June 12, 2009
June 11, 2009
June 10, 2009
June 9, 2009
June 8, 2009
Oil Crime at Our Expense
Big Oil Subsidies Dodge the Ax
Washington Independent, June 10, 2008
Hidden Oil Subsidies: We Need to End Them
Big Oil Wants to Keep the Tax Subsidy
Big Oil, Big Subsidies: Citizens For Tax Justice Says End Them Now
Big oil made over $600 billion during Bush years, but invested bupkis in clean energy, Part 1
Climate Progress, May, 2009.
Comments Off
June 7, 2009
June 6, 2009
June 5, 2009
June 4, 2009
The Tattlesnake — No One Left to Care Edition
With apologies to the late Pastor Martin Niemöller:
No One Left to Care
When they extended work hours and cut wages across town
I didn’t speak up –
After all, they were strangers and I was doing fine;
When they got rid of the unions at my company
I didn’t speak up –
After all, I wasn’t a union member;
When they shipped the jobs of half the employees in my company overseas
I didn’t speak up –
After all, I still had a job;
When they cut my wages and made me work longer hours for less pay
I didn’t speak up –
After all, times are tough and something’s better than nothing;
And when they finally fired me, closed the plant, and shipped my job overseas
I tried to fight back, but there was no one left to back me up –
After all, I didn’t care to speak up for anyone else in trouble,
why should anyone care to speak up for me?
Pastor Niemöller’s original poem:
June 3, 2009
June 2, 2009
Message to Randall Terry and the Other ‘Pro-Life’ Hypocrites
Terry Declares That Tiller “Reaped What He Sowed,” Then Asks If Someone Will Buy Him Lunch
Right-Wing Watch, June 1, 2009
Bible Used to Justify Dr. Tiller’s Murder
World Can’t Wait, June 2, 2009.
What Does the Bible Say About Abortion?
FFRF.org
Randall Terry: “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.”
Media Matters, May 31, 2009.
Comments Off
June 1, 2009
May 31, 2009
Sieg Heil, Mayor Disgrace
“Mayor Michael Bloomberg is spending millions of dollars to win a third term, and he appears to believe that buys him the right to campaign without answering questions about it.
“The latest incident came this week when the 67-year-old billionaire was so irritated by a question that he glared at the reporter who asked it and said, ‘You’re a disgrace,’ as he left the podium.”
– Sara Kugler, “Analysis: Don’t Ask Bloomberg the Tough Questions,” AP, May 29, 2009.“It’s a classic case of brute political force carrying the day. Democracy be damned, Bloomberg must have his way. He’s the boss. After much arm twisting and some cajoling, the City Council has surrendered to his will, although by an unusually close vote of 29 to 22.
“The irony is that Bloomberg himself once backed term limits. He has gone back on his once strongly held conviction — making an exception for himself.
“Twice the people of New York voted for term limits. The Quinnipiac Poll found this week that 89 percent of New Yorkers still thought that only a referendum could change that measure.”
– Gabe Pressman, “Bloomberg’s Ambition Ignores People’s Will,” NBC New York, Jan. 26, 2009.“After a spirited, emotional and at times raucous debate, the New York City Council voted, 29 to 22 … to extend term limits, allowing Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to seek re-election next year and undoing the result of two voter referendums that had imposed a limit of two four-year terms.”
– Sewell Chan and Jonathan P. Hicks, “Council Votes, 29 to 22, to Extend Term Limits,” NY Times, Oct. 23, 2008.
Comments Off
May 30, 2009
The Tattlesnake – On Celebrating Memorial Day in the Aftermath of Cheney’s New Rome Edition
My uncle was an Army Ranger during the Korean War who saw the results of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ performed by the North Koreans on American GIs. Although there were no waterboardings mentioned that I recall, sleep deprivation, exposure to extreme temperatures, lengthy confinement in small spaces, prisoners kept for days with their head covered by burlap bags, and other forms of torture were routinely practiced. There were no ‘major organ failures,’ yet my uncle, and every one who saw the psychologically broken, hollow-eyed men released by the NK knew what they had ungone was torture, without question. He was proud to say that America didn’t torture our captives. So was my father, who witnessed the results of torture of American POWs in the Pacific Theater during WWII.
