Over the weekend I heard an interview with the author of what we can only assume will be one of dozens of books written now and in the near future about the killing of Osama bin Laden. One (throwaway) comment the author made was so stunning that I immediately set out to verify it when I arrived at home.
A little background. The CIA claims that it first discovered the bin Laden house in Abbottabad in 2010 through a combination of satellite images – the house stood out as newly built, very large, and "obviously custom-built to hide someone of significance" – and by following a known al-Qaeda courier to the location. online pharmacy clomiphene best drugstore for you
Over the next year the CIA used undercover agents stationed in a safe house in Abbottabad to conduct surveillance on the compound. The author being interviewed described the results of their efforts – and I found this verified in the Washington Post – as follows:
Despite what officials described as an extraordinarily concentrated collection effort leading up to the operation, no U.S. spy agency was ever able to capture a photograph of bin Laden at the compound before the raid or a recording of the voice of the mysterious male figure whose family occupied the structure’s top two floors. Indeed, current and former U.S. intelligence officials said bin Laden employed remarkable discipline in his efforts to evade detection.
Seems innocent enough, right?
Except it means that Barack Obama essentially put his entire political life on the line here by ordering the raid (and rejecting Clinton-like options such as cruise missile attacks) without anyone being able to state with certainty that bin Laden was actually there. No one had seen him. No one had heard him. No one snapped a picture. Sure, the circumstantial evidence suggested that he was living there. But they didn't know. Obama might be criticized for making a foolish rush to judgment based on limited information. I'm more inclined to look at it as a "balls of steel" moment that no one – least of all Republicans – gave him any credit for.
Imagine this scenario: a bunch of CIA/military operatives invade a foreign country unannounced.
They assault this compound. Things don't go quite as well as planned. American soldiers are killed. A helicopter crashes. Civilians are killed by a stray explosion. And bin Laden isn't there. It turns out that the house was hiding some run-of-the-mill opium dealer or Russian mobster. The raid combines huge losses with zero gains. Can you imagine the public reaction? The FOX News reaction? The House GOP's reaction? Obama would have been hung in effigy and I'm certain someone would have suggested hanging him in the flesh as well. It would have made Jimmy Carter and "Desert One" look like a rousing success in comparison.
That's not what happened, of course. Bin Laden was there, no American casualties were reported, and the mission went, despite the loss of one helicopter, without a hitch for the most part. It was a much bigger risk than anyone depicted it at the time, and since then the Obama people have done next to nothing to play up the "This was actually a pretty big goddamn risk, if you must know" angle. No aircraft carrier / flight suit parades. Just a hint of gloating. Had a Republican made the same decision under the same circumstances the media would be soiling themselves in awe and Congress would be preparing to chisel him into Mount Rushmore. But it wasn't a Republican; it was the brown guy who really isn't American to begin with.
Anyone who says that Obama didn't take a risk, didn't make a bold decision, or didn't really do anything of note ("Why give him credit? All he did was give the order!") exists in a fantasy world. It puzzled me in the immediate aftermath how the argument that Obama deserved no credit could be plausible…I mean, it makes sense only inasmuch as the right wing wouldn't have blamed Obama had the mission failed, i.e.,it made no sense at all. Whatever your opinion about the value of the objective or the moral implications of de facto assassination missions, it is undeniable that Obama put his entire presidency on the line there – and he did so with much less information than most of us realized at the time. Despite the great lengths our military and intelligence agencies go to creating an image of omnipotence, they basically gave the White House a photo of a house and a hearty, "Yeah we're pretty sure he's in there." And then the President approved the highest risk, most dangerous option presented to him for dealing with bin Laden.
That deserves a slow clap. I have to say, this actually bumped Obama up a little in my estimation – not because he "killed Osama, wooo!" but because he took an enormous risk to achieve something he promised the nation he would try to do and he didn't even get much credit for it. Nor did he harp on the details, on the magnitude of the risk, to harangue the media and public into applauding louder for what he had done. He ran out on the tightrope with no safety net beneath him; if this operation went bad it would have gone really, irretrievably bad. online pharmacy furosemide best drugstore for you
He did it anyway, and yet the two George Bushes are the presidents that supposedly approached foreign policy with a steely-eyed resolve that liberal pussies could never understand.
There are precious few good things to say about being raised Catholic, but if nothing else I'm glad I was not raised in one of the religions that believe ancient religious texts to be literally true. To have to believe – and to be repeatedly taught by parents and authority figures – that the Bible is a true, historically accurate document would, I imagine, leave one with a skewed sense of the line separating fact and fiction. buy kamagra generic onlinebuynoprescriptionrx.com over the counter
I distinctly recall being about four years old, hearing the story of Noah's Ark, and thinking, "No fuckin' way, man. How big was this boat? How'd they get every animal on the other continents? What did they eat?" And when a story has enough obvious holes in it that small children roll their eyes, its literal truth is going to be a tough sell.
