The Watering Hole, Wednesday, February 15th, 2017: First Hypocrisy, Now Treachery

It’s been well known for a long time that the GOP is the party of hypocrisy–hence the acronym IOKIYAR. Now, with all of the trump cabal’s innumerable Russian connections, it appears that the GOP is also the party of treachery.

Despite the fact that several U.S. Intelligence agencies have already been investigating key trump personnel, none of the pertinent House and Senate committees want to do a damn thing about it, with the minor exception of Kellyanne Conway’s “free commercial” for Ivanka Trump’s clothing line. No, instead, GOP leaders are either silent on the subject, or say that we should just “move on” now that Flynn has resigned. Apparently they do NOT give a damn that trump knew all about Flynn’s conversations with Russian contacts, in particular the call that Flynn made, on the day that Obama announced sanctions against Russia for interfering with our elections, to let Russia know that president trump would lift those sanctions.

Would ANY Democrat, even one not running for the Presidency, get away with something like this? FFS, the GOP held, what, seven or eight hearings on Benghazi, and went fucking nuts over Hillary Clinton’s emails, none of which in any way, shape or form, endangered the security of the United States. Yet the fact that trump has surrounded himself with people who have, in many cases, had longtime relationships with Russian officials doesn’t seem to worry our ever-so-patriotic Republican majority “leaders.” “Move along, nothing to see here, looky-loos” and “but what about Hillary and her emails” are the typical responses from the GOP.

Well, FUCK YOU, GOP, fuck you hard with something sharp. You are all useless pieces of shit, and I hope that not only does trump go down in flames, I hope he drags you all to hell with him.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now, just for laughs, here’s an article from the Christian Post that I know you’ll find amusing. I mean, just the title alone is hysterical: “God Delivered US from ‘Spirit of Witchcraft Through Trump”. Here’s an excerpt:

Appearing on “The Jim Bakker Show” on Tuesday, Christian thought leader Lance Wallnau spoke about President Donald Trump’s inauguration and the Women’s March on Washington that followed, saying God used Trump to deliver “the nation from the spirit of witchcraft in the Oval Office.”

“What I believe is happening is there was a deliverance of the nation from the spirit of witchcraft in the Oval Office,” said Wallnau, an evangelical business strategist and leader of the Lance Learning Group consulting firm in Dallas.

“The spirit of witchcraft was in the Oval Office, it was about to intensify to a higher level demon principality, and God came along with a wrecking ball, shocked everyone, the church cried out for mercy and bam—God knocked that spirit out, and what you’re looking at is the manifestation of an enraged demon through the populace,” he added.

“This is biblical,” Wallnau, author of God’s Chaos Candidate, added. “Many of the disruptions we are gonna see are going to be the evidence that we are seeing the awakening already began.”

Wallnau, who holds an M.A. from South Western Theological Seminary in Texas, predicted before the election that Trump was the “prophesied president.” He earlier explained that he came to this conclusion after attending a widely-publicized meeting between Donald Trump and evangelical leaders at the Trump Tower last year.

Giving an address at the 3rd Christian Inaugural Gala hosted by Women for a Great America at the Washington Hilton along with prominent Christian speakers and authors last month, Wallnau claimed that when he returned home to Dallas following the meeting with Trump, the Lord put the biblical passage of Isaiah 45 on his heart and told him that “the 45th president is Isaiah 45.”

[He actually had to use Google to confirm that trump would be the 45th president – and these evangelicals are demanding the right to preach politics from the pulpit?]

This is our Open Thread – have at it!

The Watering Hole; Thursday July 7 2016; Public Lands: “Footprints On The Sands Of Time”

“One does not sell the land people walk on.”
(Crazy Horse, Sept. 23, 1875)

******

It’s “political sleight-of-hand”: For their next trick, Republican magicians will make your federal land disappear

Pulling back the curtain, one finds that the movement to transfer federal lands to state ownership is being funded and driven by conservative business groups that want that land to be turned over to corporate interests to be exploited for profit, even if doing so destroys the environment. . . . It’s “political sleight-of-hand.” First, get the lands out of federal hands into state hands. Then, wait for the inevitable state budget crisis. Then, buy the resource-rich land, turning it from a beautiful, publicly accessible slice of nature into a resource extraction site.

