No fuckin' way!  

A U.S. appeals court ruled that the FCC's rules on profanity violate the First Amendment!  No shit!!

Per the BBC's website:

US appeals court strikes down media swearing ban

A US appeals court has struck down a government policy that banned the broadcasting of profanity, ruling that the rule is unconstitutional.

That's fucking awesome.  

(I really liked this one when Mr French wrote it last week, and felt then that it should be promoted. So, I am making it my first promotion.

Well done Frenchie! - promoted by SuzeB1964)

A new, conservative entertainment channel launching later this summer is being promoted as having "pro-America, pro-business and pro-military sensibilities."

Hmmm.  I'm pro-America (both North and South; lovely continents, don't you think?) and pro-business (I've been desk jockeying and cube farming for three decades); admittedly, I'm not "pro-military" in the sense of any fondness for Halliburton, Blackwater Xe, or greedy defense contractors who sell $600 hammers to the armed forces, but I care a lot about the health and well-being of the soldiers who are on endless deployments in incredibly dangerous areas of the planet.  

So, I'd enjoy this network?  

 

Executives for RightNetwork...

Hmmm... OK, maybe not.  

Say what you might about the late Senator Robert C. Byrd - "iconic" pretty much sums it up.  Until today, I've never known a US Congress without Byrd; he started in the House of Representatives the year I was born.  

I'm not going to wax eloquent about a man I barely know; we'll let the news writers and mouthpieces at every outlet (except Fox "News") eulogize the most senior of all senior senators.  I've probably learned more about him in the past hour of Internet exploration than I've ever known.  But it's remarkable to note the transformation of a man who joined the KKK in the 1940s and filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only to regret those moves, support the Civil Rights Act of 1968, get a 100% approval record from the NAACP in 2004 and work to secure federal funding for the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial.  

(here's Frenchie demonstrating wit and humor, as only he can.  A great read for those who don't have their head "located in their rectal cavity". - promoted by faultguy)

Friday, June 25 (MrF): In an apparent attempt to prove herself every bit as capable of exaggeration, misstatement, outright lying and idiocy as any other half-term female governor of a border state with a name that begins and ends with "a," Governor Jan Brewer declared Friday that most illegal immigrants crossing the border into Arizona are transporting drugs.  

Sources say Brewer may have been using intelligence sources similar to those utilized by former Co-President Dick Cheney in the run-up to the Iraq Quagmire War, but Mr. Cheney's ass could not be reached for comment (thankfully).



Gov. Jan Brewer, leveling assertions
while sporting a "Sarah-do"

OK, I'll admit it, I've always been a skeptic (yeah, fine, don't believe me.  Damn skeptics).  Over these several decades I've been lied to regarding Santa, the Easter Bunny, God, Satan, the dangers of homosexuality, and "Christian behavior" equaling "compassion"; about unlimited warranties, software that absolutely will work from day one (I'm in month four of that specific hell, which is why I'm rarely here nowadays), "Plug and Play" (I'm talking computers, not adult toys), cheap oil and fair taxation (I'm looking at you, Exxon - on both counts); while hearing my second wife claim we'll be together "forever" (which apparently translated to 11 years and 242 days - but who's counting?), retail salespeople claim "one size fits all," and anyone claim France is capable of building a car that doesn't suck.

OH, PLEASE... spare me.  My Bovine Excrement meter is perpetually in the red zone, and in danger of burning out.  Forget the grain; I take everything with a full Morton Girl one-pound container of salt.  To quote a song lyric I'm probably mangling 'cause I'm not remembering it correctly: I'm Not Buyin' What You're Sellin'.  In the age of plastic surgery, "face value" is meaningless.  

So with that sizable collection of cow chips in my psychological attic, I'm pretty good at sensing when something's not quite summing up to the total I'm being handed.  Also, shockingly, given my five-decade span and the fact I was a late teen and twenty-something in the early 1970s, my memory works surprisingly well.  

So, when I read the news this morning that

"Al-Qaeda's number three leader and Afghan operations chief, Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, has been killed, reports say"

... my Hmmmmmmmm Alert sounded.  "Déjà vu all over again," as baseball legend (and apparent linguistic predecessor to George W Bush and Dan Quayle) Yogi Berra once said.  

With my Spidey Sense all a-tinglin', I reached for my trusty friend Google and did a little research.  Lo and behold, I discovered that

"A senior al Qaeda commander has been killed in clashes with Pakistani forces near the Afghan border, reports say...
...Pakistani television channels say the commander is Abu Saeed al Masri who is also known as Abu Mustafa al Yazid."
-- Sky News, August 12, 2008

2008?

