worker tamerlane contribut truwork
ingsoc, islam everwis pax, everwis luv. BB build plus big mosque, increas luv, pax islam. BB everwis doublplus good.
minitru increas luv islam, luv pax, luv luv, luv tru, luv ingsoc, luv BB.
worker juan williams contribut untruwork fox emmanuel goldstein factor, increas unluv islam, increas plus untru. minitru memorihol worker juan williams, inform miniluv worker juan williams commit thinkcrim.
2010 keep worker tamerlane all control duplicat.
7 Comments | 
proglydites, Satire | Tagged: ingsoc, Juan Williams, newspeak, NPR, Orwellian | 
Permalink
Posted by Matt
Ima Puma responds to a request to meet with the President of the United States of America.
Dear Ima,
Two years ago, just before I accepted our party’s nomination in front of 80,000 people in Denver, I spoke with 10 grassroots supporters who had won a trip to meet me backstage.
“Backstage?” Yes, it was stage production, wasn’t it?
I still remember the time we spent together — because these are the people, like you, who … got me through the tough fights since.
By making excuse after excuse for your pathetic performance.
But we face another test on November 2nd … and I need you by my side again. A Supreme Court decision I strongly disagree with has shifted the balance of power in our elections from folks like you to giant corporations. Their massive spending on attack ads could have a real impact on who represents you at all levels of government.
This from a guy who broke his promise to stick to campaign spending limits, and went on to spend $700 million.
So next week, just 11 days before the elections, I want to meet three supporters like you backstage at a rally in Las Vegas — one of the last big rallies of this campaign.
Because Las Vegas epitomizes everything about your character and your administration.
This movement has always been about more than me.
I understand. It’s also about getting your golf handicap to at least -5.
It’s about change, and the kind of future we envision for this country.
I envision a future where you are not president.
The folks I met backstage in Denver told me they wanted health reform, a clean-energy economy, and a resolution to the war in Iraq.
Suckers!
They wanted a new kind of politics, and a new kind of leader.
Instead, they got a Chicago thug.
It was their hope and expectation that together we would move beyond the status quo, that we would counter the special interests and corporate influence in Washington —
God, I hate koolaid hangovers.
— that we would do what was right and necessary for all Americans.
” And by ‘all Americans,’ I mean the insurance lobby.”
With your help, we have made historic progress,
The Titanic was ‘historic’, too.
but there is much left to do —
Step One: Nominate Hillary.
and it will not happen without your involvement. Your donation today will provide critical support to our Vote 2010 campaign.
What? Is Soros skint?
It will determine if we pass this test, and win our toughest fight yet.
The fight to get elected after having dragged your sorry ass around for two years.
Please donate $3 or more to be automatically entered to win a trip to Las Vegas to meet me backstage:
Just thinking about that makes me faint! Will I get to play the tambourine during your encore?
I hope to see you out there,
No, you really, really don’t.
— President Barack Obama
If it limps like a duck…
5 Comments | Elections, Ima Puma, Satire | Permalink
Posted by Matt
In yet another bizarre, embarrassing moment, Tea Party poster child, Chrissie O’Donnell, brought gasps and chuckles to the audience during a debate at a law school by claiming the First Amendment says nothing about separation of church and state. But don’t pile on Chrissie, folks — every TP candidate thinks this is so.
The TP is a strange fusing of christian fundamentalists and libertarian anarchists, followed meekly by a host of criminally uninformed voters. One of its key planks is a pledge to adhere closely to the US Constitution — an odd desire for people whose views and aims conflict so fundamentally with that document. They have a work-around to that conflict — wildly misinterpret certain sections, then pretend the rest doesn’t even exist.
For the christian fundamentalist, that literal believer in a bible chock full of glaring contradictions and falsehoods, ‘creative reading’ is second nature. For the libertarian, living in a delusional world where the US economy was humming along perfectly until wrecked by the New Deal, ignoring facts is child’s play. The TP version is less a competing interpretation of our nation’s highest law, than a Hollywood-esque “re-imagining” bearing scant resemblance to the original.
Even were their comprehension of the Constitution accurate, the TPers’ call for a “traditional, strict interpretation” has not been seriously considered for over two centuries. The immensely influential chief justice, John Marshall, deemed that the Constitution was “intended to endure for ages to come, to be adapted to various crises of human affairs.” It was Marshall (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803) who codified the Founding Fathers’ intention to provide for judicial review. To the Judiciary has been given the exclusive role of interpreting the Constitution. And for two centuries, the plethora of decisions handed down by Supreme Courts have yielded remarkably consistent interpretations, none of which look anything at all like those TP re-imaginings. (That hackneyed right-wing complaint over “activist judges” is nothing but frustration at the proper role of the judiciary as established in Marbury.)
While it’s a waste of time to talk reason to the O’Donnell and her fellow delusionals, for the benefit of those confused by the TP’s fanciful re-imagining of the Constitution, here’s a little refresher course.