******

First, a confession: I am an Environmentalist. With a capital ‘E’.

It’s no secret that from the viewpoint of today’s American Oligarchic monsters, Public Lands — National Parks, Forests, Monuments, Wildlife Preserves and Refuges, Wilderness and Primitive areas, BLM lands — are each and all considered useless for any purpose except privatization and subsequent commercial development, or logging, mining, oil/gas drilling, etc., so as to extract whichever “wealth” is implicit, and convert it to cash, to money. to private wealth. The forces behind this despicable movement range from political (mostly Republican) tools, to corporate oligarchs, to even the fools who think of themselves as parcel to a “militia” movement of some sort. The concept is, by any reasonable definition, both stupid and intolerable, but nevertheless the fact still stands: the rape of Public Lands is a big part of the corporate (and Republican) agenda.

The trammeling of wild and undisturbed land is not a new concept, of course. Here in North America, it’s been going on each and every day since the white man first set foot on the continent. Dig it, log it, drill it, kill it, pave it, — the current goal of fools everywhere represents a completely unsustainable future for not only the country, but the world as well. I’ve been watching the passion for Public Land destruction grow  for many years; I’ve seen the result, heard the racket, smelled it, even watched it burn.  Makes one wonder just what it is about money and power that causes so many people to be so willing to sacrifice the entire of the planet simply to satisfy their urge for MORE.

Anyway, around a decade ago and after having spent, over the preceding years, somewhere close to a thousand days and nights on deserts, in forests, on mountains, in meadows, always as far from “civilization” as the situation would allow, I came to be a partner of each and all who advocate absolute environmental protection, an advocate of preserving each and every square inch of Public Land everywhere (as well as adding to Public Land acreage if and whenever the opportunity presents itself). Nothing’s changed; that attitude remains constant.

Below are some excerpts from an essay on the matter that I wrote more than a decade ago, along with a handful of Colorado Public Land scenic photos taken beginning in 2008.

******

Footprints

“Footprints” is a personal statement of concern – greatly simplified – about all of that which is being done to this tiny planet by her major and dominant species, Homo sapiens sapiens, aka the human race. There are times when, to those of us who dwell in what seems to be the tiniest of tiny minorities, outrage over what has become common practice, and worse, common thought and opinion, overwhelms. Recognition of powerlessness is never an easy task and acceptance of that reality is even more difficult, but there are moments when it does, indeed, overtake. At that point, little is left to do other than to attempt a thoughtful explanation of ‘why the outrage,’ and then to intermingle outrage with recollections which have the potential to stem, at least for the moment, that which is perhaps best described as a severe case of indigestion in one’s soul.

Shakespeare’s Hamlet summed up reality when he said: There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your Philosophy. Problem is, no one takes the time to notice anymore, not in what has become a horribly anthropocentric world where the rush to find yet one more way to consume something, anything, invariably overcomes the search for those tiny nuances which make life not only interesting but also, in large degree, worthwhile.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow wrote,

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time

In Longfellow’s context, the phrase Footprints on the sands of time does not, of course, refer to actual boot imprints or to any other sort of human-caused physical scarring of the natural landscape; rather it refers to the beneficent contributions of a select few: from art, music, and philosophy to intellectual examinations of esoteric concepts such as Truth, Beauty, and Love, and to the intermingling and practical applications thereof – collectively, precepts of recognition and understanding which can and do apply to other than the narrow road of human existence itself. There are, indeed, numerous examples of both great men and great women who’ve lived lives of contribution and not of simple consumptive excess; their numbers, however, have been unfortunately minuscule compared with what are, in effect, their functional opposites.