OK, seriously - is this a Monty Python skit?  Something akin to "I'm not dead yet!"?  Good thing these Al Qaeda types aren't Christians, or we'd have a Resurrection / Second Coming problem to contend with... and Christ, we don't need that.  

(sorry)  

I didn't bother Googling how often we've killed "the #3 Al Qaeda" guy.  I think we're up to six or seven of those.

Y'know, maybe it's just cynical ol' me, but let me share two final thoughts on this news item:  

One - why should I believe it this time?  

Two - if we can take down six or seven Number Threes, why is it so difficult to take down a single Number One?  Particularly one who's six-foot-four and on dialysis?  

Bad aim?  

In September 2005, I participated in a peace march in DC, protesting the wars in Afghanistan and, particularly, Iraq (one I consider a "war of choice" - one I believe to be based on ideology, not sound intelligence and just cause).  It was a most interesting day, particularly in terms of coincidence and observation, well beyond the event I traveled three and a half hours to attend.  For example, I left my home in Pennsylvania in the wee hours and drove directly to Washington; while en route and seeking to feed my ears, I chanced upon a radio station that was partway into a retrospective of Bob Dylan due to an upcoming PBS special on the cultural icon.  I came into the broadcast just in time for the songs "Blowin' In The Wind" and "Masters of War" - both quite suitable to my frame of mind, since I was recalling a previous era thirty-some years earlier.

I hated the war in Vietnam, "my generation's war" - it, too, seemed to be a war of choice, based on the "domino theory" that if the United States of America, bastion of democracy, didn't intervene, evil communism would overspread the continent of Asia like a plague and before you know it we'd all be wearing identical clothing and quoting Mao.  Seems now, from a position of historical hindsight, about as preposterous a notion as Iraq being the hotbed center of Al Qaeda and global terrorism in general.

When I arrived in DC, I parked my car across the Potomac from the Capitol area, a mile or so away from Arlington National Cemetery, walked across a bridge over that historic river and around the Kennedy Center, and decided I'd like to find some decent coffee and a bite.  I spotted a cafe nearby, and as I approached I was amused to note that the building housing the shop was the Watergate complex.  Mark that as Ironic Coincidence Number Two, given that edifice's role in bringing down the first US President I ever loathed, a president who was as compromised by Vietnam as any soldier of the day.

I'd already decided that I wanted to visit the Vietnam Veterans Memorial while in Washington, given its significance to my generation and the infrequency of my visits to DC (I think the only other time I was anywhere near downtown Washington was nearly three decades earlier, when I was between Amtrak trains and stuck my head outside Union Station for five minutes).  Coincidentally, given my starting location and that of the gathering place for the pre-march rally, it was a cinch to walk by the Memorial.

When you approach the Vietnam Veterans Memorial as I did - from the back - it doesn't seem impressive.  All I saw was the end of a walkway, and the concrete tops of two long walls sticking up out of the grass, only a few inches high (the Memorial is cut into the landscape).  As I came around the end of the wall and onto the walkway, however, I stopped in my tracks when the enormity of the monument struck me.  The sight of those two stark black adjoining walls, each nearly 250 feet long and etched with the names of 58,261 members of my generation, all either killed in action or missing, was overpowering.

I walked the length of those reflective, solemn walls very slowly, misty-eyed, caught up in thoughts of the people represented in those etchings.  People who had other plans - college, a family, a career whether military or civilian, or simply teenagers or twentysomethings starting their adult lives while enjoying being young and relatively free of responsibility - all cut short in the horror occurring in the jungles of Vietnam.  I thought about a first-year teacher I had in high school, a few years older than I, who was drafted and forced to leave his chosen profession to serve; I have no idea how he fared.  I thought about a work colleague from the 1980s, who'd been a supply sergeant in Vietnam and came back a changed and cynical man due to corruption in the military (and, in all likelihood, PTSD - though the phenomenon didn't have that name at the time).

I thought about my own fortune, too.  I turned eighteen in 1971, the second year of the "Selective Service Lottery," when my birthdate dropped into the "unlikely to be drafted" segment of the results; but for that fluke, I would have stood as good a chance as any other young man to be conscripted, issued a uniform and equipment, sent to southeast Asia and possibly be yet another name on that wall.  I can't imagine I'm the only male of my age who has visited the Memorial and experienced a bit of survivor's guilt.  Why I was lucky, why I'm alive, why those other 58,261 aren't - there is no reasonable way to determine.  "As fate would have it" seems so trite, so insufficient, so negligible an answer in the face of so many lost.  