Separation of Church and State
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” — Amendment I
O’Donnell is technically correct: the actual words “separation of church and state” never appear in the first amendment, nor anywhere, in the Constitution. That phrase came from contemporary statements by Jefferson and Madison, who both rejoiced that the Bill of Rights firmly established “a permanent wall of separation,” reflecting the universal desire of the Founding Fathers and the American people. They were intensely concerned that their new nation avoid the fights over state religion and consequent persecutions, tyranny, and civil wars that had devastated England and Europe for centuries.
As confirmation of this well-documented intent, over twenty major Supreme Court decisions have resoundedly confirmed the Constitution’s separation of church and state. In response, O’Donnell and friends can offer but a flimsy, grammarian sophistry. (TPM to Chrissie: the words “Bill of Rights” aren’t even in the The Bill of Rights.) Interestingly, while TPers are quick to claim the First Amendment does not say church & state should be separate, they never explain what it supposedly does say.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” — Amendment II
If sheer volume of words is a guide, the Second Amendment is by far the TP’s favorite section of the Constitution. They should be glad that a truly strict interpretation has not not been applied. Per 18th century syntax, that opening clause grants one the right to keep and bear arms only as a member of a well regulated militia — and a dozen skinheads shooting cans in Idaho is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Written by some former minutemen, the Second Amendment has not aged well. Our present day militia is called the National Guard. Forced to adapt this amendment to modern times, the courts have chosen an exceedingly broad interpretation, granting the government powers based on the “well-regulated” part (shotgun? yes; flamethrower? no), while generously ignoring the militia membership requirement for citizens. The interpretive pedant could also point out that, strictly, there’s nothing about protecting one’s right to keep and wear armor.
Unconstitutionality of The Federal income Tax
TPers’ aversion to taxation exceeds that of the Wicked Witch of the West to water buckets. With increasing brazenness, they matter-of-factly state that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
Now, considering its import and broad scope, the Constitution is a surprisingly short document. So it seems a bit sloppy for the TPers to have missed Article 1, Section 8, which states:
“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…. “
and then goes on to give a long list, known as the enumerated powers, of all the things Congress can do, then finishes by further granting Congress power “to make all Laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing Powers….” Stricties claim this is a narrow permission list. But beginning with Marshall, every Supreme Court has confirmed that the seventeen clauses of wide-ranging enumerated powers permit Congress considerable “discretion with respect to means … to enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people.”
If Art I, Sec 8 was not convincing enough, Amendment XVI, passed in 1913, puts the taxation question to rest:
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived….”
There are even those who insist the USPS is unconstitutional, perhaps based on the obscure wording of this Art 1, Sec 8 clause:
“The Congress shall have Power … [t]o establish Post Offices and post Roads….”
Ah! But the TP has found a way to get around the enumerated powers, with a trick last employed by the Confederacy.
State’s Rights
TPers are gaga for States’ Rights — the concept that ultimate sovereignty lies not with the United States, but rather with each individual state. As proof, they cite Amendment X:
“The Powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the People.”
The Tenth Amendment, they (O’Donnell, apparently, excepted) argue, negates Art 1 Sec 8, leaving the Federal Government with almost no enumerated powers, meaning nearly every federal law ever passed can be ignored. But the Supreme Court ( United States v. Sprague, 1931) found that the Tenth amendment “added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.”
It defies credulity to imagine the Founding Fathers carefully codifying their highest ideals into federal law, only to immediately add an amendment that permitted lesser jurisdictions to ignore those ideals — thus undermining majority rule and rendering the federal democracy non-functional.
The Party of Nullify
Also known as Nullification, this principle was first proposed during the late 1820’s, when Georgia wished to circumvent Federal Indian treaties so they could to drive the remaining Indians off their land. The Supreme Court ruled (albeit too late for the Indians) against Georgia.
In 1832, South Carolina’s legislature, claiming State’s Rights to ignore federal tariffs designed to help (largely Northern) industry, passed a resolution to secede if the tariffs were not abolished. In response, President Jackson sternly declared
“the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.”
The Palmetto state claimed the right to Nullify again in 1860 over another issue.
Today, TPers turn to Nullification as cover to reject any federal statute they don’t care for. Not just “obamacare”, but also women’s choice, gay equality, social security numbers, and, as always, those evil taxes. When a TP candidate mentions the Tenth Amendment, it’s nothing less than a coded threat to secede.
“Read Carefully Before Operating”
In retrospect, TPers should rethink their professed love for the Constitution. Their vision of America is clearly at odds with that of its authors. Still, had the TPers bothered to either read the Constitution online, download it, or ask their buddies at the Heritage Foundation to send them a free copy, they’d have discovered a nifty way to rewrite the Constitution to their liking — the simple how-to instructions are laid out right there in Article V. Maybe getting two-thirds of fellow Americans to agree with their crack-pot vision seemed a little daunting. So instead, TPers have chosen to simply ignore the law of the land.
