Member since: Thu Apr 17, 2008, 05:51 PM
Number of posts: 8,731
Number of posts: 8,731
A disabled librarian from Tampa, Florida
- 2015 (9)
- January (9)
- 2014 (102)
- 2013 (165)
- 2012 (165)
- 2011 (9)
- December (9)
- Older Archives
Even though Bill kept on saying they were "two for the price of one", let's go ahead and say that Hillary's positions are not like Bill's.
Well, the problem is that whenever Bill has ran his mouth off recently about certain issues, she has said NOTHING contrary to Bill.
On Syria, where Bill called Obama a "wuss", where was Hillary stating she had a different opinion?
On Keystone, where was Hillary when Bill said we should let keystone flow through our country?
Now, there are only a few things to think.
A) Hillary agrees with Bill
B) Hillary is unable or unwilling to speak against Bill
Frankly, neither of those appeals, because he either have someone who is using Bill to attack the left, or someone who is so scared of disagreeing with Bill that he will get a third term.
Now, if Hillary were to publicly disagree with Bill, yes, she would lose some followers, but also gain a lot more, because she would truly show she is her own person.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Jan 28, 2015, 07:02 PM (7 replies)
The fact is, if either Bush or Rubio run, they know how to flip the vote stealing machine, because THEY BUILT IT. Add to this the rather tragic efforts of Debbie wasser-man Schulz, and we have a problem, because Rick Scott will gladly approve any mayhem.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Jan 28, 2015, 03:52 PM (8 replies)
This was going to be a letter to a colleague on here, but I figured what i need to say needs to be put out, considerign it is about the need to keep discussions in the public area.
Now, a lot of offensive speech is crap. Not crap that will be discovered to have been the greatest art of our age by the grandchildren type of crap, simple crap. I have no love for it, nor admiration of those who take cheap shots to get a buzz in a society where cheap shots get you more respect than talent does. Does anything think that when Charlie decided to announce that it's cover after the attacks would indeed be of mr. you know who (peace be upon him) that Dollar and Euro signs were not going up? "All is forgiven" my ass Charlie.
But when I defend offensive speech, there are two reasons:
1) Becuase attempts to hide or temper offensive ideas do NOT actually lessen the ideas, but allow those who have them to hide them better. The only thing that kills offensive ideas is PUBLIC View, where they can be shamed and ridiculed.
2) And this is sad, but true, the sort of successful, talented artists/journalists that have a safe nice and clout will often temper their own speech because, whether they admit it or not, they are AFRAID of risking their cushy seats. In other words, only those on the margins often dare to attack the powerful directly.
Take for example abortion rights. For years, no one even mentioned it on TV, especially prime time TV. The came Roseanne, a woman who frankly, knew that for all the prime time ratigns she got, she would be considered offensive. As true as it was for many Feminists, even a lot of her sisters hated her, because she would be honest about prejudices like weight, and oh yes, the American hot Button, what is was like to be WORKING CLASS POOR. The characters would PROUDLY call THEMSELVES "poor white trash" and oh yes, it got people ANGRY. When one of the young daughters talked about having an abortion, the wheels of the nation stopped, "HOW DARE THEY TALK ABOUT THAT!" But because Roseanne did not care about beign respectable, she did it, and then people talked.
Same network, different issue: Ellen Degenres, nice lady from New Orleans, ok comedian. She came out, and OMG how dare she? Yet I can gurantee you, every LGBT you talk to you will have a reaction to that moment, because "the love that dare not speak it's name" did on PRIME TIME TV.
Note that these two were Comediennes. Comedians, by definition, have to risk offending people. Even the "clean" routines can and will risk getting a mob riled, especially in an age where the Rich have many tools to make their old game high tech. Yes, a lot of comedy is trash, but the problem is that the people who control this culture know that the only people that are willing to risk attacking them are those on the fringes.
