Daily Gnuz

And here is some of the Gnuz that’s fit to print today!

McConnell allies confident in healthcare win h/t The Hill
I doubt it. The Republicans, having forsaken the art of compromise since Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America, can’t get the outer edges of their party to agree on anything. They are incapable of governing.

And

‘Trump Is What Happens When a Political Party Abandons Ideas’ h/t Politico
No shit Sherlock.

Finally

Ron Johnson: People With Pre-existing Conditions Are Like ‘Somebody After They Crash Their Car’ h/t C&L
Exhibits A, B, C, D….
As a lung cancer survivor, Senator Johnson, you are despicable. What car crash was I in that I should be denied or have my premiums jacked up for?

Open Thread for your posting pleasure

RUCerious @ TPZoo

Advertisements

Randy Rainbow weighs in on Alternative Facts

This is how I’d like to see the White House Press Corps respond to this administration’s bullshit artists.

The Watering Hole; Thursday September 15 2016; That “Basket of Deplorables”: Take A Closer Look

Message to Donald J. Trump and his campaign surrogates:

“Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt.”
(Mark Twain)

Last Friday evening (September 9), Hillary Clinton accurately described Trump’s campaign supporters in rather near poetic fashion when she said, to applause and laughter, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic — you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

A few nanoseconds later, the shit was in the fan. The media, Trump, the Trump campaign surrogates, Trump supporters (and probably even Vladimir Putin) all came together in a cumulative “deplorable” lambast. Clinton later walked the comments back a notch when she suggested that she shouldn’t have used the word “half” because it might not have been precisely accurate, but doing so didn’t buy her much relief from the faux outrage. And while it’s undoubtedly true that the word “half” — i.e. exactly 50% — is clearly not definitively posited by national (statistically precise) polling data, . . . well, suffice to say that even though it was grossly generalistic, it probably wasn’t really THAT far off.

So I decided to look into it. First, the pot calls the kettle black when Trump announces that “Hillary Clinton still hasn’t apologized to those she slanders.” Trump hasn’t either, of course, but that moot little point is apparently of no consequence, given that Donald Trump Wasted No Time in Defending His ‘Basket Of Deplorables.’ Not a big surprise, really. “Deplorables” are like that. Usually.

Next up, a “brief” peek at a fair number of current “revelations” that a fair number of Trump’s well known and familiar vocalizers have revealed, revelations that do, indeed, drop them into that “deplorable” trap —  and for a far wider variety of reasons than just those noted by Hillary. In most cases, the titles speak for themselves; underneath some, however, are my own brief comments, while underneath others are quotes from inside the linked article itself that demonstrate the deplorable nature of . . . etc. But all together, the point is clarified and driven home as if by spikes driven through one’s hand and into a wooden cross: Hillary’s grossly generalistic hypothesis was damn close to being spot-on correct. Continue reading

The Watering Hole; Friday July 22 2016; Proposal For An Amendment To The Constitution

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal . . .

Earlier this week, Congressman Steve King (Repugnant, IA) opened his pie hole on MSNBC, and this putridity fell out in response to Esquire writer Charles P. Pierce, who criticized the role of “old white people” in the Republican party:

“This whole ‘old white people’ business does get a little tired, Charlie. I’d ask you to go back through history and figure out where are these contributions that have been made by these other categories of people that you are talking about? Where did any other subgroup of people contribute more to civilization?” King asked.

“Than white people?” MSNBC host Chris Hayes prompted.

“Than Western civilization itself that’s rooted in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and the United States of America, and every place where the footprint of Christianity settled the world,” King responded. “That’s all of Western civilization.”

OK, so there it is: the ‘root’ of Western civilization  is every place where the footprint of Christianity kicked ass and became the dominant culture. The entire rest of the world essentially defines inferiority.

Later on ABC, King reiterated his asininity by saying this:

“What I really said was ‘Western civilization’ and when you describe Western civilization that can mean much of Western civilization happens to be Caucasians. But we should not apologize for our culture or our civilization,” King said, according to the network. “The contributions that were made by Western civilization itself, and by Americans, by Americans of all races stand far above the rest of the world. The Western civilization and the American civilization are a superior culture.”

King said he was open to criticism because it leads to “dialogue.”

“But what we have is people who are trying to parse something, to hyperventilate about that,” King told ABC. “I’m OK if they do that because it starts the dialogue so we can open up more minds so people can think about what’s right for America.”

In brief, it’s Caucasians who did it. who brought forth the culture of Western civilization, apparently aided by Americans of all races (including, I suppose, those that were brought here as slaves, plus alladem uncivilized aboriginal injuns, the Chinks that built railroads for white Christian businessmen, also them Japs, Spics, Kikes, Wops, Chewies) . . . how sad that in spite of our Western Civ’s whiteness and accomplishments, what we have is people who are trying to parse something, to hyperventilate about that.

Hyperventilate: to breathe very quickly and deeply

Parse: to analyze (something, as a speech or behavior) to
discover its implications or uncover a deeper meaning

OK, we can start there. I will hyperventilate, then parse.

(Puff puff pant pant) Let me begin by simply saying that the one human condition that I absolutely and fundamentally ABHOR is the tendency for one segment of the overall species to consider itself superior to all other “different” segments of the same species. In that scenario, “different” is foolishly defined — it can be “race,”  the scientifically invalid taxonomic phenotype based mainly on skin color; it can be religion-based; nationality; language — take your pick, devise a new one, no science required, only irrational fear-based hate.