For a centuries-old, hashed-out compromise, the US Constitution was written with prodigious clarity and amazing foresight. It was never perfect, but frequent revision and reasoned interpretation has allowed it to keep up fairly well with developments. It’s the user’s manual thoughtfully left by the Founding Fathers in the glove compartment of our nation. Anyone seeking to operate the machinery of government should first thoroughly familiarize themselves with it.
(c) 2010 by ‘tamerlane.’ All Rights reserved.
26 Comments | Elections, tea party | Tagged: Chrissie O'Donnell, James Madison, John Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, Separation of Church and State, Tea Party, Thomas Jefferson, US Constitution | Permalink
Posted by Matt
If you have to come to TLN to discover this video, you’re definitely not plugged-in, but this speech is so powerful, so heartfelt, and stands in such striking contrast to the insipid demagoguery of lesser figures, it deserves a post.
2 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Matt
That nebulous cloud of disaffected Democrat & liberal independent voters, commonly labeled “pumas,” deserves a new monicker: “cry babies.”
After a relentless, two-year campaign of whining to each other on blogs, accompanied by not a single act of political activism, our eternal outrage now compels pumas to protest, punish, or dispense penance in the 2010 midterm elections.
Protest: At a seminal crossroads for the continued viability of our Nation, the likes of which has not been witnessed since 1860, many pumas feel that a protest vote — voting for a green candidate, say, or simply abstaining — will somehow compel the Dem leadership to prick up its ears and heed our puma roar. Or at least it will assuage our aversion to voting for any but the ideal candidate;
Punish: Other pumas, for dark reasons known only to them, liken their prior affiliation to the Dem party to a romantic relationship. When their partner/party betrayed their fidelity by shacking up with obama, these furies vowed revenge. This November, they intend on taking a Louisville Slugger to both headlights, so the Democratic Party will think next time before he cheats. Not a few of these punishing pumas have undergone a total inversion, abandoning principles and ideals to become fanatic Republicans. Which makes one wonder what this was all about for them.
Penance: There’s a lot of pop psychology going about saying the Democratic Party needs to “hit rock bottom” before it can recover — to “learn its lesson” so to speak — so let’s expedite the process by helping them lose the midterms.
This thought process is flawed on at least two counts. First, it accepts the meme that ‘hitting rock bottom’ is the sole and certain path to ‘recovery.’ In reality, many people with addictions, antisocial behavior, etc. straighten themselves out before hitting bottom, while many others hit bottom and just stay there, never ‘learning their lesson.’ Second, this theory envisions the entire Democratic party as a single person. Which it is not. The Democratic Party is an (especially loose) agglomerate of individuals. Those capable of learning their lesson have already learned it; facilitating a GOP landslide will not scare straight any others.
A flawed anthropomorphizing of party dynamics, this tenuous strategy also ignores the reality that the TP juggernaut cares not one iota for the aims of liberals. A minority that includes Blanche Lincoln but lacks Russ Feingold fixes what, exactly? In short, there is no path to ‘recovery’, however you define that, which leads through a right-wing landslide in this election.
Puma Piss
On the whole, pumas are a pissy lot. We whine, we foment, we take umbrage at every slight. On each of our shoulders sits a chip wearing an orange pant suit. This November, pumas seem eager to stage a massive pissing-into-the-wind protest. That’ll show ’em!
Yet, in this year of the Tea Party, where were all the Puma rallies? Who were the Puma candidates in the primaries? Given, unlike the TP, no billionaire benefactor jump-started our movement, but it didn’t help that there was no real movement to jump-start in the first place.
Every two years, all on her lonesome, Cindy Sheehan gets herself on the ballot to run against Nancy Pelosi. Not a single “big name” puma could be aroused from their torpor and pathetic self-pity to do likewise.
There’s no avoiding that we pumas pissed away the past two years. Oh, some of us did try to do something constructive way back. Known by the ill-chosen name “Just Say No Deal,” and despite assembling an impressive array of experience and talent, for various reasons — an incompetent narcissist as its organizer, for one — this nascent “Puma Party” never got off the ground. Thereafter followed The Denver Group, a savvy, well-crafted, but ultimately quixotic, protest of the DNC convention, and then … nothing.
Could a Puma Party have arisen then, as did the Tea party a year later? Sure, but it didn’t. It still could, and should, happen, in future. And, in an upcoming post I will be announcing the formation of a new party/movement/PAC. But back to today.
“First, Do No Harm”
Is the Democratic Party a total write-off? Absolutely not. To those who never got as close to politics as did I, it may come as a shock to discover that all politicians have an oily sheen about them. But let’s not ignore that on 5/31/08, 12 of 27 RBC powerlords voted in favor of Hillary Clinton; that most democratic primary voters chose Clinton over obama; that the obamalonians were so worried by a straw poll of delegates, which indicated Clinton might win a floor vote, that they rigged the formal nomination. Roughly, then, at least half of the Democratic rank & file membership is salvageable, as is nearly all of the Party platform.