“Take only pictures, leave only footprints” is the well-spoken and well-intended motto which sensitive visitors to wild lands take to heart and practice. Such attitude is, however and unfortunately, a distinctly minority view as is clearly evidenced in these days of rampant resource development. From oil and natural gas exploration/development in virtually any location, no matter how remote, that offers even the most meager possibility of discovery, to logging, to mining, to the ubiquitous practice of cattle grazing on public lands, and to urban development as well, men seldom take only pictures or leave only fleeting footprints. Even a fair and enduring segment of outdoor (so-called) recreationists – especially those who recreate on motorized off-road vehicles such as dirt bikes, ATVs, snowmobiles and the like – leave far more than footprints in their wake including racket, fumes, and a scarred and trammeled landscape, the sum of which scarcely falls into the “only footprints” category.

Chief Luther Standing Bear of the Teton Sioux once noted that For the Lakota, mountains, lakes, rivers, springs, valleys, and woods were all finished beauty. Winds, rain, snow, sunshine, day, night, and change of seasons were endlessly fascinating. Birds, insects, and animals filled the world with knowledge that defied the comprehension of man. From that otherwise vivid statement, however, derives the sad reality that in this modern day times have changed, that finished beauty does, indeed, defy the comprehension of man. At least of most men. To grasp that concept, one must first look around. Look at a mountain, or a prairie, a desert, a valley, a canyon, a lake, river, forest which remains undisturbed by man (if you can find one, that is); study a wildflower; watch the antics of a hummingbird; listen to the near noiseless motion of a deer as it meanders gracefully through forest or desert. Then turn around and look at a city, any city. Notice the smoke-filled air, hear the din, see the scars upon the land; see the polluted streams and rivers, the dying forests; call it all “civilization.” Then recall once more Chief Luther Standing Bear who also said, Civilization has been thrust upon me . . . and it has not added one whit to my love for truth, honesty, and generosity. . . .

A hundred years ago, author John C. Van Dyke wrote of what he had come to sense would be man’s eventual imprint on what were, then, still mostly wild lands, lands which he explored and then described in his many writings. Van Dyke succinctly noted that . . .

 . . . with the coming of civilization the grasses and the wild flowers perish, the forest falls, and its place is taken by brambles, the mountains are blasted in the search for minerals, the plains are broken by the plow and the soil is gradually washed into the rivers. Last of all, when the forests have gone the rains cease falling, the streams dry up, the ground parches and yields no life, and the artificial desert – the desert made by the tramp of human feet – begins to show itself. Yes; everyone must have cast a backward glance and seen Nature’s beauties beaten to ashes under the successive marches of civilization . . .

The successive marches of civilization: footprints by any other description.

Understand that Van Dyke wrote those words before even the automobile had entered the picture. He wrote of a world in which the major transportational conveyances were horses and/or horse-drawn wagons, plus the Iron Horse and, on the rivers, steamboats and barges. Yet he “saw” and predicted the eventual outcome, and the more wild country that was converted to humanized landscape, the more vividly accurate became Van Dyke’s predictions. One can only wonder what he might think today, if only he could travel once more the mountains and the deserts about which he wrote just one century ago.

Those who still live to recall that which Van Dyke saw a century ago are few-and-far-between these days . . . Why, one is always tempted to ask, do otherwise (seemingly) rational people tolerate urban sprawl and all the problems which it brings into play when there are other far less intrusive options available? In the late nineteenth century, Suqwamish Chief Seattle noted, We know that the white man does not understand our ways. One portion of the land is the same to him as the next, for he is a stranger who comes in the night and takes from the land whatever he needs. The earth is not his brother, but his enemy — and when he has conquered it, he moves on. He leaves his fathers’ graves, and his children’s birthright is forgotten.