After the march and on into the evening, I visited other historical monuments around The National Mall - the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, the Korean War Veterans Memorial and the National World War II Memorial, and ended back where I began, again walking the length of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial.  No other majestic polished stone tribute to our nation's history on the Mall had the same effect on me.  The stark difference is in the details: other monuments enshrine glowing phrases of honor, bravery, sacrifice, military might and victory, phrases credited to politicians, presidents, chancellors, military leaders; in contrast, the Vietnam Veterans Memorial simply honors, name by name, the men and women who gave their lives in service to their country.

No matter how any of us feels about any armed conflict that our country enters, whether by choice or in self-defense, the point of Memorial Day is to remember the fallen.  Rare is the soldier who goes into battle intending to die - though the bravest are those who sacrifice themselves for the sake of their comrades at arms.  On this day, I salute all those who served our country and who made the "ultimate sacrifice" - especially those 58,261 of my generation.  

I'm too tired tonight to write a typical full-length Monologue Francais, but I couldn't resist tossing this item into the fray.  

This just in from the Department of Clueless Fucktards --

On the topic of the budget reconciliaton bill that Obama signed today, the one that's mostly about health insurance reform, ever-clueless Senator Grassley of Iowa (reminder: that would be Senator Death Panels That Will "Pull The Plug On Grandma" Grassley) had something to say about the portion of that bill that reforms federal funding and administration of college loans:

(LA Times, 3/31/2010)  "Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) said that students would prefer getting such crucial financing from a banker they know rather than from anonymous bureaucrats."

Well, shoot, I had a personal banker at age 17; didn't everyone? Hell, I'd bet every Iowa farmer's kids would be on a first-name basis with the local bankers, sure, don'chya know? Can't have a full circle of friends at 17 without a personal finance manager on speed dial to handle your pathetic little passbook savings account dad opened for you at age four (and that you plan to plunder next week for Lynyrd Skynyrd tickets and beer your older brother's buying for you).


WAY. OUT. OF. TOUCH.

Go home, Chuck. Harvest some crops, kick back on the porch with some apple cider and enjoy your retirement.

We'll enjoy it, too.

Since late January I've been busier than a double-amputee carpenter, so nowadays I barely get to catch the headlines, let alone delve into details (I hear tell the House of Representatives passed some kind of health insurance reform bill and Obama signed it.  Cool!  Didn't take very long to accomplish, did it?).  

Among the headlines that caught my eye was one today that detestable conservative neocon David Frum and detestable conservative neocon organization American Enterprise Institute have parted ways.  

Mere coincidence, I'm sure, coming only a Mitt*-ful of days after his blog post on Sunday taking the GOP to task for their own "Waterloo," wherein to his mind they squandered an opportunity to propose any viable alternative plans and instead were merely the Party of No, slaves to the Teabaggers and their pouches of brewing resentment dipping their way past America's collective tongue.  

Mitt (n): Extra-small handful; very shallow vessel

Worth noting, also, is that Frumpy had been pretty caustic over the past year or more about the current GOP spending more time pandering to the base and the knuckledraggin' drool fools, and less time on what he considers true conservatism.  One might be tempted to think that behavior also contributed to his departure from AEI.

Re that departure - I found it interesting to note most headlines used vocabulary like "fired," "dropped," "loses job"... except (shocking, I know) on the right (Faux "News," WSJ), where he "resigned" or "quit."  

I thought this difference in vocabulary merited further investigation; after all, as I've been told repeatedly the bad, bad liberal media always distorts, and Faux and Fiends always tell The Truth... no matter what the facts are.  I stumbled across a link to Frumpy's own website and his blog, where he posted the full text of his letter of resignation.  For your schadenfreude-esque pleasure, I will post his text in full (yes, I'm actually posting a full, unedited blog entry by David Frum.  You may want to check that the sky is intact).  

The following is excerpted from a post by James Fallows of Atlantic Monthly, in turn quoting an anonymous source on Capitol Hill. It illustrates (a) why bipartisanship is a lost cause with the current GOP, and (b) WHY EACH DEMOCRAT NEEDS TO GROW A PAIR, FOR FUCK'S SAKE (and maybe a spine, if they traded that for campaign donations from those now-acknowledged pillars of citizenry, CORPORATIONS).

We don't call the GOP "The Party Of No" 'cause it's merely amusing, but BECAUSE IT'S TRUE. Those obstructionist motherfuckers have NO agenda, save blocking ANYTHING that was written by a Democrat. ANY Democrat.