Leave yesterday be; we’ll deal with that tomorrow. Today, we must be pragmatic about what we can and cannot accomplish at this juncture. Yes, ideally things would be better with true liberals in the Senate rather than the likes of Reid and Boxer. But we blew our chance to improve those particular seats during this Spring’s primaries. Our next opportunity to improve on Reid & Boxer, et al., comes around in 2016. In 2010, we can only prevent those seats from getting FAR WORSE. As political surgeons, we must all abide by the Hippocratic Oath.
It’s A Dirty Job
It’s 2010, and there’s no Puma Party around to throw our weight behind. As disaffected dems and liberal independents, we’re stuck with making the best of a bad situation with what’s on hand. What’s on hand are the existing Democrats and the TP-laden GOP. The situation is too dire, the threats to our institutions, liberties and democracy too grave, for protests or statements. For all intents and purposes, we have a Republican president in obama — handing him a GOP Congress would be disastrous. This will be no small nudge to the right: there will be an all-out assault on the institutions, principles, the very foundation of our American Liberty.
Our task today is simple, and it is narrow: pick the lesser of two evils. And the greater is very evil, indeed. In 2008, this true liberal was prepared to vote for McCain, had the race in California proved close, simply to avert the pending obamalonian disaster. I do not like John McCain, and share but few of his ideals. So when a fellow puma tells me they cannot, in principle, vote for Barbara Boxer, who despite her many flaws, closely matches their political views, I have no sympathy. It’s a dirty job, but we’ve got to hold our noses and cast a vote that matters. No more crying: do your duty. The welfare of our Nation demands it.
(c) 2010 by ‘tamerlane.’ All rights reserved.
20 Comments | Democratic ineptitude, Elections, GOP evilness, Uncategorized | Tagged: Barbara Boxer, Democratic primaries, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, mid-term elections, Tea Party | Permalink
Posted by Matt
Not to be missed is this post by Ducksoup over at JohnWSmart. One of the sharpest of the many smart, eloquent commenters at JWS, ‘duck responds to renewed calls for Hillary Clinton to step in as VP by offering some alternate career paths for the current POTUS. Not only is Ducksoup’s piece both witty and thoughtful, it’s also spurred an invigorating discussion on a wide-range of subjects!
2 Comments | Democratic ineptitude, Elections | Tagged: Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, obama, vice president | Permalink
Posted by Matt
One key job of a sitting president, especially in an election year, is to conduct oneself in a way that helps your Party win races. If you’re a popular president, you must tirelessly stump for candidates. If you’re unpopular, you can still act forceful and in-charge. Even if people disagree with you, their primal instincts will push them toward complying with a confident troop leader.
As president, your legislative calendar should be carefully crafted and timed to boost your comrades fighting for office. Bills should be introduced that make your guys look good, while forcing the other guys to either dodge or take unpopular stands. A steady stream of feel-good executive orders & speeches should emanate from the Oval Office throughout the Fall. “Third-rail” issues should be scrupulously avoided.
Needless to say, obama, neither savvy politician nor experienced legislator, much less a leader, has failed on all these counts. Ultimately, obama doesn’t care: the common complaint among Democratic candidates this year has been that the White House has told them, in no uncertain terms, that they are on their own.
Even worse than these sins of omission, the obama administration has committed several missteps toxic to an already struggling Democratic party:
Way back in 2009, 3/4 of Americans favored health care reform, with at least 2/3 supporting universal single payer. Possessing momentum, a mandate, and a 60-vote majority, enacting HCR should’ve been a slam-dunk. Yet the entire Democratic machine stood flat-footed as the nascent TP staged protests against HCR, before belatedly dispatching Nancy Pelosi to engage in a puerile pissing match. The bill went over like a lead zeppelin in congress, ambushed by blue dogs who’d slipped their leashes. It was in any case an academic exercise, as the HCR bill exited the White House stillborn; a perverted creation of BO’s secret sessions with industry lobbyists, a Health Care Reform with no “care” and scant “reform” in it.
And thus was an eminently popular idea, whose time had clearly arrived, become an albatross draped about the neck of every Democrat running for office, with Martha Coakley the honorary first recipient.
As terrible as this disaster was, it nevertheless offered the obama administration a rare opportunity to gain respect, by presenting a striking contrast of executive vigor to Bush’ callousness & ineptitude during Katrina.
Instead, obama ended up looking even more callous and impotent. Consequently, in the political chess game, Katrina as a dig against the GOP is permanently off the board. (Maneuverability on this issue was not helped by the self-coronated “Green Economy President’s” advocation a month earlier for expanded offshore drilling.)
Trying to act like he actually cared, BO blurted out some tough guy nonsense about ‘a boot on BP’s throat’. Which was as convincing as the muttered oaths of the wimp who’s had his lunch money stolen yet again.
A potential fatal blow to the drill-baby-drillers, the oil spill became instead a Democratic failure. To add injury to insult, a chance to push for accelerating the transition to renewable energy was lost.