Seattle’s point then, as now, recognizes that so-called ‘civilized’ man’s Footprints on the sands of time have become, in a mere 200 years, far greater than those left by ten thousand years of indigenous cultures which once inhabited the same ground. Today when we speak of footprints – “Footprints” – we must speak not of civilization in the classic sense, but rather of our culture of wanton destruction, a culture whose sole purpose is the pursuit of one more dollar, always and invariably at the planet’s expense, forever parcel to the enduring dream that yet another potential fortune is in the making. Meanwhile, we ignore that which, indeed, makes it possible for us to proceed at all: the life-giving biosphere in which we live – in more “primitive” terms, our Earth Mother.

[. . .]

There are, of course, no ways to reliably guess or even to speculate on that which the Earth Mother might hold as the future for man or for any other of her myriad life forms. Only one thing remains forever certain, and it was perhaps best spoken some three centuries ago by Sir Isaac Newton: (Nature) does nothing in vain, and more is in vain when less will serve; for Nature is pleased with simplicity, and affects not the pomp of the superfluous.

The pomp of the superfluous defines the vast bulk of what man brings to life’s table, and may in fact quite ably define the intrinsic nature of the species itself. I’ve long found it interesting that if one can find a patch of forest, desert, or prairie, or a lake, river, or stream which has somehow remained untouched by man – untrammeled – then wherever one looks, one sees the vibrancy of life always in perfect balance (and, of course, never a discarded bottle or can, or scrunched cigarette butt). John C. Van Dyke revealed his first impressions of himself alone in the wilderness and away from the world of men when he wrote, At last you are free. You are at home in the infinite, and your possessions, your government, your people dwindle away into needle-points of insignificance. Danger? Sleep on serenely! Danger lies within the pale of civilization, not in the wilderness. One quickly wonders: might not Van Dyke’s needle-points of insignificance be one-in-the-same with Newton’s pomp of the superfluous?

In any case, unanswered questions invariably remain: Why? Why is the human species as it is? Why is it so ill-content to live simply and in balance? Why the presumption of dominance? Why must an abundant life style preclude overflowing landfills loaded with yesterday’s must-haves? And finally, why must the pomp of the superfluous, i.e. those needle-points of insignificance such as mere possessions, governments, and people who see themselves as apart from the natural world define the human race when there is, virtually anywhere and everywhere, the potential for so much more?

The poet William Wordsworth once wrote, in his poem entitled Written in Early Spring,

I heard a thousand blended notes
While in a grove I sate reclined,
In that sweet mood when pleasant thoughts
Bring sad thoughts to the mind.

To her fair works did Nature link
The human soul that through me ran;
And much it grieved my heart to think
What man has made of man.

Through primrose tufts, in that sweet bower,
The periwinkle trail’d its wreaths;
And ’tis my faith that every flower
Enjoys the air it breathes.

The birds around me hopp’d and play’d,
Their thoughts I cannot measure,
But the least motion which they made
It seem’d a thrill of pleasure.

The budding twigs spread out their fan
To catch the breezy air;
And I must think, do all I can,
That there was pleasure there.

If this belief from Heaven be sent,
If such be Nature’s holy plan,
Have I not reason to lament
What man has made of man?

Wordsworth penned those words the better part of a century-and-a-half ago, and yet his finis rings every bit as true today as it did then:

Have I not reason to lament / What man has made of man?

Human leaves a strange legacy. In one sense, he’s no different than the birds, beasts, trees, or flowers: survival and the hope of prosperity forever remain the eternal goals for each and all. Yet only man presumes the inborn right to same, and by extension, the inborn right to trample all else to sevice his own domain.

A few days spent amongst the birds, beasts, trees, and flowers does much to expose the error in that premise, and invariably brings back to mind those Footprints on the sands of time, now forever linked to the lament . . . What man has made of man. We, of this age, could change that. If only we’d care to try.

******

Summer wildflowers, San Isabel National Forest, Colorado

Wild geese on the wing near the Sierra Mojada, San Isabel N.F., Colorado

******

That was then. THIS is now:

Mormon Bundy Loyalist Against Land Gift To American Citizens

The Quimby family, the makers of Burt’s Bees products, have offered to donate nearly 90,000 acres of pristine woodland area in Maine. Not only that, they have also included a generous donation of $40 million for the upkeep of the land. . . .