The good thing is, when I pointed out that the story makes no sense my dad explained to me the concept of allegory. While the tale might not be exactly what happened, it captures the essence of some historical event and teaches us a lesson worth learning. Ah. OK. Then it made more sense. Had the conversation gone in another direction ("No, little Eddie, this IS exactly what happened, and you are not to question it") I'd be a very different person right now, I think.
In Catholic schools I always found the clergy to be refreshingly candid about key events in the Bible being historically dubious and essentially fables. Catholics won't budge an inch on dogma, but they won't try to tell you that, for example, the Biblical accounts of the nativity (Jesus's birth) stand up to scrutiny. At this time of year you're probably seeing numerous plastic, glowing depictions of little J-Money in a manger, being visited by wise men and whatnot. Have you ever really thought about how nonsensical that story is? Leave aside the virgin birth part, even, and the story is still holier than the boxer shorts I no longer have to throw out now that my wife left me.
1. Why would Joseph and Mary return to Bethlehem for a census? What kind of census would make everyone in the Roman Empire pack up and go back to their place of birth, even though they no longer live there?
2. The Gospels offer two different but equally ridiculous explanations of how Jesus is a descendant of King David through his father, despite the fact that Jesus is not actually related to Joseph by blood.
3. How did the Magi/Kings/Wise Men/whatever show up at precisely the right moment on their journey of hundreds of miles "following a star"?
4. Why December 25? Our calendar didn't even exist yet.
The answers are quite simple. He was ham-handedly "related" to David and born in Bethlehem because – surprise, surprise – the prophecies stated that the Messiah would be related to David and born in Bethlehem. The Wise Men is just a narrative flourish, and December 25th was chosen to coincide with the winter solstice (Dec. 21/22, but Christmas day drifted over time due to changes in the Julian and Gregorian calendars).
This does not bother most Christians; they are comfortable admitting that the details of the story – the facts – are not relevant; the larger truth represented by the story is what counts. If telling this little Nativity fable is or was useful in convincing people of that truth (Jesus is the son of God and the Messiah), then so be it. The facts are subservient to the message.
This mindset is quite common and it's one of the major reasons that we talk over and past one another about so many topics these days, especially regarding politics.
Half of us say, "Wait a minute, these numbers don't add up" and we can't wrap our mind around the fact that the other half of us don't care whether or not they do. Who cares if the numbers add up, the underlying belief is still valid. This struck me repeatedly throughout the campaign, especially with Romney. What the candidate says, and how frequently his statements contradict themselves and change, is not really important. What matters is the ideology he represents.
Tell the proles whatever will satisfy them; it's OK to lie, exaggerate, or embellish to convince them of the greater ideological truth. If some funny math, half-true examples, and fabricated anecdotes help people believe that tax cuts stimulate the economy, then all the better. So what if the details don't add up as long as the message gets across.
This is just a theory on my part, but it goes a long way toward explaining why people are able to hold strong political beliefs and be unfazed when you point out that their facts are all wrong. Facts aren't important when you're in the business of converting the heathens to the word of the Lord.
I have always wanted to write for a living, although I certainly can't complain about the regular paychecks and benefits that come with this less exciting job. Many of you know from bitter firsthand experience that making money writing is very difficult today. It has never been easy, of course; there's a reason Kafka was an insurance clerk, TS Eliot worked at Lloyd's of London, Vonnegut ran a Saab dealership, Harper Lee made reservations for Eastern Airlines customers, and Orwell was a cop in colonial Burma. No one will claim that writing professionally ever has been anything but risky and difficult. buy zovirax online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/zovirax.html no prescription
Today, however, people who generate creative output for a living – this problem isn't limited to writing, of course – face the additional obstacle of changing expectations. Namely that they are expected to work for free or close to it. If you think all those writers on big name sites (Slate, HuffPo, Gawker, etc. https://landmarkfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/jpg/clomid.html
) are being paid more than a pittance or at all for the content they generate, you are mistaken. Consumers now expect to be provided with content for free; behold the wailing and gnashing of teeth across the internet when something is put "behind a paywall" at Harper's or the NY Times. Can you believe that they actually expect us to pay for information and entertainment? That's so 20th Century.