A Bush program that everyone beyond Wall Street utterly abhorred, BO eagerly gobbled up the sloppy seconds. And, Presto! The GOP’s plague with the middle class voter, their eternal coddling of the rich & greedy, infected the Democrats as well.
A full 70% of Americans favor increased controls on illegal immigration. Only proglydites, whose vote you presumably already have, and libertarians & capitalists, whose vote you’ll never get, favor illegal immigration. Yet the obama administration went out of its way to combat Arizona’s SB1070 via legal action and public condemnation. Now, there were many paths to tread on this subject — decrying racial profiling while simultaneously announcing a cosmetic boost to border patrol, for example, or simply ignoring it — that skirted a controversial, compromising stand. Instead, obama firmly linked all Democrats with illegal immigration. Every news story now includes an obligatory reference to ‘conservatives seek stronger border controls, while liberals (!) favor easing restrictions on immigration.’
The political equivalent of a high voltage power line lying in a puddle, sparking and buzzing, the Ground Zero mosque was unhesitatingly taken up by obama.
Nearly 80% of Americans oppose the construction of that mosque as insensitive and in bad taste. Yet the administration spent a good two weeks devoting its efforts to defense of the mosque, raising the canards of racism and 1st Amendment rights. As a result, the Democrats came across as jihadiphile desecrators of hallowed ground.
On Capitol Hill, the White House has chosen to: half-heartedly launch a repeal of DADT without first lining up enough votes; punt on the Bush tax cuts expiration after a three-and-out botching of the accompanying PR spin; threatened to force on its own congressmen a pre-election vote on a GOP-friendly, White House proposal for a $200 billion tax cut to businesses.
The list could go on.
What kind of Party leader repeatedly takes positions that 2/3 to 3/4 of Americans oppose? One answer is that obama is simply a bungling idiot, & his “handlers” by extension.
Or, realizing BO’s low approvals were irreparable, the White House may have instead consciously chosen to rally its extremist base. From the Paris Communards to the Moral Majority, this has been a standard, and not altogether unwise, tactic.
Another explanation for obama’s string of toxic stances exists: that he is a manchurian candidate, a trojan horse snuck into the Democratic Party and designed to destroy it from within. If so, then BO’s intentionally took these toxic missteps (or at least his creators knew he’d take them).
What will it take for the Democratic Party to realize its leader is poison? Apparently, nothing short of a midterm clobbering.
(c) 2010 by ‘tamerlane.’ All rights reserved.
8 Comments | BP Oil Spill, Democratic ineptitude, Elections, GOP evilness, proglydites | Tagged: barack obama failure, BP oil Spill, campaigning, democrats, health care reform, Katrina, midterm elections | Permalink
Posted by Matt
Bonjour,
Allow me to introduce myself. I am Todd, comte du Henderson, and I am trés riches. But, even though my family earns $400,000, which is eight times more than the average peasant family, (we are at least eight times better than you, of course), we can barely make ends meet. Nous sommes pauvre! That’s because the jacobins in the IRS take a criminal 35% of the last $26,350 of our paltry wealth.
I am a law professor, and my wife is a doctor, so you can be assured that we are kind-hearted people with the best interests of you, the peasantry, in mind. But soon we will be forced to live in some dirty hovel, and eat sewer rats, as you do, because the Socialists in Paris, I mean Washington, are robbing us blind.
Why, for example, must my family finance the government with 1/4 of our earnings? It’s not like the government does anything for us. We probably should hire one of those fancy accountants to help us evade taxes, but we can’t afford one. Marie says we just drank the last d’Yquem and she’s scrounging for loose change in the couch. Those atheist revolutionaries also penalize us for having married and started a family. How else is overpopulation going to progress if two people are not given tax breaks for having three children? Talk about perverse!
After paying for a government we don’t use, our next biggest expense, like most white people, is our mortgage. In the exclusive neighborhood we live in, houses aren’t cheap. Is it really fair to penalize us for wanting to live far from the rabble? We pay $15,000 in property taxes. Mon dieu! — that’s nearly what a peasant earns in an entire year! Half of that goes toward paying for peasant children to attend public schools. Since we want our own scions to be prepared to one day assume their rightful role among the nobility, we send them to expensive private schools where they can associate with their peers.
Honestly, I have no idea where the remaining $285,000 goes! We live a practically spartan lifestyle (thankfully, basic cable has FOX), with only a few hundred dollars per month to spare. We could fire the servants, I suppose, and stop taking the babysitter out to Ruths Chris. Or maybe cut Fifi’s art classes. This is scary — we’re this far from losing our house and living in a trailer park with … peasants. And then what will happen to the entrepreneurs we employ and the “new arrivals” (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) they employ in turn? Surely they prefer working for a noble house like the duHendersons, than having some government protecting their interests!