Read on. Remember this. If you live in a district "represented" by a kneejerk GOP asshat (like I do - see "Dent, Charlie, useless Rethuglican genuflector"), DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN to persuade the local Democrats to run a REAL candidate against the charlatan, then SUPPORT that Democratic candidate.

Reminder: I, like many of us, am a registered Democrat solely because I'd like to be able to have some influence - not because I love the party. So if they won't represent us - we need to change them into The Party That Represents Us.

KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT.

Over to you, Mr. Fallows:

Why bipartisanship can't work: the expert view
01 Feb 2010 12:14 pm
I got this note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill:

   "GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.'

   "Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?'

   "GOP member:  'You know I can't vote for the bill.'

   "Dem member:  'Then why should we put it in the bill?'

...

I wrote back saying, "Great story!" and got the response I quote below and after the jump. It is worth reading because its argument has the valuable quality of being obvious -- once it is pointed out. The emphasis is mine rather than in the original; it is to highlight a basic structural reality that has escaped most recent analysis of the "bipartisanship" challenge.

"BTW, that exchange I quoted is not really a great story.  It is a basic story, fundamental to legislation -- a sort of 'duh!' moment -- and to the US Congressional system, and to the key difference between our system and a parliamentary system when it comes to bipartisanship. I'm astonished every pundit doesn't already get it, but many either don't or seem willfully to ignore it.  

   "In our system, if the minority party can create and enforce party discipline (which has never really been done before, but which the GOP has now accomplished), then OF COURSE there can be no 'bipartisanship' on major legislative matters, in the sense of (1) the minority adding provisions to legislation as the majority compromises with them, and (2) at least some minority party members then voting with the majority.

   "In a parliamentary system, the minority party is not involved in helping write or voting for major legislation either.  If you think about it, and as that exchange I quoted shows, that sort of 'bipartisanship' really can't happen in a parliamentary system on issues where the minority party has the power to tell its members to boycott the majority's major bills on final passage.

   "Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join.  Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation.  It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation.  And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today.

   "The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward.  No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her.  And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds.  As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else's approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before -- even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.

   "The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools:  The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice.  And every GOP member of Congress knows it.  (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.)

   "There's really nothing more to be said about "why no bipartisanship," once one recognizes the GOP party discipline.  On this issue, it's absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise).  It's doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections.  Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again...

   "Ironically, the one thing that might lubricate some bipartisanship -- earmarks, or their functional equivalent in specific amendments of general policy -- is becoming unavailable just when needed, and when it might help.  After the exchange I quoted (and observed), a Dem could run against that GOP incumbent by pointing out that the GOP opponent lost X or Y or Z project or policy benefit for his or her district or state by insisting on voting down the line with the GOP.  'Put his party above his constituents,' might be the charge, or 'Put Michael Steele above you and me.'  But so far, the Dems don't seem to have cottoned onto this.  They could go into the 2010 elections not just challenging the obstructionists in the GOP, but showing the electorate what the price of obstruction has been for real people back home."

As I have pointed out a time or two or a thousand, the structural failures of American government are the country's main problem right now. In this installment, we see that the US now has the drawbacks of a parliamentary system -- absolute party-line voting by the opposition, for instance -- without any of the advantages, from comparable solidarity among the governing party to the principle of "majority rules." If Democrats could find a way to talk about structural issues -- if everyone can find a way to talk about them -- that would be at least a step. And the Dems could talk about the simple impossibility of governing when the opposition is committed to "No" as a bloc.

I came across an excellent article by Greta Christina, posted on AlterNet:

Decisions Are Made By Those Who Show Up: 9 Reasons Why Calling Congress Isn't A Waste Of Time

I highly recommend reading the whole enchilada, but I'll highlight a few points I found important, points I've advocated before - especially in recent days.

-- YOUR LONE VOICE IS INSIGNIFICANT. Maybe so. But several thousand lone voices in relative unison makes a helluva noise. As Greta points out:

hundreds or thousands of constituents kicking up a stink is a hard thing for a politician to ignore. How do you think the religious right has been so successful for so long?

Besides - do you skip voting, under the same logic?

-- YOUR REP IS ALREADY ON BOARD. Great! Say thank you. Send positive encouragement. Let them know you agree. Besides, there might be a very vocal MINORITY who's making a shitload of noise; without your contribution to the majority opinion, your rep may not KNOW what the majority opinion is... or how popular it really is.