Larry Flynt is a sleaze that will NEVER amount to anything. His "porn" is not even all that good, not even playboy or maxim (which in itself as a damned low bar.) By all accounts, he is proud to be a terrible human being. Great Erotica, he will never make. Yet, out of all the talking heads and pundits, why was HE the one that dare to mock Jerry Falwell? Think of all that fine New England Intelligensia that was around at the time. Hell, think of Hugh Hefner, who unlike Flynt, wrapped himself in the mantle of Intellgensia. WHY were they derelict in their duty to attack Falwell, someone who came very very close to being to this country what ISIS is to Syria? Yes, there were many who could have, and damn well should have, been on the front line attacking falwell, but they sat back, let the funny porngrapher go to the supreme court, and hand Falwell the first bloody nose he got, giving the feminist satirists the supreme court won right to satrize the sexist arrogant white Dudes, as folks like the orginal SNL and others did very well in the 70's. They did it so well that the Right had to go to California and summon Ronnie Ray Gun, a washed up cowboy actor (and former head of a union) to regain control.
There is a sad reality to this: if our culture was as mature as we would like to think it is, we would not need comedians to be the ones to start public discussions. We would not even need internet boards. The fact is, we are not, and those in power do not fear the mainstream, because they know they have it in the palm of their hand, A major reason they do is that the intellectuals and established artists sell themselves CHEAP. It is easy to blunt their teeth, all it takes is a little money spread here, the threat of a little money taken here, and they will march in line as surely as the working class they claim to be better than.
It would be one thign even if those in power would leave us alone: Globalization and the internet promised us we could have our own bit of space and not have to step on other's toes. That is why there really IS no "prime time news" anymore, it's just another soft drink with different flavors. Would you like a DRY Bill Moyers, a sour sassy Rachel Maddow, or are you the "rebel" RT type. It's every bit as cynical as when Marlboro's were orginally marketed to women, with the fliters colored red to hide lipstick. Then when they found out men liked them more, in rode the Marlboro men. Even though some I think are sincere (like maddow, IMHO) the situation is such that the mainstream only has that much impact.
And there lies why we need offensive types, because even though those in power should not have need to attack you, they will, because they cannot stop. Everything that is not completely dominated is to be killed; that is the same MO for Isis, same MO for the Bible Thumpers, same MO for the "libertarians" whose main talk of liberty involves letting the rich white men do whatever they want. Take for example a site that rhymes with "Obstructionist." I can tell what Skinner's idea was: these people will show up anyway, let's give them a nice sandy sandbox and charge them for it, and keep them off DU. Nice idea, funny how it failed. Funny how these people on the nicer, shinier site still talk here about us, and still BRAG about rigging Juries and making sock puppets, and engaging in that all important quest to get those feminists, especially that one feminist in the sea that seems beyond their reach. They cannot stop focuSing on us, even though Skinner gave them gold and said "let those DU people have their silver." That is because those who dominate will NEVER have enough. Every feminist, non christian, poor person, could be incinerated in an hour, and these fiolks woudl focus on the "others", maybe the coalition of "white"males might redefine what is white, which will make that old grandpa former Klan member say something like "does that mean we can hate any male not of Pure Anglo-Saxon blood again, YEEEEE-HAWW!"
It does not stop,and the price of liberty IS eternal vigilance, including letting the comedians go through severald dozen bad routines, until they skewer the bastards hiding in the dark.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Mon Jan 19, 2015, 05:53 AM (11 replies)
1) the first problem is that, in the name of religion, ugly, stupid thigns are done that not only deserve riducle, but outright warfare. When a church starts enocuraging people to send money to attack gay rights, women's rights, or other rioghts, then yes, that church needs attacking. Of course, the onus of the attack should be on the people MAKING THE DECISIONS, not the people in the pews who are probably hating what this idiot in power is doing, and whose help could be useful.
2) The second is that while some want to attack religion's crimes, there are also those who simply want to attack to advance their agenda. Take for example, Richard Dawkins, who called Islam the most evil thing there is, and who made nasty reference to women and muslims, then hid behind "free speech." Take Sam Harris, who called for outrght prosecution of "anything Muslim." Yes, some of what some Muslims do is awful, but by that estimate, we might as well judge all athiests by Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.
seriously Harris "extra estrogen vibe?"