Utah Mormon, Rob Bishop is chairman of the House Committee on Natural Resources and was joined by vicious Maine Governor Paul LePage to reject transfer of the 87,500 acre land gift and obstruct its designation as a national monument. Republicans under Koch supervision insist that all public land be handed over to corporate privatization to be mined, logged or drilled for profits, not for the American people’s benefit. If the Quimby family wants to hand over the land to the Koch brothers to mine, log and drill for oil, Mormon Bishop, LePage, and House Republicans would probably name a post office after them. Instead, Maine Governor LePage lashed out at the gift-giving Quimby family like the ingrate Republican he has proven over and over to be. . . .

Bishop complains that a local Republican, some Maine malcontent, is right that if the land is a designated as national monument, then mining, logging and oil drilling corporations cannot ruin it and environmental laws will protect it from being despoiled and denuded. The land is protected now because it is privately held by the Quimby family non-profit, so there will be no change after the transfer and that is what Republicans cannot comport; they want change that entails corporate control and abolition of environmental protections.

Rep. Bishop’s hatred that the American people enjoy public lands is, or should be, legendary. Bishop is closely aligned with those other Mormons, the Cliven Bundy Republicans, sitting in jail who contend the public by way of the government is forbidden from owning or using public land.

There are no words to amply describe the disgust and loathing I feel toward any and all Bishop and LePage-style IDIOTS who are perfectly willing to leave no stone unturned in their effort to destroy both the concept of public land and all public land itself — via privatization — in their disgusting quest for money, no matter that the consequence is guaranteed to be either an unlivable world or a dead world. Subhuman IDIOTS who have zero concern for the planet’s myriad creatures and plants, who have no concept of Truth, of Beauty, of Love of anything other than themselves and their wallets, are truly the most despicable life forms that evolution has devised to date; they also serve as absolute proof that none of their imagined “gods” exist, unless folks are willing to believe god or gods make a living by creating IDIOTS!

**Fortunately, there are continuing efforts to alter or blockade the course of these IDIOTS. The Wilderness Society, in their own words, protects the places you care about. We are 143 people spread across the US who passionately believe that public lands are the best expression of what it is to be an American. Since 1935, we’ve led the effort to protect 109 million acres of wilderness, garnering more than 700,000 supporters along the way. If you care about Public Lands, follow the link and spend some time exploring the goals of The Wilderness Society’s #OurWild movement; then sign some petitions and help spread the word; help stop the anti-Public Land IDIOCY in its tracks!**

Help Save Places Such as THESE for Posterity!!

14,433 Ft. Mt. Elbert, the Highest Summit in the Colorado Rockies, White River N.F.

The Continental Divide’s Sawatch Range, White River N.F., Colorado

******

It goes without saying that IF Public Lands are privatized, the energy, mining, and logging industries will be among the first to tap their “new” resource. The consequence of such travesty is predictable, even by IDIOTS.

On July 4th, 2016, Jonathan Hoenig at Fox News had this to say:

We need more carbon emissions, Charles, we need more smoke
stacks, we need more burning of fossil fuels and energy because the
more we burn, the better man’s life has become. The more energy
we use, the greater amount of wealth that’s created.

Burning ever more fossil fuels means a better life for all because wealth. It goes without saying that Public Lands are reservoirs of wealth and therefore they should be privatized because that’ll make life better for . . . ??  For IDIOTS!!

“We didn’t inherit this world from our ancestors;
we borrowed it from our children.”
(Lakota Proverb)

******

 

OPEN THREAD

The Watering Hole, Monday, June 27th, 2016: “You Keep Using That Word…”

To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, with the word in question being “Liberal” instead of “Inconceivable!” (you have to read “Inconceivable!” in Wallace Shawn’s voice, of course): “You [conservatives] keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

The premise of the following three Christian Post articles is a discussion of recent books about the various authors’ [mistaken] ideas regarding liberals. I started out trying to keep this somewhat brief, but in the interests of keeping the salient points in context, it took on a life of its own. I’ll just share a excerpt of each.