-- YOUR REP IS NOT ON BOARD AND NEVER WILL BE. Great! Get under his/her skin, make the point that they're the hired help and can be replaced at the next election; if nothing else, you can have the snarky joy of annoying the asshat. My district is represented by reliably reprehensible Republibot Charlie Dent; I can count on him to do the wrong thing every time (his predecessor was the loathsome Pat Toomey; I'm not sure if we traded up or not). Doctrinaire, knee-jerk partisanship on his part on virtually every issue doesn't mean I can't annoy him.

-- WHO HAS THE TIME? What, to make a phone call? Click "sign petition" or "send e-mail" on an activist website that you already subscribe to, who sends you an "act now" message thrice daily?
Try this: set aside Farmville, Happy Fishies, I Heart Pink Doggies or whatever lame Facebook game on which you waste your time, for a mere TWO MINUTES, and do something useful for the country you claim to love.
Take a few minutes and learn how to contact your reps. Put their direct numbers on speed dial, their e-mail address on file under "douchebag legislators." Whatever. Do some prep now, be ready to hit them fast and hard when it counts.

This is a participatory, representative democracy. If you aren't willing to participate in telling your representatives what to do - then you have little reason to complain. You have the right to complain, of course; but you don't have much reason. Save the whine and cheese for a private party.
_____

Terrific excerpts from Ms. Christina's closing (emphasis added):

"Yes, it's Sisyphean in its nature, but throwing up your hands and saying that no one that's 'just a guy' can get elected - seriously?"



Damn. Try to spend my day cleaning up my kitchen, teasing the cats and viewing porn, and you kids go all thermo-nu-cu-lur over my previous diary "It Takes Clueless Children To Raze A Village"... dammit.

Well, I'll start by losing a friend. Sorry, Faulty.

Overall, Lamb's on the right (well, left) side of the argument.

To your various points:

There's no surprise in our becoming complacent when in 2008, for the first time since 1976 we elected a Democrat (yeah, I know, Clinton... not bad, but... NAFTA? Seriously?) ...and for the first time since 1776 we elected a black guy. Not bad. After eight long, trying, frustrating years of George W. Bush being the dumbest, most arrogant prick we ever elected president in my half-century on the planet, ruining the government and our country's image abroad, now having an articulate, thoughtful, literate president was such a relief that we spent too long exhaling that deep breath we waited eight long, frustrating, maddening years to take.

Oh, do remember we also gained more seats in both houses of Congress. That wasn't so bad, either.

NO, THEY'RE NOT PERFECT, the whole lot of them, and yes, we have the "big tent" diverse views problem, the fact that the Left will NEVER act as a monolith like the Republibots, the fact that CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IS KEY SO WE ELECT PEOPLE THAT ARE ACCOUNTABLE ONLY TO THE VOTERS, blah blah blah...

Well, guess what: Faulty's right, we're where we are and it ain't perfect.

But Lamb's right: we work with it, do our best to fix it, congratulate the politicos who do the right thing and spank the fucktards who vote as their corporate overlords dictate - and do our best to toss those clowns out next year.  

( - promoted by leftake)

Just as a reminder of what kind of propaganda (a/k/a bullshit) effort we're trying - in our underfunded, tiny ways - to counter, Media Matters put together a highlight reel of the right-wing's greatest hits of 2009. Call it Best in Bonkers, FoxFest 2009, Craptacular: Christmas Edition, it's all the same. It'd be hilarious if it were satirical; sadly, it's not.

Not surprising it's almost entirely a Fox "News" indictment, but one must acknowledge they're merely the largest iceburg in a sea of frozen thoughts.

Oh, the big evil media... what can we puny liberals and progressives do?

Um... take a stand, maybe?

Channel your inner Howard Beale.
Scream you're mad as hell.
Scream you won't take it any more.
WRITE the media slugs: the trad networks, the cable networks, radio networks, NPR, PBS; tell them you're fed up with Fare, Unbalanced.
The right-wingers do it; we must do so, too.

Be the change you'd like to believe in.

If you're a member of this site, chances are pretty good you think Fox "News" (sorry for the quotation marks; it's a keyboard glitch) is biased. Skewed to the right. Hell, forget skewed, how about grabbing the wheel and wrenching it to the right so harshly you flip the car and tumble down the embankment. FNC, RNC, what's in a letter...