The bigger question, though, is, by what right does the government collect any taxes at all, then fritter it away recklessly? My family certainly can make wiser spending decisions. In fact, I’m not sure why we even have a government.
So, mes amis, s’il vous plait, take pity on us poor rich folks.
(c) 2010 by ‘tamerlane.’ All rights reserved.
6 Comments | capitalism, Economy, libertarians, Satire | Tagged: anti-government, libertarians, tax the rich, Todd Henderson | Permalink
Posted by Matt
with Cyn, Fionnchú, John W. Smart, littleisis, and tamerlane
Blogging since: 2000 and Bush v. Gore. I totally didn’t see that coming and I was so outraged that I started looking around the internet to see if anyone else was as enraged as I. I ended up at Kicking Ass, the DNC blog and stayed there until 2008. A lot of those wonderful Dem friends I had made were not only backing Obama, but vilifying Hillary. I also blogged at Night Bird’s Fountain, but left in 2004 and started my own blog.
Real life profession: legal assistant to sole practitioner attorney
Reason I got into blogging: politics
Hours per week spent on my blog: Not that many. I don’t feel the need to post every day or even every week, although I did feel the need during the 2008 primary. For me, blogging helps me let off steam, share information and gives me a creative outlet.
Hours per week on other blogs: Hard to say, as it varies. I would guess approx. 10 hours per week.
Blog: Blogtrotter
Blogging since: 2007
Other published or posted works: academic journals; scholarly references; Lunch.com, Amazon US (Top 500 reviewer), New York Journal of Books, and PopMatters websites.
Real-life profession: Medievalist turned Humanities college instructor.
Reason I got into blogging: To share my passion for ideas and get my thoughts out of my mind and beyond the limits of a low-level teaching gig with few chances to find colleagues or students of a like-minded, inquiring, ornery, eclectic, and debatable bent.
Hours per week spent working on my blog: 6 (on average)
Hours per week spent reading other people’s blogs: 2 (I read fast)
Blog: JohnWSmart
Blogging since: 2005
Real-life profession: Film Clearance Administration
Reason I got into blogging: Anger at Bush administration lies.
Hours per week spent working on my blog: 20
Hours per week spent reading other people’s blogs: 5
Blogs: You can find me at Liberal Rapture or the Confluence
Blogging since: I was seventeen.
Other published or posted works: I can’t disclose those, this is a family blog.
Real-life profession: Student
Reason I got into blogging: I started paying more attention to politics and entertainment towards the end of High School, after a string of suicides occurred in my graduating class. (Two of them were good friends of mine.) Blogging is the easiest way to shout my opinions at people.
Hours per week spent working on my blog: Depends on the week.
Hours per week spent reading other people’s blogs: Also depends on the week.
Blogs:
JohnWSmart (guest contributor)
Liberal Rapture (cross-posted hitchhiker)
Blogging since: 2009
Other published or posted works: Myriad client profiles, press releases, newsletter articles, print ads, & promotional brochures; Training Agreements, Helmet Release & Hold Harmless forms; a thesis on medieval knights; a published board game; a privately disseminated cookbook.
Real-life profession: Horse trainer; former jack of all trades
Reason I got into blogging: To protest the Sting of Hillary Clinton and to combat the destruction of Liberalism by the Obamalonian Horde.
Hours per week spent working on my blog: 3? 5? 0?
Hours per week spent at other people’s blogs: I have no fucking clue.
1. Can Blogging Save the World?
Cyn: I don’t think anything can save the world. I’ve become somewhat jaded after the 2008 election. I believe there is only so much that bloggers can do to make a difference. However, I do see that the Tea Party (however much I disagree with them), are making a huge difference in the Republican party, but I don’t know that it is due to blogging. I do believe that so long as we don’t lose our hope of being able to make the world a better place, blogging will continue to grow.
Fionnchu: No, given that our voices will be drowned out.
John W. Smart: No. Nor should it try.
littleisis: Anything that speaks truth to power can end up saving the world. Mainstream press seems more concerned with speaking power to truth these days.
tamerlane: No, but it can rescue a scrap of veracity and free, meaningful discourse — our samizdat in the face of Pravda Light censorship and Dancing with the Stars distraction.
2. Will Blogs replace Newspapers?
CYN: So long as newspapers need to turn a profit and remain beholden to corporate interests, yes.
F: No, as we lack the funds to afford to investigate issues on our own without the backing that media gain. We also lack credibility unless perhaps attached to a larger blog site sponsored by a corporation. We don’t get the press respect or the PR clout that enables us to garner review copies, either!
JWS: No.
LI: Eventually they will. I use the NYT to line my cat’s kitty litter.
TAM: They’ll meet somewhere in the middle. Unlike 99% of bloggers, most newspapers still know how to write & edit, and do proper investigative reporting. Most bloggers are hacks suffering from the mind-scours.
3. Should a successful blog: a) charge to read it? b) Accept Ads? c) Ask for donations? d) Stay free, free as the wind blows?