So yes, we do need to ridicule behavior, even faith, but if you do, be prepared to undergo the same scrutiny you demand, and if you turn out like Sam Harris, Richard dawkins, and yes, Charlie as being members of the "we are white dudes that can make fun of everyone we want to" club, do not be surprised when even free speech advocates realize that you make VERY poor examples, because you are not trying to liberate people from an orthodoxy of thought, you merely want the spot being kept warm by priests, in layman's terms, Dawkins, Harris and Charlie just want to be the new pampered clergy, with a whole new set of "thou shalt not question me, now make me a sammich!"
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Jan 16, 2015, 07:30 AM (1 replies)
There is an idea that some who fear religion use here called "No true Scotsman." Simply stated, it harkens backs to when some Scots did something, others would say "no true Scotsman would do that" implying that these criminals were not Scottish. It was justified in that religious and ethnic types tend to disown their criminals, indeed, just many Muslims are trying to imply that the ideas in Islam had nothing to do with the killing, the same way that adherents of any idea(from Zionism to Marxism) insist the those who abused their ideas should not ruin the whole. In short, No true Scotsman is the abuse of a truth, that you cannot attach a part to a whole, because the whole will supposedly reject the part. The logician points to the fact that this part, this "eye that offendeth thee" IS a part of the whole, even if it is an undesirable part.
The problem is that the "No true Scotsman" argument has a twin brother, one I will call "there are NO true Scots!" It says that there is so such thing as a whole for anything to be attached to. This has been used to demonize other cultures for years, including the Scots themselves, because whatever culture had the power to define what something was would simply define their enemies out of existence. It is why Scots were forced to learn English, because Scotch Gaelic was not considered a true language. Indeed, one of the reasons English itself spread as a language is because the Empire would say "There are no true Scots! or Hindus!, or Arabs! Just what Kipling calls "lesser breeds without the law!" While there are indeed nasty sides to all religions, we do have to admit part of the reason the climate as is nasty as it is because we in power have said "There are no true Arabs, just people we need to exploit, ignore or assimilate!"
So while No True Scotsman indeed needs to be applied to those of any religion that try to deny that Religions do have a side they are responsible for containing, we also need to realize that there are many who, despite being religious, do manage to be good people, and that we cannot attack their rights as citizens without undermining ours. Yes, the gunmen were Muslim, so was the clerk in the Kosher Grocery that hid people in the Meat locker, risking her life to save others, and so was the cop that got killed trying to stop the gunmen. We want to hold people accountable despite their religion, not BECAUSE of it.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Tue Jan 13, 2015, 11:15 PM (1 replies)
Let me go ahead and acknowledge some points that some of you have tried to express:
1) Yes, to many muslims, the idea of "free speech" and "cartoons" may seem hypocritical when the publisher used cartoons were used to demonize Muslims. This same publisher censored an anti-semitic ad, so it is not like Charlie did not have compromises. Given the fact that there is a huge underclass of Muslims in France, it is understandbale they can be bitter. Hell, in the previous world cup Zidane got skewered in the French press for losing the championiship. The Italian rivals called him a "terrorist savage", he losy his cool, but of course, the papers read "Bravo Italia" the next day. "Freedom" is a cheap idea to people that are cast as the underclass.
2) Yes, there is a lot of crudeness and rudeness that is being sold as political humor. I can understand those who WANT a softer, more intellectual; discourse, even those who think that if people were forced to act nice that it would make a kinder world (though it will not)
The fact is, when you go ahead and curb offensive speech, you are arming the people who will censor you, because without fail, any speech that challenges the majority is labeled offensive. Just look here how many sides of the Israel/Palestine argument label each other as bigots, as if the bodies of children killed by both sides are just something to be kept under the rug. The same happens in every political argument, especially once the phrase "those people are just like the Nazis" line comes in. All attempts to censor offensive speech will do is drive the offensive underground, where it cannot be exposed to the sunlight.
So if you join the "Charlie kinda got what they had coming" crowd, you join those of all creeds that favor dishonesty and tyranny. This is exactly then sentiment that shows up when a woman is raped, and then people chime in "well, it was awful, but did you see that dress she wore, and you know she does drugs."
Posted by DonCoquixote | Mon Jan 12, 2015, 12:16 AM (30 replies)
Fear not, I will not post it, as I know that will shut minds off immediately.