But to those who want to think Fox "News" is, to use the network's tag line, "fair and balanced" - in increasingly red-shift spectral (dis)order, that would be the rash conservatives who paint themselves "centrists", the right-wing ideologues who call themselves conservatives, the way-right moonbat crazies who think they're Christian patriot soldiers, and Michele Bachmann - Fox "News" is the Fountain of Truth, home of the "No-Spin Zone" (and a show whose host spun himself a settlement in a sexual harassment lawsuit. Falafel, anyone?), "Hannity's America" (whose props include Clinton's Little Diary of Murders and Sean's own SchiavoLand lawn chair), and Glenn Beck's "9/12 Project" (which Fox merely reports on, mind you, not promotes - in commercial after commercial for tea-party psychosifests).

However, once again the geniuses (and surprisingly, I may not be sarcastic in that word choice) at Fox "News" have performed a reality shift, for the edification and bamboozlement of their demographic...

Yes, 120% of the American public has an opinion on "Global Warming."

Frankly, I'm surprised that, in Fox"News"World, the verdict against Global Warming isn't over 100% negative.  

I'm sure that, if they bothered responding to this call-out (I found it via Media Matters), the Foxmeisters attributed it to computer error, or misattribution, or interns run amok... but that's bullshit. I wouldn't buy it for a New York-based network minute.

They distort. You abide.

They pervert. You're allied.

They bend the truth, the sheep agree. "Look!! Look!! Over... um, what's fifty-nine plus... um... carry the one [remove shoes to continue counting]... Eighty-somethin' percent of the Real 'Merkins agree!!

As many of us have noticed, every year the "Holiday Season" seems to start earlier and earlier (thus trying my patience by forcing me to listen to annoyingly cutesy Christmas tunes for even more than a solid month. One more easy-listening rendition of "Sleigh Ride" - bells, whip-crack noises, horse whinny and all - and I'll be up on the rooftop... and it won't end well). Not wanting to be "left behind" (obviously, being Rapture-ready and all), the Christian News Wire service decided another certain holiday tradition needed expansion.
Presenting:


The War On Thanksgiving

No, seriously, the quoted article isn't satire.
Laughable, ill informed and opportunistic, yes; but not satire (except inadvertently).
Not sure why they waited until the day before Thanksgiving to declare this war; doesn't leave much time for troop buildup. Let's examine the intelligence (so to speak) supporting this mobilization.

The War on Christmas vs. the War on Thanksgiving
Nov 25
submitted by Gary McCullough, director of Christian Newswire:

Throughout history there exists an ongoing battle over what cultures celebrate and why.  In recent American history the battle lines are often described as pro and anti-Christian.

Well, by you, maybe. Personally, I'm not "anti-Christian." I just think you're misguided, persuade people to participate in strange rituals that supposedly make your god happy, and force your leaders to wear funny outfits.

And while most Americans think of Thanksgiving, Easter and Christmas as Christian holidays -- history is clear that Easter and Christmas were originally pagan celebrations, stolen and redefined.

Originally, Christmas and Easter had nothing to do with Christianity?
Um... Bill O'Reilly might need a memo on this.

This leaves Thanksgiving as the one American holiday originating within Christian culture.

It is a holiday created to remind a nation to thank God.

I'm sure the feast shared with the Native Americans back when it started served to convert every one of 'em.

So while talk-show hosts expound upon a war on Christmas -- let's not ignore the war on the one true Christian holiday, Thanksgiving.

Lock and load, patriots.
(BTW - for a "thou shalt not kill" crowd, this diatribe is pretty chock-full of "war" talk.)

In a short couple of centuries, we have gone from President Washington's call to "unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations," to "a time for us to renew our bonds with one another..."

Not to be picky, but what happened in the "short century" (um... don't know 'bout you, but my centuries contain exactly 100 years) before Washington's statement?

BTW, apparently we're mistaken about how that first feast went down...

The war over Thanksgiving as a holiday began when a generation was taught that the holiday's first setting was Pilgrims being saved from starvation by Native Americans. This war continues with a President that defines it as a time to thank each other.

Well, we wouldn't want people going around and thanking each other, would we? Really, now, how anti-Christian can you get?

Redefining Thanksgiving as anything other than a call to give thanks to the one true and living God is an attempt to remove God from America's one true Christian holiday.

So before we reenlist to defeat the war on Christmas...
[emphasis added]

Oh, we're joining forces to defeat the war on Christmas?

Now O'Reilly really needs that memo.

...take this one day to win the war over Thanksgiving by forgetting what President Obama said and remembering what President Washington said.

So... the hell with thanking anyone, then?

Have it your way. Thanks for sharing your opinions.

hat tip to AlterNet - Joshua Holland

I'm trying to understand how this here "bipartisan" stuff works. Last week, we learn this:

November 19, 2009: President Obama has nominated George W. Bush's former press secretary Dana Perino for a post on the board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.