It was simple: America does not torture.
The Bush/Cheney Gang, supported by those other execrable toads Bybee, Bradbury and Yoo, have dishonored the service of my father, my uncle and millions of others who sacrificed their youth and risked or lost their lives for a Constitution and a form of government that adhered to its own laws and didn’t descend to barbarism out of panic or sadism or incompetence. Dick Cheney knew very well that Americans would not countenance torture so he had his lawyers invent another name for it, and he continues to dishonor our veterans, living and dead, and all Americans, justifying the crimes he committed in our name and without our permission by insisting he has protected us, when he is really only protecting himself. If Cheney had the kind of guts he is purported to have, he would come out and admit he ordered the torture and take responsibility for it, instead of wrapping himself in weasely euphemisms and the flag. But ‘tough guy’ Cheney doesn’t have the courage to do that — my father and my uncle had more courage in their little fingers than ‘desk jockey’ Cheney has displayed in his entire career. They risked their lives for their country; Dick Cheney has done nothing more than play pathetic political games for his own profit. To say he is disgusting is an understatement.
Perhaps the House and Senate, before voting on Bybee’s impeachment or, indeed, the prosecution of any of these war criminals, should be required to see a film of what American soldiers looked like after they had been subjected to the techniques outlined in the Bybee/Yoo memos, and allow men like my uncle, who have seen the terrible results of Cheney’s ‘enhanced interrogation techniques,’ and those who have experienced them first-hand, to testify in public. It might wake them up to the true horror of what the Bush/Cheney Regime has done in our name.
Also read:
“Everyone Should See ‘Torturing Democracy’”
Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Common Dreams, May 30, 2009.
© 2009 R.S. Janes. LTSaloon.org.
Republicans Play Grown-Up?
“Republicans, Let’s Play Grown-Up”
Peggy Noonan, WSJ Online, May 30, 2009.
“Mancow’s ‘Waterboarding’ Was Completely Fake”
John Cook, Gawker, May 29, 2009.
“Olbermann and Mancow Knock Down Waterboarding Hoax Allegation”
Jason Easley, Politicsusa.com, May 29, 2009.
“Heads, I win; tails, you loose!”
The old Laurel and Hardy comedy routine about turning a coin-flip decision into something which resembles the stealing of the 2000 Presidential election should be kept in mind when any liberal attempts to debate with a conservative because, conservative oratorical values and debating styles are quite different than what the liberals are used to using. To the conservative lying and being a hypocrite are splendid examples of modern Christian living. When they discuss contentious topics the conservative is not obliged to use the courteous rules of discourse. Here are some Conservative Debate Rules:
The Bumper Stickers vs. White Papers Rule.
Hubert Humphries complained to his staff that his oratory seemed to bore the audience. They told him that shorter, snappier points were more of a crowd pleaser than a long and through explanation of his philosophy and any possible exceptions to his general rules.
The Image Rule
When Hubert Humphries asked his staff why the public had a perception that he was short, they bluntly replied by telling him that he had a big head and that if you parked the Goodyear Blimp on top of the Washington Monument, it would look short.
The Ann Coulter’s legs Rule
If Ann Coulter is wearing a thigh high skirt when ske makes a clever point, how can a disreputable looking liberal guy refute her legs?
The “Here comes the Hindenburg!” Rule
The liberal, when he is permitted his 10 second opportunity to respond, must always stick to the subject. If the conservative is being trounced in the debate, he must immediately divert the topic to something completely irrelevant and extraneous.
The “Never give up!” Rule
In the book the leader of Germany wrote while he was in prison, he urged his followers to never admit that the opposition had the least possibility of being correct on anything.
The Divide and Conquer Rule
Conservatives (in public) adhere to the “One for all and all for one” advice, but the Democrats can be counted on to let a good pro-liberal talking point go unnoticed. Example: Do you think this column will be cross-posted in the Huffington Post? Not even if this particular section is cut?