In the earliest of the three articles, “Is Free Speech Just for Liberals?” CP guest contributor Susan Stamper Brown sez:

In the biography, “Churchill: A Life,” author Martin Gilbert writes how Winston Churchill loudly voiced his grave concerns about the apathy shared by those seemingly impervious to the malevolent National Socialist Movement’s intention to steam through Europe like volcanic lava, destroying everything in its way, including free speech.
In direct response, Hitler began warning Germans about the “dangers of free speech” and said, “If Mr. Churchill had less to do with traitors … he would see how mad his talk is …”

History revealed whose talk was really mad.

Truth is, Churchill’s words touched a nerve the annoying way truth always does. Hitler was incapable of engaging in intelligent debate, so he changed the subject, lied, and attacked Churchill’s character. Hitler knew his movement couldn’t stand on its own for what it really was, so the only alternative was to silence opposing views.

Throughout Germany books were banned and ceremoniously cast into blazing bonfires intended to squash divergence of thought and stifle man’s God-instilled unquenchable thirst for truth.

Historical accountings provide a glimpse into the warped psyche of those behind a movement that wrongheadedly believed they could build something worthwhile by shutting down debate, then dividing a nation by race and ethnicity.

They coldly chose their target, the Jewish race, and purged some of the greatest minds in history from all levels of teaching. Schools and universities suffered.

Before the movement decided to burn bodies as well as books, Historyplace.com cites that “Jewish instructors and anyone deemed politically suspect regardless of their proven teaching abilities or achievements including 20 past (and future) Nobel Prize winners” were removed from their professions, among them Albert Einstein.

I would’ve been one of those “purged professionals,” based on what I’ve heard lately from some disgruntled left-leaning readers. Because of my personal opinion about the president, one reader called me “a racist,” a “religious bigot,” and “a political terrorist.” While calling me a “political terrorist” is noteworthy at least, most telling is this poor man’s statement that my column, as offensive as it was to him, “was permitted” in his newspaper.

Apparently, free speech is just for leftists.

After that, the author continued to talk more about herself, so I tuned her out. I probably should have done so when she first mentioned Hitler, but her description of Hitler’s reaction, which I highlighted above, sounded so much like Trump that I had to share it with you.

In the next article, “If Intolerant Liberals Succeed, ‘Conservatives Should Be Very Afraid,’ Expert Says”, by CP’s Napp Nazworth, the breaking point came after this bullshit:

Conservatives would have much to fear if intolerant liberals succeed in their goal of transforming America, says Kim R. Holmes, author of “The Closing of the Liberal Mind: How Groupthink and Intolerance Define the Left.”
The illiberal, or intolerant, Left has come to define liberalism in the United States today, Holmes told The Christian Post, and if these liberals gain control of the Supreme Court and other levers of government, conservatives will be punished for their views.

Then these portions of the interview with the author:

CP: Why did you want to write this book?
Holmes: Like a lot of people I saw how closed-minded and intolerant progressivism had become. Whether it was speech codes or “safe spaces” on campuses, or attorneys general issuing subpoenas against so-called climate change “deniers,” abuses in the name of progressivism were getting worse.

I wanted to understand why. I wanted to tell the story of how a liberalism that had once accepted freedom of speech and dissent had become its opposite — a close-minded ideology intent on denying people their freedoms and their constitutionally protected rights.

CP: Liberalism was once defined by tolerance and open-mindedness, but liberals have become increasingly intolerant and closed-minded. We are beginning to see this phrase “illiberal liberal” more often, which gets confusing. How are we to make sense of what liberal means today?

Holmes: A classic liberal is someone who believes in open inquiry, freedom of expression and a competition of ideas. Its founders were people like John Locke, Thomas Jefferson and Alexis de Tocqueville. Among its most important ideas are freedom of conscience and speech; individual (as opposed to group) rights; and checks and balances in government.