Another more insidious type of work-for-free arrangement has become disturbingly common among people who work in art, graphic design, and web development: the "crowdsourcing" of content. Crowdsourcing is one of those horrid buzzwords crafted to sound techno-libertarian and empowering (Harness the power of collective ideas!) but in reality, media outlets use it to get for free content or services they would otherwise need to pay a professional to do. Need a new logo, or perhaps some cover art for your next issue? buy albuterol online jersey-hemp.com/wp-content/languages/new/online/albuterol.html no prescription
Paying someone is a waste of money. Just have a "contest" and legions of unemployed, publicity-seeking artists/designers will gladly produce your artwork on their own time and freely hand it over in the hopes of winning five minutes' worth of exposure and attention.
By now we have all realized that musician Amanda Palmer is probably the worst person on Earth, what with the fiasco of asking for a million bucks from her fans to record an album (I guess her multimillionaire husband couldn't finance the endeavor, nor could Palmer from her previous earnings). She followed that up with a truly reprehensible scheme to "crowdsource" the backing band for her subsequent tour, getting a group of volunteer musicians in each city on the tour to join her on stage. Compensation would consist of "beer, merchandise, and hugs", said the repugnant excuse for a human. Isn't that neat? What a great way to let the fan community take part in creating the performances, and as a total coincidence I guess she won't have to pay, feed, transport, and house any musicians throughout the tour!
This kind of explicit middle finger to people attempting to make a living writing, drawing, playing an instrument, painting, and so on can only succeed when there is a critical mass of people desperate for work and struggling to make ends meet. It's an interesting collective action problem; certainly each artist knows that submitting designs for free is hurting every artist's efforts to make a living, but the individual incentive for publicity, credentials, ("winner of the….") and attention is too strong. And of course the internet makes it remarkably fast, cheap, and easy to harness the creative talents of thousands of people with the promise of nothing more than a pat on the back. https://landmarkfamilydental.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/jpg/flagyl.html
The majesty of the new economy is infinite indeed, with its myriad ways of providing things that are ostensibly free but carry great hidden costs.
Growing up in Chicagoland I have had a front row seat at the circus that is Cook County politics. Corruption and nepotism are virtually synonymous with Chicago government and politics, and this has always struck me as simultaneously well deserved and totally unfair. buy zithromax online blackmenheal.org/wp-content/languages/new/us/zithromax.html no prescription
Certainly the city and county have proven time and again that there is no deal too crooked or no alderman's nephew too inept. However, no one has been able to argue that this differs significantly from any other large American city or, for that matter, any small town's politics. You've never seen graft, corruption, abuse of power, and the Old Boys' Network until you've seen them in rural areas. Hell, at least Chicago is big enough that the entire city isn't owned and controlled by one family. How many small towns can say the same?
Local media outlets love pushing these "Look at how corrupt Chicago is" stories because they resonate well with readers. It makes people mad. It gives people something to blame for the government's failures, something to vent their own frustrations at. Consider this Chicago Sun-Times story about County Assessor Joe Berrios, who has 15 relatives either employed by or retired from jobs with Cook County. The headline is well-crafted for maximum outrage: "15 members of Joe Berrios' family on county, state payrolls." What is not explained, however, is how Mr. Berrios is responsible for members of his family who got jobs 30 years before he was elected Assessor, or, more importantly, how this differs from any other job, industry, company, or government in the nation.
People relate to these stories because it allows them to project their own lack of happiness or success on a scapegoat. "I guess you have to be related to someone to get a good job around here!
" they say to themselves. And they are, of course, right. We know they are right because that's how the damn world works. Why would it not work that way in Cook County government?
One of the harshest lessons America teaches its young people is that they have been lied to when we told them that our system is a meritocracy. Yes, talent and achievement will help you do better in life, but we find out quickly in adolescence and young adulthood that who you know and who you're related to are pretty significant variables as well. We start working – in any field: public, private, academic, non-profit, military, etc. – and we discover that the world is absolutely full of talentless daughters, nephews, and old college buddies who are doing quite well despite having no qualifications or talent other than the good fortune to know someone powerful. Nowhere is this more obvious, especially to college students who may not yet be aware that life isn't fair, than in the world of Interning. It's truly amazing how often the big D.C. or Wall Street or Madison Avenue internships go to young people who have parents wealthy enough to support them and with family connections. Quite a coincidence, isn't it, that the fratboy whose dad works for Lockheed Martin gets the Congressional internship alongside the talentless children of various campaign contributors. That's almost as amazing as the preponderance of children-of working in any private corporation or family-owned business.