The image that suppsoedly set it off shows the Prophet Muhammad,about to be executed by a member of Isis. He says "don't you realize I am the prophet, which only makes the would be beheader angrier. The point is that if Muhammad were around,isis would kill him.
Now, t is not hard to imagine that someone who said "the ink of the scholar is worth more than the blood of the martyr" would find hismelf in that sort of trouble.
Someone who says "Kindness is a mark of faith, and whoever has not kindness has not faith." Might also get in trouble.
and here is a dozzy with isis:
"O People, it is true that you have certain rights with regard to your women, but they also have right over you. If they abide by your right then to them belongs the right to be fed and clothed in kindness. Do treat your women well and be kind to them for they are your partners and committed helpers."
"Destroying Kabaa stone by stone, is less evil than killing a single Muslim... "
Now, there will be two types of people angry: one of which is the type that has every nasty part of the quran memorized, and is yelling "No true scotsman, religion is still evil!, Sam Harris and Dick Dawkins say so!" The other is the one that says "Those assholes at Charlie brought this on themselves!" which frankly, is just a fancy version of "You should not have worn that dress!"
My point is neither to exalt not praise Charlie, but to show that there are points that we ignore when we all ball our fists, and play "gotcha." Truth be told, this piece, awful as it is, could have promoted thought, but it won;t , because peopel of allsorts have an agenda, whether it is bogotry, or simply some verison of "civility" that ensures no one says anything critical.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Jan 9, 2015, 01:12 AM (7 replies)
Normally I get annoyed with Rall, but here, he speaks from his heart. Rall is a Frech Cotozen, and knew many of the people who got killed today. Unlike other times, he lets aim at the killers, which i am sure will get him some hate mail and lost readers.
Bravo Ted, never thought I would say it.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Jan 7, 2015, 06:21 PM (2 replies)
Posted by DonCoquixote | Wed Jan 7, 2015, 07:26 AM (45 replies)
warning, this may be offensive:
Let's not forget, that our culture come from the United Kingdom (biggest misnomer in History.) In particular, we come from the period where England was becoming an Empire, and using all sorts of religious and cultural shit to justify itself. The Calvinist "work ethic" sold the idea that you could prove God loved you by getting rich, and that the only thing standing between you and gettign rich was your capapcity for Hard work. Everyone else was simply hated by God. Now what made matters worse is the way England handled it's Calvinists. The Anglicans (aka Royals and those who supported them) were perfectly willing to treat their Calvinists like shit, and did so with the idea that these stupid gits do not realize what is good for them. It's the same holier-than thou arrogance that you can get a whiff of whenever you read people like Polly Toynbee or Seamus Milne in the Guardian UK newspaper. It did not help that many of these Calvinists where descendents of the Celts that the English had treated like shit for Milennia.
Well, London had a lovely idea: "we just stole all this land in the Americas, let's ship thsoe crazy Scotch and irish and scot-Irish to there, so that they can work for us and we get the cream." Of course, they did not realize that they would not keep the beasts of burden in their pen for long. Then when America was born, these same people did NOT mellow out, but kept expanding and expanding, but never challenging the idea that the work ethic was good, or the idea that government was just a means for a bunch of lazy, smarmy elites to get the cream while the workers got the whey.
So in short, religion, and to a large extent, the desire to get revenge on English elites warped the soul to where propaganda is fed. Notice one thign about the modern conservatives, you never see an upper class person on there. It is nto that there are not scads of elitles in New England who can break out theiur Ivy league education to pontificate. No, they bring out the Rush Limbaughs, the Sean Hannitys, The Bill O Reilly's the people who can FAKE being working class, in order to appeal to a rabble whose grandfathers thought high class people wuz nuttin but crooks! Why do you think the most successful Bush so far, W. made a point of being an amplified cartton of a Texan, despite the fact that he was every bit the New England Brahmin. And sadly, the most successful democrats were people like Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, people who had brains, but knew well enough to hide it from the camera, as it it was something to be ashamed of. The people who make of the mass of America are still hiding in their log cabins, saying "look at him, he talks funny" as opposed to those that God meant to win the kingdom, broken English and all.
Posted by DonCoquixote | Fri Dec 26, 2014, 02:53 PM (0 replies)