Although progressives are sometimes referred to as “liberals,” they are not classic liberals in this sense. They are philosophically more akin to socialists or social democrats. Classic liberalism as defined here is actually closer to the views of American conservatives and libertarians than to progressives and leftists.

The term “illiberalism” is the opposite of this classic style of liberalism; it represents a political mindset that is closed-minded, intolerant and authoritarian. Although illiberalism can be historically found on the right (fascism) and the left (communism), it is today not commonly associated with American progressives. Nevertheless, it should be.

Progressives are becoming increasingly illiberal not only in their mindset but in the authoritarian methods they use to impose their views on others.

~~ and ~~

CP: Last week, President Barack Obama sent a letter to all public schools threatening to withhold federal funds if they don’t change their bathroom and locker room policies to allow use based upon gender identity rather than biological sex. Does the Left’s new intolerance help us understand Obama’s actions?

Holmes: Yes. Obama comes out of this illiberal strain of the left.

Last, this misleadingly-named piece of utter drivel written by CP’s Brandon Showalter, “Liberals Use Gov’t Power, Intimidation, to Silence Christians, Author Says.” It doesn’t take long to realize that by “Christians”, both the author of the article and the author of the book actually mean “conservatives”, and the complaint is about the fight against “Citizens United”:

WASHINGTON – Conservatives and Christians are being intimidated by the Left and an increasingly abusive government, says Kimberly Strassel, author of The Intimidation Game: How the Left is Waging War of Free Speech.
In a Thursday presentation at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., Strassel told The Christian Post that overt hostility and harassment of people of faith “is clearly a big issue.”

In light of the 2013 IRS scandal where it was discovered that conservative and Christian groups were unfairly targeted, CP asked Strassel how many people she interviewed had experienced an overt assault on their faith.

While “the people that I talked to generally felt as though all their views were under attack,” Strassel said, “they certainly felt as though one aspect of them, was in fact their faith.”

“We are seeing this a lot, obviously, in the war on faith out there that we have had with the battles over Obamacare and contraception,” she added.

In her book Strassel examines the Left’s penchant, particularly in the Obama years, for bullying their opponents and their use of government agencies to silence citizens from participating in the political process.

Although she touched on several facets of the Left’s intimidation game in her presentation, the core issue she covered was the right of Americans to form associations and participate in representative government. This the Left cannot abide when conservatives do it successfully, she argued.

“The reality is that money is a proxy for speech,” Strassel contended, and Americans have always formed groups to get their message out. To the incredulity of the Left, she argued we we need more money, not less, in politics. More money means more speech. More free speech yields a more vigorous debate and a healthier democracy.

Let me repeat those last two lines: More money means more speech. More free speech yields a more vigorous debate and a healthier democracy.”  What happened to the “FREE” part of “FREE SPEECH”?

Money CANNOT equal speech – the poorest man can still speak and vote – well, vote ONCE; on the other hand, the richest man can buy as many votes as he wants.  The whole argument of Citizens United was and is specious, and the Supremes fucked us over real good when they decided on that piece of shit.

Here’s a pretty picture to give your mind a break.
GLORY10

This is our daily Open Thread – have at it!

The Watering Hole, Monday, May 9th, 2016: Are We There Yet?

Here’s two (well, sort of – you’ll see what I mean) predictions about frightening futures, which we seem to be fulfilling here in the largest superpower on the planet.

First, an interesting article entitled “Neil Postman Predicted Trumpocalypse 30 Years Ago”, by Dr. Richard D. Land at the Christian Post. Dr. Land discusses a 1985 book by Neil Postman called Amusing Ourselves to Death. Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. An excerpt:

Postman started off his book by contrasting the two most dystopian visions of modern civilization’s future, George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932).
Postman’s contrast of the two dystopian visions of the future is chilling:

“What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies . . .”