The Contradictions Rule
Democrats operate on the premise that they should stick to proper debating tactics and that a flat-out unsubstantiated contradiction is invalid. Republicans will reply that famous social critic Montague Python would refute the premise that contradicting isn’t arguing, by saying: “Yes it is!”
The too Obtuse Rule
If Dennis Miller refuses to use any segment of his show to discuss the Robert Brasallich case because it was too obscure to be of interest to his audience, is it possible that he has ulterior motives?
The “My God can beat up your god” Rule.
The only person who can be given the chance to refute a Christian minister must be a Muslim woman in burke and facemask.
The Three Examples Rule
In an intermural (should the commets section be hijacked and go into a debate about the difference between “intermural” and “intramural”?) situation where the ignorant liberal must be inculcated with the correct way to think, any broad statement by the liberal must be challenged and a scholastic level of substantiating material must be provided. The conservative, who is omnipotent and infallible, can speak <I>ex cathedra</I> and is therefore exempt of any pesky need to digress by dispense the specifics about where the dumbfounded (conservatives have mostly found that the liberals are dumb) liberal can verify the veracity of the citations.
Example: Brushing aside requests for sources to verify the broad sweeping assertion that the issue of the Queen Mary’s location on December 6, 1941 has been put to rest. If our fact checker can not find any means of verifying that statement and a conservative says “that issue was put to rest years ago and isn’t worth reexamining” that’s known as “ducking the question” and is an invaluable conservative debating dodge.
On the other hand, when a liberal has the impudence to attempt to establish a contradictory statement, he (no conservative will waste time engaging a woman in a philosophical discussion) must “give three examples.”
The “Always besmirch a liberal’s source’s qualifications and/or reputation” Rule
When a liberal does give a source for his opinion, it must be vigorously challenged. Example. Barron Siegfried L. von Richthofen III personally told me that all German Shepherds are registered as Republicans. A conservative would refute that by reminding the audience that Siggy was very mean drunk and an SOB (no disrespect to your mom Siggy) and therefore his conclusion should not get any attention or credence (will “Looking Out My Back Door” be this week’s closing song?) when he is used as a scholarly source.
The Incredulous Rule
When a conservative is called something (say he is called a “conservative troll”), the proper response is to use a “I can’t believe you’d say something that stupid” reply accompanied by an expression that conveys a combination of hurt and outrage. Example: Is that supposed to be a “put down”? (Does a put down artist go around shooting horses who have just broken a leg?)
The Ad Hominem Rule
When a source is denounced for personal shortcomings (such as a famous night of drunken debauchery) that is an invalid debating strategy and is noted as such in any debating competition. Conservatives, however, refuse to abandon the ploy.
The “Just kidding, dude!” Rule
If a conservative is challenged for saying says something that is borderline racist the reply will be that attempts at humor are exempt from close scrutiny. Liberals are so very sensitive to not wanting to hurt anyones feelings, ever, for anything, that they will almost never avail themselves of this opportunity to make snide remarks. Thus giving conservatives a distinct debating advantage.
The Perfection Rule
Conservative need not be shackled by petty details; however if a liberal pundit makes one spelling urror; that invalidates the entire effort.
Warren Commission Magic Bullet Rule
If a wild idea helps with conservative goals such as refuting ideas that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t shoot President Kennedy (because he couldn’t get off all the shots in the time span heard on the recording of the police officer’s open mike broadcast of the shooting) then go for it. Was the Warren Commission’s official motto: “You got your head right, Luke?”
The “Cut to the Chase” Rule
If a liberal speaker seems to be making too many salient points cut him short and snarl: “So What’s Your Point?”
The altruism is for fools Rule.
Wouldn’t it be very sad and poignant if sincere liberals donated their time and efforts to libear web sites only to have their efforts sabotaged by paid conservative trolls who use dishonest and misleading debating tactics?
Quote (overheard in movie theater in Pasadena, earlier this week): “The effect of this bill is they’ll have no clothes but be eating caviar.”
The disk jockey wants to play the “Theme from the X Files” and we want him to play Bobby Darren’s “Mack the Knife.” After loosing a coin toss, he will play the song with a shark in it and so it’s time to cut out. Have a “sharp as a razorblade” type week.