It is very easy to single out someone like Joe Berrios and vent our anger at him for being arrogant and stupid enough to hire his own children after being elected. It is equally easy to pretend that this state of affairs is unique to Chicago or to government in general. Deep down I believe that we all know better, though. We've all had to put up with the boss's son (or some other variant of the friends-and-family system) at some point in our lives. Maybe we are idealistic and expect better of our government, holding it to a higher standard. Or perhaps the government is just a convenient target because information about things like salaries are publicly available. I agree with the Sun-Times that what Mr. Berrios did is unethical, but I have to wonder what we would uncover if we did a similar analysis of the friends, family, and connections of the interns, reporters, editors, and other people working in their own newsroom. Anyone with firsthand experience in the world of professional journalism knows that the odds of finding nepotism at play are holding steady at 100%, plus or minus zero.
Despite that, I thoroughly enjoy watching the news networks and commentators fighting one another for the coveted title of Most Morally Outraged. A married man had sex with his obsequious biographer? Why I never. It's a great opportunity for America to show off its puritan streak, and it raises the interesting question of how long a society can continue to hold a given attitude when almost none of its individual members do.
Being at least somewhat familiar with the psychology literature on phenomena like compliance, conformity, and bandwagon effects, I tend to assume that 99% of the outrage in these political sex scandals is hollow. We act shocked because everyone on TV is shocked, and we certainly don't want our co-workers / neighbors / etc to think we have loose morals, do we? buy doxycycline online mannadew.co.uk/wp-content/languages/new/uk/doxycycline.html no prescription
It's easier to wag our finger in the same direction as everyone else than to explain that you don't really care and deal with other people (who may privately agree with you) judging you. On the rare occasions that we are forced to justify our harsh condemnation of highly visible cheaters, we justify our hypocrisy with the old saws about how public officials should be held to a higher standard than you were when you cheated on your wife.
The media's behavior is equally predictable, as "Sex and lots of it" is one of the Hearst commandments and the right-wing media is trying to string this along until they can figure out some way to make an Obama scandal out of it. They've already devoted so much time over the last five years to giving vigorous handjobs to the great General that they can't throw him under the bus as part of the administration. I'm sure it will turn out that he was set up by ACORN or something along those lines.
Sure, it's moderately newsworthy that the head of the CIA may have given classified information to a member of the media under, uh, unprofessional circumstances. Instead we're doing what we usually do – channeling our puritanical shame into an obsession with titillation and Made for TV Movie quality sex scandals.
A guy cheated on his wife. Sucks for his wife. Are enough people in this country repressed enough to continue to care beyond that, or does the amount of coverage simply create the impression that there's a public demand for it?
It's nice of the local dealership to offer me a ride to and from work while they fix my car, but I'd have walked if I had known that the experience would involve the 70 year old driver subjecting me to AM talk radio. I avoid that stuff like the plague. It has no value to me, not even of the unintentional comedy variety. It's simply crap. Devoid of merit. I'd benefit as much from listening to a big, colicky baby throw a crying tantrum for a couple hours, because that is in essence what it is.
On Monday I got to hear a local blowhard (of no renown, but clearly hoping to climb the ladder with a combination of bluster, patronizing tone, and the mastery of things that will sound like great arguments to really stupid people) rant about plans in Chicago and Cook County to increase the cigarette tax yet again. This has been a popular whipping boy for butt-hurt local Teabaggers over the past few weeks. I'm sure most of them don't smoke, but why punt on a great opportunity to whine about taxes, amirite?
The argument was that the County was succeeding only in creating a thriving black market for cigarettes with its $6.67 per pack tax load, second in the nation only to NYC. Police confirm that cigarettes purchased in other states are indeed being sold off the books by enterprising individuals and organized gangs in Chicago. The host proceeded to rant about how stupid the government is and how it refuses to learn "the lessons of cause and effect" as the higher taxes "force otherwise law-abiding people" to turn to a black market. buy Revatio generic buy Revatio online over the counter
This in turn fuels gang-related violence and other problems that have plagued the city lately.
Isn't it interesting how individuals responding to something the government does simply have no choice as rational actors but to break the law, while people who break the law because of market forces making things unaffordable are the scum of the Earth? They can rant and rave all day about poor people using 9-1-1 or Emergency Rooms for routine medical problems, not once mentioning that they're doing it because they can't afford insurance or doctor visits. Yet when the government raises taxes on cigarettes – which the last time I checked were a luxury and not a necessity – however could we blame John Q. Public for turning to the black market? That's just common sense. Anyone would do the same.
So, to review: if the government prices you out of the market for something frivolous, breaking the law is rational and your actions are the government's fault. When the market prices you out of a basic necessity of life, you get a lecture on personal responsibility and why you are What's Wrong with America.