Steve King’s nonsense is nothing more than directed hatred, fueled by ignorance and fear. He and his hate-filled ilk remind me, for some really “odd” reason, of TS Eliot’s definition of “Hollow Men,” esp. the lines that read,

Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats’ feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar

Must have been the Hyperventilation.

Time now to parse. Steve King has revealed himself to be (in case anyone ever had any doubt) the quintessential Supremacist of the White-(faux)-Christian variety. He effectively, in the process, has diminished or dismissed everyone on the planet who is not white, not a (faux) Christian, as being of that inferior ilk that has never and can never accomplish anything useful. The big question that has haunted me since I first read King’s nonsensical diatribe is a simple one: How dumb and/or mis/uninformed must one be to imply that only “white Christians” are responsible for accomplishment (whatever that is) and for civilization?

I’ll not try to analyze King, or any of his ilk — never liked hyperventilating all that much. Suffice to say that he and his bubbas are perfectly willing and able to deny the accomplishments of all but white (faux) Christians. That list would include (but not be limited to) black people (of course), Asians (Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Burmese, Thais, Indonesians, Philippinos, people from India, Nepal, Mongolia — the Himalayas), also Aboriginal Peoples (Eskimos, N. and S. American “Indians”), and of course, Polynesians; add to all of them anyone who’s not Christian, i.e. all Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, atheists (the latter including, of course, moi along with plenty of other old — and young — white guys), and then work to dodge the hate and fear directed toward each and all.

In a word, King’s thesis is DISGUSTING!

I’d like to prove him wrong, of course. I also realize that trying to convince any loudmouthed and stupid (faux) Christian-white-guy is not something one might hope to accomplish in a lifetime. Therefore, I came up with an idea – – an amendment to the US Constitution, one that will serve to either prove or DISprove King’s thesis. And it’s so simple, so logical, and will probably serve to endear “us” to broad-minded people the world over, regardless of race, belief . . . well, you know.

I’ve not fine-tuned the wording yet, but here’s my rough draft for:

Article XXVIII.

Section 1.

All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof — with the exception of all white males of any religious persuasion — shall be, for a period of 100 years following the date of ratification of this amendment, eligible to become President of the United States. The Presidency will be thus limited to people of any race – any color – other than white male; any religion (including atheism); and with no restrictions on gender expressed or implied other than the one noted above, so women of any and all groups are eligible.

Section 2.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who does not believe in the absolute equality of every person on the planet regardless of race, skin color, or religious belief (including atheism).

There. It’s a little lengthy, I know, but the wording remains wide open to suggestion from any legitimate quarter — so long as it puts Steve King and ALL like him in their subservient place. But only for a hundred years, not permanently.

I expect that millions of data gatherers will gather data on a daily basis, and that after one hundred years, I’m betting the data will show that in “the greatest country the world has ever known,” one hundred straight years of multi-racial leadership will simply show that white supremacists bring nothing special to the table, and that Steve King and ALL bigots like him are the creatively inferior and insurrectionist IDIOTS they have, over the centuries, demonstrated themselves to be!

******

“I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side
of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a
radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the
shift from a ‘thing-oriented’ society to a ‘person-oriented’
society. When machines and computers, profit motives and
property rights are considered more important than people,
the giant triplets of racism, materialism and militarism are
incapable of being conquered.”
(Martin Luther King, Jr.; April 4, 1967)

******

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, Tuesday March 1, 2016 – Super Tuesday

We interrupt our regular programs to bring you up to the minute commentary by posters of this blog on the Super Tuesday primary event. As a way of introduction and background, here is a snippet from Raw Story:

Democrat Hillary Clinton aims to build an impregnable lead on “Super Tuesday,” the most consequential day of the presidential nominations calendar, while Republicans struggle to derail their insurgent and controversial front-runner Donald Trump.

With barely 24 hours before the big day, Clinton and Trump are well positioned to secure the lion’s share of the delegate bonanza in the 11 states voting in each party’s primaries.

Trump and Hillary? Let the voters decide.

Follow the money (per NBC News):

 

 

 

The Watering Hole, Tuesday February 2, 2016 Groundhog Day Special – The Iowa Caucus

From the Washington Post as of 8:30 PM PST on2/1/16.

“DES MOINES — Supporters of Sen. Ted Cruz delivered a hard-fought upset win over businessman Donald Trump in the Iowa Republican caucuses Monday night, making good on his bet that a methodical campaign organization would eclipse the New Yorker’s media dominance in the first test of GOP voters.

Live results: Track the Democratic caucus vote

Live results: Track the Republican caucus vote

With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Cruz (Tex.) was besting Trump by more than 5,100 votes, with fellow senator Marco Rubio of Florida a close third. Cruz appeared to capitalize on deep support from religious and social conservatives and showed that old-fashioned retail politicking could overcome Trump’s massive political rallies in the Hawkeye state.

On the Democratic side, former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) were virtually deadlocked with 91 percent of the precincts reporting, as months of heated rhetoric and fierce jockeying in the 2016 race for the White House was finally put to the test on both sides.

What it looks like on the ground in Iowa for the caucuses

Former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley had negligible support and was expected to suspend his campaign Monday night, according to a person close to his campaign.”

The Washington Post

iowa caucus