CYN: In a perfect world, stay free, free as the wind. However, if the blogger needs to ask for donations or put ads on their blog to generate income, it doesn’t bother me. Especially if it is a blog I follow on a regular basis. I would rather donate than see it shut down.
F: Stay free. I don’t accept ads, I wish blogs were free of ads. I prefer a Net more resistant to consumerism and capitalism. I wish I’d started on WordPress, not Google’s E-Blogger. But, tech- challenged, as I began a few years ago, it’s too late now given the search engine tilts. And, I have a corporation giving me access gratis to make my blog. So, there’s a hidden charge, no free lunch.
JWS: a. no. b. yes. c. yes. d. no.
LI: I don’t know about charging readers, but I don’t see any problem with accepting ads or asking for donations. Regular blogging can take time.
TAM: Computers and the internet place us at the potential dawn of a new social order, with a truly “free” market where people give things away for self-actualization. Kinda like Star Trek.
4. Person you’d like to see blogging who doesn’t?
CYN: Madeleine Albright. She fascinates me.
F: Some of my egghead but populist friends in Ireland and here, who prefer anonymity due to their fears of surveillance.
JWS: Edie Falco.
LI: Seriously. She’s brilliant, funny and a great writer. I just have to nab her before TC does.
TAM: John Mellencamp.
5. Does Perez Hilton hurt or help blogs being taken seriously?
CYN: I have no idea as I never knew she had a blog. However, sight unseen, I don’t think it would make a difference.
F: I could care less. TMZ and C-Span both serve as entertainment in the media we’re dished out. Any arena will attract the strutters and ballhogs as well as us waterboys and peanut vendors. Bloggers are caricatured as kooks by the mainstream, but the MSM funds and uses them too. I think FB or whatever future medium rises will erode blogs more, as people read less. Scanning and Twitter and instant updates also substitute for what a few years ago blogs provided as a method to share tidbits and finds on and off the Net. E-mail dwindles as people don’t use that to share information as links or photos or articles among a list of friends, and as with discussion lists in the late 90s, blogs may fade more in this respect.
JWS: He has no affect.
LI: Not for me to say. Not all blogs should be taken seriously to begin with. Similarly, not all newspapers should be taken seriously. The National Enquirer or the NYT, for example.
TAM: Who’s Perez Hilton?
6. Is the Huffington Post a blog, a newspaper, or something else?
CYN: A blog, and all blogs are not alike.
F: It replaces Time Magazine as a compendium of a safe political slant– combined with pop culture and stupid photos & videos that I admit being surprised to find. I don’t read it but I get links to it via FB posts by friends now and then. This is what the MSM is evolving towards.
JWS: Something else.
LI: A newspaper, because it repeats talking points.
TAM: It’s the air-sickness bag of the proglydite Weltanschauung.
7. Are Kos and Drudge journalists, politicos, or something else?
CYN: In my opinion, politicos.
F: They began as pioneer investigators, but as celebrity bloggers, they’ve capitulated to MSM corporate approval.
JWS: Something else.
LI: Tough question. I’m not even sure if they’re human.
TAM: They’re two little hitlers who’ll fight it out until one little hitler does the other one’s will.
8. Worst sin(s) a blogger can make?
CYN: Knowingly posting lies or advancing an opinion on behalf of someone who pays you to do so.
F: Not revealing sponsorship or perks.
JWS: Thinking they matter more than they do.
LI: Banning people for financial or business reasons.
TAM: Writing when they have nothing to say; Cut & paste; Blogging Under the Influence.
9. The perfect blog post would …
CYN: Inform me, charm me and make me laugh.
F: Distinguish between cut & paste blather and original insights that the author labored over rather than plagiarized or paraphrased.
JWS: Link to my blog.
LI: Make people think, and laugh.
TAM: Put something in a new light for me.
10. Ideal length of a blog post?
CYN: Personally, so long as it keeps my attention, it doesn’t matter.
F: Less than most of mine. 750-1000 words max?
JWS: Depends on the topic.
LI: It would depend on the subject of the post and whether it’s an open thread.
TAM: I’ve retained the self-editing habits from writing for print materials with physical size constraints:
11. Ideal format: Minimalist or Glitzy?
CYN: What ever floats your boat or reflects the personality of the blog.
F: Minimal. I hate distractions. But I do like decorating the margins with artworks and piddling with colors. Google is not as generous as I’d have anticipated with how you can customize your templates.
JWS: Minimal.
LI: I prefer glitzy, but I’m a girl.
TAM: Minimalist.
12. Real-life human activity blogging most emulates?
CYN: Dear diary.
F: Chatting with friends about ideas, issues, and trends. Or talking to yourself. Some may say masturbation in public, but haven’t writers, actors, and creative types been long accused by puritans and prudes?
JWS: Walking.
LI: Telling your children you’d like to do what you can to make the world a better place for them.
TAM: Singing in the shower.
IV Your Blogging Goals
13. Head-in-the-clouds goal for your blog:
CYN: I really don’t take my blog that seriously.