It did not take a team of psychics and supercomputers to predict that we would see some epic right-wing pant shittings on the internets in response to Tuesday's election, but I could only dream of finding one as, uh, layered with gems as the spectacularly (run-on) titled and subtitled, "The end of liberty in America: Only course of action now is to fight back, electoral politics not working: Time to tell any Democrats you know to fuck off and die" by "Libertarian Republican" Eric Dondero. I do not know who Eric Dondero is – nor do you, I assume – because as you are about to see he is a very bad writer, not-so-bright, and possibly mentally ill. If you relish the chance to see a pudgy middle-aged white guy lose his shit in the feeblest way imaginable, boy do I have a treat for you. Let's go!
This may be my last post here at Libertarian Republican for quite some time, possibly forever. I had a long discussion with my friend Jim "Right Guy" Lagnese last night. He has agreed, tentatively to take over this website. (prattle about blog contributors redacted)
Try to tell me with a straight face that this does not begin exactly as a suicide note, martyrdom video, or anonymous credit-claiming letter to the FBI would.
Now, that said. Firstly, I was wrong (Ed: about Romney winning). I was fantastically wrong. We were crushed last night at all levels, most especially in the Senate races.
Maybe stop nominating candidates from the I Have Some Ideas About Rape Caucus.
There is virtually no good news from last night's results for the libertarian wing of the GOP. I apologize Tom. I hope you can see fit to accept my apology.
Suicide notes are often filled with apologies when not lashing out at perceived enemies. "But Ed," you say, "he hasn't done the latter." This is what we call foreshadowing.
Secondly, today starts a new course for my life. I've soured on electoral politics given what happened last night. I believe now the best course of action is outright revolt.
Of course you do, Eric. You believe that revolt is the best course of action like the Hamburglar believes that hamburgers are the best course of action.
What do I mean by that?
We read it as a hollow threat / cry for help from a person who is slowly starting to realize how little he and his beliefs matter.
Well, to each his own. Some may choose to push secession in their state legislatures.
That sounds likely to succeed.
Others may choose to leave the U.S. for good (Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, Argentina, Hong Kong, Israel).
Nothing says "I hate taxes and socialized medicine" quite like Costa Rica, Switzerland, Italy, and Israel. Or Hong Kong. You know, the one in China.
Still others may want to personally separate themselves from the United States here in North America while still living under communist rule the Glenn Beck, grab your guns, food storage, build bunkers, survivalist route. I heartily endorse all these efforts.
Ah, "separating" oneself from the U.S. while staying in it and enjoying its benefits. I think there's a word for what that makes you.
I'm choosing another rather unique path;
Of course you are, Eric. I would have asked for my money back if you didn't.
a personal boycott, if you will. Starting early this morning, I am going to un-friend every single individual on Facebook who voted for Obama, or I even suspect may have Democrat leanings.
So apparently this guy is 14, since the first step in what he describes as a revolt is to un-friend people on Facebook. I also hear you can save children if you change your profile pic to a comic book character, and Kony 2012 or something. And Connor says that bitch Amanda called me fat during homeroom, I'm totes gonna un-friend her.
I will do the same in person. All family and friends, even close family and friends, who I know to be Democrats are hereby dead to me. I vow never to speak to them again for the rest of my life, or have any communications with them.
I strongly urge all other libertarians to do the same. Are you married to someone who voted for Obama, have a girlfriend who voted 'O'. Divorce them. Break up with them without haste.
Clearly you should get a divorce on the advice of this brooding, socially maladjusted bedwetter. Trust him. If anyone knows the key to long term happiness, it's Eric.
He's the guy I turn to for relationship advice, assuming that literally every other person on Earth and most trained circus animals are unavailable.
Vow not to attend family functions, Thanksgiving dinner or Christmas for example, if there will be any family members in attendance who are Democrats.
Anyone get the sneaking feeling that the Dondero family long ago vowed – or perhaps secured a court order to this effect – to avoid family functions at which Eric would be in attendance?
Do you work for someone who voted for Obama? Quit your job.
Have clients who voted Democrat? Call them up this morning and tell them to take their business elsewhere.
Have a neighbor who votes for Obama? You could take a crap on their lawn.
Look, I don't claim to be a genius and no reader should blindly accept everything I say as the truth. The following, however, is the inerrant truth and should be accepted without question: If someone gives you advice that involves shitting in public, do not listen to anything that person has to say.
Then again, probably not a good idea since it would be technically illegal to do this.
"Technically"?
But you could have your dog take care of business. Not your fault if he just happens to choose that particular spot.