Five days later on Hannity, we hear this:

November 24, 2009:

Perino: "...we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..."

Oh?

Note to Barry O: There's sleeping with the enemy, and there's sleeping while the enemy drops by, raids the refrigerator, watches a few videos, has a couple of cold ones and then shoots you.

Sometimes, bipartisanship is just pointless.

Karl Rove's "THE Math" system - premiered during an NPR interview in 2006, widely touted as the methodology that brought us the current Permanent Republican Majority in Congress - appears to have turned viral and infected other parts of the Conservisphere. Statisticians and numerimmunovirologists are on high alert.

Prior outbreaks of the virus have manifested in such examples as the crowd of 70,000 at Glenn Beck's 9/12 rally in Washington to be reported as one to two million (Mr. Beck himself credited this estimate to the highly acclaimed "Some University," an institution that may be quarantined as a result), and an unknown Internet radio host in California citing listenership in the tens of thousands, instead of just tens.

In reporting on the most recent outbreak, ThinkProgress posted an item regarding the local Fox affiliate in Chicago and a recent report on "a new Opinion Dynamics poll" regarding 2012 GOP presidential candidate preferences. The physical evidence of the infection is chilling:

Economists and math health officials are concerned the virus may spread to the economy; given its tendency to multiply, the rate of inflation could soar to record rates.

Speculations abound that the spread of the Rovian Math Virus may have been accelerated due to a concurrent onset of GoingRogueishness (or SP2012), a deviant strain that causes victims to overspend, purchase unnecessary items of minimal literary merit and wait in line for hours to receive signed stickers from an Alaskan blogger's staff members.

Parents are strongly cautioned to keep math students away from televisions during Fox "News" broadcasts. Sentient adults - particularly those with weakened susceptibility systems - are also advised to avoid the channel.

[editor's note: One other detail, which I almost missed. The name of the polling organization is Opinion Dynamics; check the screen grab carefully for bonus points. Also, special shoutout to commenter bobwurst at ThinkProgress for this gem: "If that's not a pie, but a sphere chart then it could wurk? right?"]

GOP Rulebook, Section 3, Subsection VI, Paragraph 3c:

"Never let actual facts get in the way of your advocated position."

Today's (well, Thursday's) example: former half-term Governor Sarah Twinkle on Laura Ingraham's radio show; topic was mammogram guidelines suggested by [gasp] the federal gub'mint:

"...because the mammogram recommendation -- this whole issue is demonstrating precisely what you've pointed out, the problem about the panels, the death panels of government bureaucrats, and I think you call it the hospice chuting, the -- but those panels of bureaucrats having more and more input into Americans' personal decisions, decisions, really, that belong between them and their doctors. And this is what rationed care is going to be about."

Fact: all that was put forth was suggested guidelines; nothing legally binding, no "panels," no mandates.

One other little detail: these particular government "bureaucrats having more and more input into Americans' personal decisions" she's got her runners' shorts in a bunch over?

Bush appointees.

From the Washington Post:

Ned Calonge, who chairs the 16-member panel, defended the recommendations and denied that cost or the debate over health-care reform played any role in the decision. "Cost just isn't a consideration when the task force deliberates," said Calonge, who is also the chief medical officer for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Twelve of the task force members were seated during the Bush administration, and the remaining four were chosen before President George W. Bush left office, he said.

You - you mean - [gasp, cue the ominous death-knell music] the Obamacare Black Ops Forces* infiltrated the Bush administration long ago and pre-positioned these bloodthirsty, Republican baby-killin' Youth-in-Asians to limit health care to all but the most liberal members of society? It's worse than I'd realized...

Actually, I think Gov. Twinkle is confused. She's conflated the mammogram guidelines and her "death panels" into her own shuddering personal fear that the government may start executing boobs.

*racist overtone to "Black Ops" fully intentional. They like it that way.

SuzeB's "Palin/Beck 2012" diary narrowly beat this one in the category of Most Jaw-Droppingly Surrealistic or Incomprehensible News of the Day, but here's the alternate winner.

An hour or two ago, a headline link caught my eye; I stared at the wording in disbelief for a long time, while I reviewed my internal political address book to see if I'd mixed up some names.

I hadn't.

Jaw, meet floor...

[emphasis added]
President Obama has nominated George W. Bush's former press secretary Dana Perino for a post on the board overseeing government-sponsored international broadcasting.

Perino... was appointed Wednesday to the Broadcasting Board of Governors, AFP reported. Her nomination must be confirmed by the Senate.

