

I didn’t figure that was controversial, but this morning I see this response from someone named “Zee”:

myiq! A foray here, how exciting. However…after a quick look at your webpage, you may be related to Mormons who are “good people” but the cult definitely deserves to crash and burn. I’m sorry, yeah, I hate all religions as they are mostly paternalistic crap, but some, such as Islam where they practice gender apartheid to the point where male firefighters let schoolgirls burn to death rather than TOUCH them and the MORMONS, where the men are “gods” of their own planets in their ludicrous afterlife and women just part of a harem to pump out ghost babies to populate said planets, deserve all the ridicule they get and then some.

“Tolerance” is bullshit in these cases.

Zee was referring to this post of mine, where I called out a commenter at Corrente for religious bigotry against Mormons.  here was my response to Zee:

After we round up the Moslems and Mormons, do we gas them with Zyklon-B and burn the bodies?

Yeah, I Godwined, but I thought it was appropriate.  I don’t know who “Zee” is, and frankly I don’t want to know, but I’m assuming that TGW doesn’t endorse or share Zee’s views.  I’m not endorsing Mormonism, Islam or any other religion.  I practice heathenistic hedonism, but that’s because it scares away the Jehovah’s Witnesses and leaves my Sundays free for watching football.

Freedom of religion (which includes freedom from religion) isn’t just a liberal value, it’s a constitutional right.  Us lefties have demonized Christian conservatives for being intolerant of other religions, and we have seen charges of racism made whenever someone suggests that Obama is a Moslem or even when they use his arabic middle name.

But for the second time in two days I see someone spouting religious bigotry on a supposedly progressive blog.  The first one was more disturbing because despite numerous responses not one person called it for what it is.  It’s bigotry:

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding state of mind. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

Bigotry, whether in the form of racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, religious intolerance or even partisanship is WRONG.  Progressives used to have principles.

Liberals still do.


The Power of Narratives

August 31, 2008

The incomparable Bob Somerby at Daily Howler often talks about narratives.  His background in teaching is apparent because he repeats his lessons over and over until they sink in.  Some people never learn.

Although Somerby’s focus is on the media and the way they make up stories to force Democratic candidates into their preconceived narratives, that is not my topic here.

Narratives are a form of story-telling shorthand.  They set the stage, identify the characters and usually determine the ending of the story.  In the old Hollywood westerns, the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats.  If the character was wearing a white hat, you knew right away that he was a brave and virtuous protector of the innocent, and that he would triumph over evil before the movie ended.

Over tha past several decades, the Republican party has been very successful in establishing narratives that give them an enormous advantage in electoral politics.  The first narrative is that Republicans are “regular people” and that they are brave and patriotic people of faith.  They also can be counted on to protect America from criminals and foreign threats.

The other narrative is that Democrats are hypocritical elitists that are unpatriotic, immoral and corrupt.  They are weak in the face of foreign aggression and they care more about the rights of criminals than they do about victims. 

I am not saying that either of those narratives is true, in fact I know that they are not.  But those narratives exist, and they affect the way people perceive events and evaluate candidates.  You can think of them as “default” settings or rebuttable presumptions.  That puts the burden on each Democratic candidate to prove that both narratives are false, otherwise the Republican candidate wins by default.

If you take those narratives and apply them to the last few weeks of this election campaign, you can see that the Democratic party and the Obama campaign seem determined to prove that those narratives are true.

First you have Senator Obama, who is the poster child for arrogance, building his own Greek temple at Invesco Field to give his acceptance speech.  After the earlier flaps over the “Great Seal of Obama” and the cult-like nature of his supporters, that was the height of political tone-deafness.  He continues to reinforce the “elitist” narrative over and over. 

Obama is trying to sell himself as a person of faith in order to court the fundamentalist vote.  But his credentials on religion are tied to Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who says things like “God damn America” and “U.S of KKK-A” which don’t appear very patriotic.  Obama’s relationship with William Ayers strongly reinforces the idea that he is unpatriotic.

The sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton from within the Democratic party reinforces the “hypocritical” narrative, and the sham roll-call vote fits the definition of “corrupt.”  The wankfest over how many house John McCain and his wife own just helped to reinforce the “corrupt” narrative because it allowed McCain to bring up Tony Rezko. 

Which brings us to John McCain.  When the angry chihuahuas of Obamanation started yapping about the false allegation that McCain plagiarized the “cross in the dirt” story from Aleksandr Solzhenisyn, they were pushing a story that involved McCain’s experience being tortured as a POW during the Vietnam War.  IOW – to attack McCain over what was at most an irrelevant lie, they reinforced the “brave,: “patriotic” and “protect America” narratives.  And now that the plagiarism issue is debunked, it turns out they also reinforced the “people of faith” narrative.

So on Friday, when John McCain announced the selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential nominee, what did Obamanation immediately do?  They attacked her on issues that reinforce the narratives.

They criticized her for being from a small town in a sparsely populated states, which was a two-fer because it reinforced the “regular people” narrative for her and the “elitist” narrative for the Democrats.  They picked on the fact that she is a working mother (“regular people” and “Democrats are hypocrites”) and launched misogynistic attacks on her (hypocrites)

Then to top it off, they started a wankfest dubbed “Troopergate” where they accused her of acting inappropriately to get her abusive ex-brother-in-law fired from his job as a state trooper.  The message that the non-Koolaid drinking public will hear is that Sarah Palin will protect them, and that Democrats don’t care about victims.

So what have the Democrats and the Obama campaign done to rebut the narratives?

I’ll have to get back to you on that.


Don’t Go There!

August 31, 2008

Oops, too late, you already did.

John Avarosis is living proof that kool-aid causes brain damage.  In this post he claims that the presumptive Republican Vice Presidental nominee, Sarah Palin, conceived her oldest child (Track) out of wedlock.

Dumb move John,  D-U-M-B

Let me tell you why:

Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama Sr. were married on February 2, 1961.  Barack Obama Jr. was born on August 4, 1961.

Do the math.

Sarah Palin married her high school sweetheart (a Russell Crowe look-alike) and is still married to him.  That was in 1988, when she was 24 years old

I seriously doubt that she will lose any votes if it turns out she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding day.