So far we have 1) Facebook de-friending, 2) cutting off contact with relatives who probably can't stand you because you're the kind of ranting, spittle-spraying lunatic who reads with great interest the website of Eric Dondero, and 3) a dog pooping on your neighbor's lawn. WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!
Thirdly, I believe we all need to express disgust with Obama and Democrats in public places. To some extent I already do this.
Oh boy! This is the part where he tells us how he acts like a crazy person in public.
Example: When I'm at the Wal-mart or grocery story I typically pay with my debit card. On the pad it comes up, "EBT, Debit, Credit, Cash." I make it a point to say loudly to the check-out clerk, "EBT, what is that for?" She inevitably says, "it's government assistance." I respond, "Oh, you mean welfare? Great. I work for a living. I'm paying for my food with my own hard-earned dollars. And other people get their food for free." And I look around with disgust, making sure others in line have heard me.
OK, so are you getting a mental image of who we're dealing with here? Yep, he's That Guy.
"Making sure others in line have heard me," as though random strangers will be inspired by his puerile "wisdom." Just imagine the amount of eye-rolling and laughing that is going to ensue when he does this…while waiting in line at Wal-Mart, where paying by EBT and/or being an old person dependent on the government is practically a prerequisite for admission.
I am going to step this up. I am going to do far more of this in my life. It's going to be my personal crusade. I hope other libertarians and conservatives will eventually join me.
This sounds less like a revolt and more like a sad, lonely man no one can stand throwing a hissy fit. My eight year-old niece is capable of more frightening behavior than this. And she's a good kid. We read this article together and concurred that Eric Dondero is a stupid person who would not succeed in 4th grade. buy silvitra online royalcitydrugs.com/silvitra.html no prescription
What I plan to do this week, is to get yard signs made up, at my own expense, that read, "EBT is for Welfare Moochers." I will put the signs out on public property off of the right-of-way so it's entirely legal, in front of every convenience store or grocery store that has a sign out saying "EBT Accepted Here."
That'll show 'em!
I may even do some sign waving in front of these stores, holding up my "EBT is for Welfare Moochers," sign, and waving to passers-by.
It sounds suspiciously like you have a lot of free time, Eric. It is almost as though you do not have a job.
If I meet a Democrat in my life from here on out, I will shun them immediately.
Unshun.
Re-shun.
I will spit on the ground in front of them, being careful not to spit in their general direction so that they can't charge me with some stupid little nuisance law. Then I'll tell them in no un-certain terms: "I do not associate with Democrats. You all are communist pigs, and I have nothing but utter disgust for you. Sir/Madam, you are scum of the earth." Then I'll turn and walk the other way.
And they will think, without exception, "Thank god I never have to talk to that asswad again." They'll high five one another so excitedly they'll need reconstructive shoulder surgery. They'll be like promising young starting pitchers after a few years under Dusty Baker.
Buttons. Boy, you can have a lot of fun with this. I plan to make up a bunch of buttons, and wear them around town, sayings like "Democrats are Communist Pigs," or "Welfare moochers steal from hard-working Americans," "Only Nazis support Seat Belt laws" or "No Smoking Ban: Nanny-Staters go Fuck Yourselves."
The Troika of Revolution: Facebook De-Friending, Shunning, and Buttons. So basically this he wants to look like this:
At least he is smart enough to realize that the more one looks, sounds, and acts like a crazy person, the more likely it is that the public will be persuaded by the message.
There are so many other nasty little things I plan to do against the communists and those who support them. Perhaps I'll keep Jim informed and he can report on my activities here at LR.
Yes, so many pointless, stupid, insignificant things, as befits a stupid and insignificant man. Please do keep us updated; it sounds like this is going to be fucking riveting. "Today I went to the Piggly Wiggly and waved around a sign reading, 'DEMOCRAT PARTY = MOOCHERS AND POO-POO HEADS' for a while, then I went inside and turned all the magazines with Obama on the cover upside down! After that it was pretty much the usual day: quiet sobbing, then back to my tar-paper shack where I enjoyed an uncooked can of generic corn for dinner."
It'll be like reading V for Vendetta.
For now, off to my first assignment: Telling all my friends and family who voted for Obama to "fuck off, don't ever speak to me again you slimeball mother fuckers." Wish me luck!
Yeah, good luck clicking "remove from Friends." I'm on the edge of my goddamn seat over here.
This is the saddest idea labeled a "crusade" since my great-grandfather Stanislaw died in a hail of gunfire charging toward the White House to demand that the U.S. be moved from the Gregorian Calendar to his own homemade calendar based on the cooking times of various kielbasas. Oh, and notice how Eric hasn't disappeared at all, but is in fact regularly checking his Facebook to bask in the attention his insanity has netted him. Not exactly exiled to Saint Helena, I guess.