F: To gain a patron & recognition for my brilliant acumen so I never have to work again. I keep expecting a MacArthur Grant in my inbox. Acclaim from the academy so I land instant tenure and I can get time to write books rather than entries every other day. I stopped daily blogging when I realized how few people cared about it. But that led to a backlog of dozens of entries, ironically enough!
JWS: Huge profits.
LI: Loyal regulars.
TAM: To have both Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann on the same day mention with disgust the same TLN post.
14. Feet-on-the-ground goal:
CYN: Possibly transfer my blog from Blogger to Wordpad.
F: To keep it up until I die or until some other medium evolves that I can afford to replace it. I feel it’s like a term paper that’s always near due, and it keeps me locked into a self-imposed schedule. It keeps my mind fresher and my thoughts more ordered, as I pretend I have an audience that gets me out of my own self-glorification and makes me aware of the fact someone may take me to account. I have made friends whom I’ve gone on to meet in the “real world,” and that pleases me no end, as such contacts in my daily life are non-existent regarding such comradeship.
JWS: Keep going.
LI: Loyal regulars
TAM: I get lots of hits, but want more comments.
15. Any changes, improvements. additions you’d like to make to your blog?
CYN: I pretty much change my blog design when I get bored with how it looks.
F: I’d like the Google E-Blogger templates to allow more alterations for a tech-challenged type. But now that they have started charging $10 for template changes of some sorts, I wonder. WordPress seems the only competition, but it’s as I mentioned a bit too late to migrate. The Google formats constrict you even as they make it dumbbell-accessible, an inevitable compromise to put such html intricacies in the hands of the huddled masses.
JWS: Yes. There are.
LI: I wish it looked more glamorous, but there’s only so many things you can do with wordpress.
TAM: Tags and shit.
16. If you were paid full-time to blog, would you do it?
CYN: No. I would feel stifled.
F: Yes, but I’d prefer a MacArthur grant renewed in perpetuity. I might hate blogging if it was my job. As a hobby, it’s fine.
JWS: Yes.
LI: Absolutely.
TAM: Twist my arm.
4 Comments | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Matt
Ima Puma responds to MoveOn’s latest email blast.
from: Adam Ruben, MoveOn.org
to: Ima Puma
subject: Stop the Takeover!
Dear MoveOn member,
I’m actually not a member. It’s just that the DNC gave you Hillary Clinton’s mailing list.
It’s a perfect storm.
And you buttfucks helped create it.
Polls show record levels of voter anger at Washington.
… at the President. And Team Pelosi.
Corporate interests are spending $400 million to try and buy Congress….
They already own the White House, so why not run the table?
And Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are whipping up a frenzy of right-wing hatred and coded racism.
Because everything anyone says is “coded racism.”
In short, we’re on the verge of losing this election.
What happened to the thousand-year Progressive Reich you promised?
And if that happens, right-wing Republicans and their corporate benefactors will do everything they can to kill any progressive legislation for the rest of the Obama presidency.
That’d be a bit redundant on their part, now wouldn’t it?
The good news is that we’ve still got a chance to turn the tide.
Because, umm, like, we’re the ones we’ve been waiting for?
We’ve seen before how a massive outpouring of support from grassroots progressives can swing an election—remember what happened in 2008?
Is this where we click our heels three times and chant “yes, we can”?
It’s time to do it again. We’ll mobilize MoveOn’s 5 million members to get out the vote and stop the takeover of Congress. Can you chip in $5?
Wow, that’s $25 million! Soros & Buffett are onboard again, right?
The last couple years … we’ve all been plenty frustrated with Democrats in Washington.
Those goddamn bluedogs hate on the Lightbringer!
But we simply can’t afford to go back to the days of a Congress controlled by Republicans and their corporate allies.
Shoulda thought of that when you nominated an inexperienced, lazy wanker.
Here’s the plan:
We’ll spin up the massively successful campaign that brought in a million volunteers for Barack Obama in 2008 …
Except now they’ve all seen the real barack obama.
… and improve it to recruit volunteers in dozens of districts across the country.
ACORN lives?
Expose the corporate cash behind Republicans: We’ll … remind voters again and again that Republicans are backed by the same big corporations that drove our economy off a cliff and fought tooth and nail against health care reform.
While you’re at it, explain Timmy Geithner’s presence in the Cabinet. And define the terms “health”, “care”, and “reform.”
We’ll hit the phones … for progressive leaders facing tough re-election fights.
Because annoying cold calls from strident idealists always swing tight elections.
It’s an ambitious plan—but it can work if all of us pitch in. Can you donate $5 today?
You betcha! Just as soon as I park my unicorn under his rainbow.
9 Comments | Democratic ineptitude, Elections, Ima Puma, MoveOn, Satire | Tagged: Ima Puma, Kool-Aid drinkers, MoveOn | Permalink
Posted by Matt
True Liberal Nexus 