The Internet has changed the basic DNA of our culture, including our social and personal relationships and our information access. It has radically democratized communication, while at the same time condemning any effective editorial or verifying filter as the unwelcome control of a hated elite. Consequently, we are being engulfed not only in a sea of moral relativism, but information relativism as well. The immersion of our culture in Internet speak has brought us perilously close to a denial, if not a revocation of the late, great, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s statement that “you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Now, opinions too often masquerade as facts, and fewer and fewer know the difference and increasingly fewer care.

As Postman pointed out, Huxley was trying to warn the future “that what afflicted people in Brave New World was not that they were laughing instead of thinking, but that they did not know what they were laughing about and why they had stopped thinking.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now a more pithy prediction in a similar vein, from Carl Sagan’s 1996 “The Demon-Haunted World”:
sagan hauntedHave we arrived at any – or all of – these future visions?

This is our daily Open Thread – you know what to do.

The Watering Hole, Monday, March 14th, 2016: Cuteness Trumps Evil At The End

This weekend I OD’d on Trump. And jelly beans. I’m not sure which made me feel worse.

I refuse to watch any of the myriad videos of Hair Drumpf that have dominated the internets over the past, well, forever it seems. As I have mentioned in comments elsewhere, being a lifelong New Yorker means, in part, that we’ve been exposed to toxic levels of NY’s own version of Agent Orange since long before “Celebrity Apprentice” existed. Having long ago dismissed Drumpf à l’Orange as a loud-mouthed, self-important asshole, it’s frightening to see so many people taken in by this vulgar charlatan. Especially if one looks at his mouth. It appears to have been shaped over a lifetime of angrily hurling bullying insults and orders. How can anyone look at Drumpf “speaking” without being disgusted and horrified?

Here’s a shot from a thread at ThinkProgress:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump describes how he was ready to punch a person who rushed the stage during an election rally earlier in the day, as he speaks to a crowd in Kansas City, Mo., Saturday. CREDIT: AP Photo/Nati Harnik

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump describes how he was ready to punch a person who rushed the stage during an election rally earlier in the day, as he speaks to a crowd in Kansas City, Mo., Saturday. CREDIT: AP Photo/Nati Harnik

The next few are from various threads at Raw Story:

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Bloomington, Illinois, March 13, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young

U.S. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a campaign rally in Bloomington, Illinois, March 13, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young

Trump prepares to spit venom at Jake Tapper.

Trump prepares to spit venom at Jake Tapper.

A commenter at Raw Story posted this GIF.

A commenter at Raw Story posted this ‘Trump Snarling’ GIF.

But enough ugliness, even for a Monday. Here’s some cuteness to counteract the face if evil:
cat star

And perhaps a little tranquility for the end of the day:
SKYFIRE4V

This is our daily Open Thread – talk about whatever’s on your mind.

Sunday Roast: Can’t stop watching…

 

I admit it:  I can’t get enough of Drumpf getting the shit startled out of him when a protester made it past the security gates (although not on stage).  I wish I were more of a computer geek, so I could make a loop of the initial panicked grabbing of the podium, through the “I just want to go home” look when the secret service guys let him go back to inciting the crowd.

Drumpf was probably hoping they’d just rush him back onto the Drumpf Aeroplane, so he could he could have a bit of a crying jag — and then have his manservant bring him fresh drawers.  He talks tough, but I think he actually pissed himself in Dayton, OH.

You reap what you sow, you bombastic blibbering baboon.

This is our daily open thread — Watch it again!

 

Sunday Roast: Another year gone; what have we learned?

I know I’ve posted this video a few times over the years, in one form or another, but I’m posting it again.

Why?  That’s a good question.  I’m glad you asked.

I don’t know if it’s because I’m feeling especially pessimistic or cynical these days, but I’m thinking that we haven’t learned anything over the past year.  Maybe it’s just that the United States is absolutely fucking bonkers right now, and I’m having trouble seeing the good in the world; or maybe we’re at a critical turning point, and, much like correcting a naughty child, the behavior gets much worse before it starts getting better.

I hope it’s both, and I hope the “getting better” part starts happening soon.

This is the last Sunday Roast of the year — What do you think?