"I'm honored by the president's announcement and I'm looking forward to serving on the bipartisan board, if I'm confirmed," Perino said.

The BBG administers overseas media outlets like Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Asia. Created in 1994, the agency "works to serve as an example of a free and professional press," according to its Web site. It is funded by taxpayers and had a budget of $717.4 million in 2009.

Perino is currently a contributor to Fox News and a counselor for public relations firm Burson-Marsteller.

To quote Scooby-Doo: RHUH?!?!?

Quick recap: her resume includes
- last (and arguably least) Bush 43 press secretary
- Fox "News" contributor
- counselor for Burson-Marsteller*
- ongoing gig as Bush 43 legacy polisher

WTF?!? Are you kidding? Let me hazard a guess - Dick Cheney wasn't available??

*Thumbnail education item: three of Perino's gigs speak for themselves. But in case you don't know Burson-Marsteller, do a little Googling. They're headed by Mark Penn - the perma-rumpled, slimy-looking douchenozzle who ran Hillary Clinton's campaign, resulting in our first woman presid... um, well, whatever. Back in March, Maddow did several solo-rant minutes on BM (prophetic initials, no?); my favorite line of hers: "When Evil Needs Public Relations, Evil Has Burson-Marsteller On Speed-Dial."

Re this bizarre pick: the ONLY positive I've come up with so far - not including the usual "golly gosh, we're so bipartisan!" pablum - is the possibility that, in time, Perino may be "turned" and convinced to testify against Rove and some of the other unindicted co-conspirators - maybe even Cheney, to boot.

Otherwise - sorry, Mr. President, but to paraphrase your campaign slogan: this is Change I Can Believe Incomprehensible.  

Unfortunate that Li'l Jim isn't available to refute this with THE TRUTH!!... but we'll get by, I'm sure.

You may recall his recent diary claiming that a brand-new Rasmussen poll proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the country is headed rightward-ho at a velocity that rivals the Space Shuttle at full bore, such that soon 99% of the voting populace will be ready to elect Rush Limbaugh as Permanent Emperor (I presume that will score Li'l Jim a post as Press Secretary - after all, this mega-point shift is entirely his doing). For my part, I challenged the integrity of the Rasmussen organization, based on their false claim about Scott Rasmussen "never" being a political consultant, when indeed he had (for Republicans. Surprise.).

Posted today (well, yesterday by now), Media Matters researcher Eric Boehlert (note to the current House GOP leader: Eric pronounces it "Bo-lert", not "Bay-lert". I'm just sayin'... He's also not spray-tanned Terror Alert Orange... but I digress) has some related observations, both on that same poll and on some brand-new and ever so convenient - at the start of her book tour -  Rasmussen polling re Sarah Palin (it's favorable, you'll be shocked to know). More to the point, Mr. Boehlert notes another little indiscretion from this "independent" pollster, in his title:

Why is pollster Rasmussen hawking Palin's book?

His article continues after the jump [emphasis added, error noted].

O Great Guru of the LeftTake,

I'd like to humbly request that you cease posting videos on the home page. Pretty please?

Odd request, I know, but I have two reasons:

- One, I'm a liberal, and a registered Democrat (for lack of a better option, I assure you); therefore I have no disposable income (I'm sure you've heard the old joke: "there's little difference between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans attend $1000-a-plate dinners, Democrats drive $1000 cars." I'm that Democrat - right down to the car). As a result, I'm still using the same computer I did in 1998 (no, really, I am; it's pretty sad. We might have members here who are younger). It's bad enough I have to run this thing on steam power, invective and optimism; merely loading the site's videos prolongs the home page's full flowering for quite some time... and actually watch the videos? Fuggedaboudit. I have better success watching videos on my phone. Seriously.

And
- Two, the Data Nazis at my workplace block most web video content. As a result, the home page loads quickly enough, but with HUGE gaping blocks of white space where the vids should be.

(tangential anecdote: at work they also filter and block any page whose URL includes "fuck". So... when I posted the "Marc the Shark" video and began the diary title with "Fuck JimmyZ...", the URL that was created was, of course, populated with that bit of vocabulary. As a result, I was blocked from viewing my own diary. Could view comments, the home page, all sorts of other content containing that word; but not the diary page itself)

Exceptions understood, of course; the mention of the "If Joe Lieberman Opposes Health Care..." group on Hardball merits front page coverage. Otherwise... please help a poor liberal out, and put the videos on a linked page (like in the Extended Text block, perhaps?).

Thanks for sharing some French Whine.