This is perhaps the widest range of emotions I've gone through in an FJM, as we transition seamlessly from terror to bemusement to confusion before finally settling on pity. It takes a special kind of defective personality to concoct a personal revenge fantasy in response to impersonal events, and an especially pathetic and ineffectual person to come up with such a pitiable one. Calling people juvenile names and threatening to get some ridiculous signs and buttons made up is the best you can do? Jeez, America doesn't even make right-wing lunatics like it used to.
If there's one thing I'm terrible at, it's golf. buy cipro online buy cipro no prescription
If there's one thing I'm terrible at that is relevant to my life in the slightest, it's giving inspirational Hooray for Democracy speeches. Being a negative bastard in general and holding deeply cynical views (to put it mildly) about the political process makes it nearly impossible for me to give a convincing "Come on, let's all get out there and vote! It'll really change things!" speech. To do so now because it is Election Day would be inauthentic and frankly insulting to your intelligence as readers.
You have better odds of drowning in your bathtub than of casting the decisive vote in an American election (seriously – you have a 1:670,000 chance of meeting your end that way). Most people derive next to no benefits from the act of voting, and it's terribly easy to avoid doing it in our society.
So why bother? Here's what I can tell you.
First, it might not be much but it's what we have. In a country of 310 million people, the amount of political change that an individual can affect on his or her own is bound to be extremely small. Unless you happen to have a billion dollars lying around to start your own SuperPAC or you're willing to devote your entire life to working tirelessly as a volunteer for some party or campaign, voting is your only direct link to the system. That so many Americans feel that the process of voting is being manipulated is especially troubling in this light. If we don't have that, then we don't have anything.
Second, there is something you can do with your ballot that will make your life and/or the world around you incrementally better. We focus on the biggest races where our votes matter least, but the ballot is long. You can vote to keep some Bible-thumping moron off the local school board so hundreds of kids aren't taught that cavemen rode dinosaurs. buy priligy online buy priligy no prescription
You can vote for someone with half a brain to sit on your city or town council. In all of these cases, the math working against your one vote is not nearly as daunting.
It may not be anything exciting. You aren't going to pick the next president on your own. Nonetheless, there's something out there worth voting for and there's only one thing you can do about it.
This is the latest cover from the Canadian news magazine Maclean's. Unfortunately the story itself is behind a paywall, but the headline and artwork don't exactly leave much to the imagination:
Maclean's is not exactly a rag for right-wing hysterics. It is a mainstream publication with an approximate American equivalent being US News and World Report. It leans right to the extent that much of its target audience is the banking / finance / Wall Street crowd, but this isn't the John Birch Society newsletter. Yet as cultural conservatism takes a stronger hold on right political movements in the U.S., and to a lesser extent Canada, this sort of Limbaugh-Beck-Agnew-Coughlin Culture Wars conspiracy-mongering has become mainstream.
What bothers me about this is not the accusation. In fact, let us assume it is true for the sake of this argument; Canada's teachers (and we may safely assume their union is held responsible as well) are "using the classroom to push their political agenda." It is implied, as it is always implied, that leftist analysis is a loaded, political agenda – "brainwashing" – whereas rightist/free market worship analysis is simply the truth. A left perspective is the challenger or the usurper, something being fed to children to displace the Truth in their minds. That inerrant Truth, of course, is the Chamber of Commerce / Tea Party version of history, economics, politics, and society.
Feeding them cherry-picked Adam Smith fragments, supply side economic hogwash, and Reagan Consensus government-is-the-problem boilerplate is never described as brainwashing or an agenda.
Yes, it certainly would be extreme if, as the cover art that we may assume is hyperbolic suggests, grade school children were being given lessons on abolishing capitalism. online pharmacy cipro best drugstore for you
It would not, however, be any more or less a political agenda or nefarious brainwashing scheme than teaching the opposite – that capitalism and liberal democracy is the End of History, government has been proven a failure at solving collective action problems, and that our nation rests on the idea of freedom (from paying taxes and to bear arms; freedom in the Due Process sense yields immediately to the need for security in the face of threats real or perceived).
We know how political the educational system is in the U.S. We have school boards that are taken over by the foot soldiers of FreedomWorks, the Kochs, and the other money-behind-the-power groups that create Astroturfed "movements" like the Tea Party with no intention other than demanding that textbooks are re-written to reflect their beliefs. online pharmacy augmentin best drugstore for you
We also have religious fundamentalists getting involved in local politics so that our children may be told that the Earth is 6,000 years old, that men rode dinosaurs, and other things believed solely by window-licking morons. Yet never is this presented as a political agenda, characterized as brainwashing, or spoken of in ominous tones suggesting that They are taking over. If anything, it is defended as an appropriate response to the alleged stranglehold that (hardcore Communist) academia has on the agenda-setting functions in our society.
That left analysis, from the softest New Democrat form of liberalism to true Marxist or socialist critiques, is universally depicted as the pretender to the throne tells us all we need to know about where the ideological baseline is set in our society. Many liberals in the U.S. flipped out when Beltway media moderation fetishists described America as a "center-right nation" after the thorough drubbing the GOP received in 2008. They were correct – not in that conservatives will win every election, but inasmuch as they don't have to. Having asserted complete control over the political agenda in the last three decades, and with their dogged efforts to re-write history to the satisfaction of Joe McCarthy and Saint Ronnie, they can hold their ground simply by redefining their ideology as the New Normal and characterizing anything from the left of Joe Lieberman as a rogue wave of Communist indoctrination.
This is why they don't fret about losing battles; they've already won the war.
For people who feel strongly about politics, election outcomes can be a real kick in the balls sometimes. Yes, you win some and you lose some, and we all get used to it. On occasion, though, there's a candidate who really gets under your skin; someone who represents everything you hate about politics, everything that is wrong with America. Then he wins and you feel like punching a wall and/or telling the entire country to screw itself and/or swearing off politics forever because it's all hopeless. buy ventolin online www.parkviewortho.com/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/ventolin.html no prescription
And then of course you get over it.
I felt that way for a few days after the 2004 election. Good lord did I hate George W. Bush. Still do. Whatever the idiotic run-up to the Iraq War didn't destroy of my sanity, that election did. I'm fairly certain that even if I live for another fifty years, 2002 and 2003 will be the worst I'll ever see from this country. buy orlistat online www.parkviewortho.com/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/orlistat.html no prescription
Then Bush got re-elected after a campaign that never seemed to end and was truly hard to watch. It felt like the country had completely lost its mind and there was no turning back.
Then I settled down and started to think about it. Bush was just slightly over 50% approval at the time of the election, so based on history we would have expected him to win. online pharmacy azithromycin best drugstore for you
John Kerry was the Mitt Romney of the Democratic Party, a guy who got nominated because he was rich and had decent name recognition and there really wasn't anyone else to nominate. He didn't inspire anyone except for people who really, really hated Bush and would have voted for Carrot Top if it meant getting rid of him. By the end of 2005 the nation was largely sick of BushCo's bullshit, and the next two elections were Democratic routs. online pharmacy fluoxetine best drugstore for you
You know, the world didn't end.
There are quite a few people out there who have the same viscerally negative reaction to Obama that many of us did to Bush. Just like lots of us swore and fumed and said mean things after the 2004 election, lots of people will have plenty of swearing and venting to do if Obama is re-elected in two weeks. I'm a bit nervous, though. The anti-Obama rhetoric has a flavor all its own, which is to say apocalyptic and violent and tribalist. It worries me not because I think it represents the thinking of the average Republican – it doesn't – but because there is some minority, however small, that seems primed for a major over-reaction if Obama wins.
There is some number of people out there – I have no idea if it's ten, a hundred, or a million, but they exist – who are going to, for lack of a classier term, completely and totally lose their shit if Romney does not win. It has little to do with Romney and everything to do with confirming their paranoid suspicion about what has happened to Their country. It has been stolen from them by the Muslim Usurper, who of course will have stolen the election (how could he win legitimately?) with busloads of illegal immigrants and Welfare Queens bribed with Obama Phones and the New Black Panthers and the U.N. and every other neo-Bircher boogeyman in the modern pantheon. If you thought the 1990s were bad under Clinton – Waco, Oklahoma City, the Michigan Militia, the Montana Freemen, etc. – I don't want to think about the level of anti-government insanity we might be primed to see in the next four years.
Maybe I'm wrong and the reaction to an Obama win will be pretty uneventful. They'll kick around Romney for a few weeks, piss and moan about Obama, try to float some baseless conspiracy theories about the loss, and then get over it. Hell, the right wing media will probably be thrilled on the inside; nothing drives their audience quite like having The Enemy in power. But man, some of these people seem remarkably unhinged. To hear them talk, to see what they write all over the internet, to see what their heroes say on TV and talk radio…they do not seem to be tethered to reality. If they have a relationship with sanity, it's their own special version of it. The overheated rhetoric certainly makes it plausible that "Second Amendment remedies" and homemade truck bombs in front of Federal courthouses will seem like a decent option among the angry, frustrated, and half-crazy people who want so badly to take Their Country back.
