"Intolerant Liberals" and Other Alternate Realities

Examples of anti-liberal conservative memes with little sting to actual liberals. Source: Medium

Writing this blog has taken a backseat to a lot of things lately, but part of my problem is I feel like I've been hit by some kind of reality prism, something that makes it impossible to focus on just one thing. My mind shoots in a hundred different tangents on any subject. Succinct debate on just about anything lately is impossible. There is so much askew, so much off-track, linear arguments are next to impossible to make. Maybe I shouldn't be so hard on our new President for having parentheticals inside parentheticals in virtually each and every utterance? No, not going there.

Another strange meme in a world where the president
and his followers are hyper-sensitive to virtually
any criticism or slur.

But part of what I'm getting at is the absolute gaping divide between right and left. People pretend we were divided by Obama in some Machiavellian plan to destroy America. Nope. He had nothing to do with the vastly different way conservatives and liberals see the world, see each other, see virtually everything. And I know I'm biased, but I think--I'm pretty sure--the left (not the uber-left, just the left) is more securely moored to objective facts, to reality as it is. Conservatives (of most flavors) tend to see the world as a) they want it to be, b) they feel it to be or c) how they perceive it to be despite all evidence. Oh, and d) elements of all of the above.

I'm not trying to slander here, I'm talking about a group of people who look at something that happened, and either believe it to have happened differently, or even more bizarrely, have remembrance of it that is almost a complete invention. It happens with things big and small. An obvious example, is hearing and seeing Donald Trump say something completely untrue, easily disprovable, and then call him a "truth teller," a straight-shooter who "tells it like it is," and "says what I'm thinking." Further, they can look to Trump as "one of us," while seeing, say, Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren as "elites."

Another common one, that starts with the non-"fact"
that liberals want to take away all guns.

I think this very strange dichotomy is responsible for why conservative humor (or rather Conservative with a capital C, politically-motivated attempts at humor) fails so badly. It starts with misconceptions about liberals, exaggerates them, and then adds a layer of meanness. The result is rarely funny because it has so little truth to it. On the other hand, conservatives themselves--who believe the misconception to start with--roar with laughter. Oddly, even if it's the ten thousandth time they've seen "Rachel MadCow." You see more evidence of this in memes, like those featured here from the excerpted article. And even more in the current short-list of alt-right insults (cuck, beta, snowflake, buttercup, safe space, etc.). It takes a perceived notion of "how liberals are," exaggerates it, and then paints every contrary opinion with the same brush.

Anyway, all of that is a convoluted way of me saying: the twain will never meet between right and left, until something unifies them enough to see the same basic thing as the same thing. So long as Trump looks like an absurd, buffoonish clown to one side, and a strong dynamic leader to the other, we're not going to understand each other. Frankly, seeing Trump the liberal way used to be fairly standard for him, even part of the way through 2016. Seeing him the conservative way is actually a fairly recent invention. Dare I say,

artificial. It's a conservative prism, I can't think of anything else to explain it.

[Excerpt]

Intolerant Liberals

. . .I have some difficult news for everyone: Progressives aren’t interested in diversity. We aren’t interested in inclusion. We aren’t interested in tolerance. The progressives I know give exactly zero shits about those things. We have no interest in everyone getting treated the same. We have no interest in giving all ideas equal airtime. We have no interest in “tolerating” all beliefs. I don’t know where this fairy tale comes from, but it’s completely disconnected from every experience I’ve had with progressive liberal folks in my lifetime. . .

Read more at: Medium

Jon Stewart Deconstructs The Right's (and FOX NEWS') Relentless Reality Distortion Campaign

With his announced imminent departure from Comedy Central's Daily Show, Jon Stewart has stepped up his willingness to go just a bit further in his willingness to call a liar a liar, sans euphemism. Having been called a liar by FOX "News," Stewart returned the favor, and then deconstructs the tactics of the right, in their relentless campaign--not for unbiased truth--but for a rightward leaning spin everywhere.

[Video is below the fold, because I couldn't turn off the "autoplay" feature. . .]

Republicans Rate 3 Times More "False" Ratings Than Democrats (Politifact)

The GOP poster child for dishonesty (and bat shittery). Image from
source, Raw Story.

Politifact may have sullied its reputation--in the eyes of Rachel Maddow and her viewers at least--but they're not usually criticized for being left-leaning. But get ready for charges that they are, since they came to the unsurprising conclusion that Republicans are more dishonest than Democrats. Three times as dishonest, in fact. Politifact.

[Excerpt]

Republicans get three times more ‘false’ ratings from PolitiFact than Democrats

An analysis of PolitiFact ratings suggests Republicans are significantly less credible than Democrats.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University found Republican’s had made three times as many false statements as Democrats this year. . .

Read more at: Raw Story

Meanwhile on Facebook: Guns vs. Knives, A Bad Analogy

You hear it all the time regarding politics and hot button issues: both sides do it. Meaning, both sides are equal in their horribleness in whatever way they're being horrible right now. As a liberal, but also a somewhat dispassionate observer--at least over topics that aren't my hot-button issues--I think on the gun control/gun rights issue, the right is nuttier than the left. There are exceptions, but liberals don't tend to get as instantly frothy over guns.

One area where both sides can get out of hand though, is memes. These images with words are passed around on social media, and sometimes can be very clever. Sometimes they can be informative, and sometimes they can really grab you. Other times, they only think they're clever, and are in reality deeply stupid. Also frequently in bad taste. Throw in abuses in punctuation, spelling and grammar, and they can really be a mess. Take this image, now floating around on Facebook

The target (pardon the pun) is ripe for parody, were the subject matter not in almost-impossible-to-pull-off comedy danger territory. Hint: too soon. And even though the best humor exaggerates the truth, this one misses the mark (pardon) for a very large, glaring reason:

The crazy guy who stabbed all of those people? He didn't manage to kill any of them.

That's a fairly stark difference between a mass stabbing and a mass shooting. Nobody has ever argued that there aren't crazy people. That crazy people aren't dangerous. That other weapons aren't dangerous in the wrong hands. The aim is to try to do something to prevent mass murder. Most weapons outside of guns and bombs are very inefficient for killing lots of people in a short period of time. Bombs and bomb making materials are subject to pretty tight restrictions and laws. Why aren't guns?*

The other day I posted a very bad analogy between guns and cars. Now this one. I'm sure there are many more, and I'll try to explore those as I find them.




*Come to think of it, there are fast ways to kill lots of people, like toxins, poisons, hijackings, and other terrorism. But last I looked we have a war on most of that stuff, and people don't seem to mind (or at least put up with) controls, restrictions and laws around all of that stuff.

Republicans Trust FOX "News". ONLY.

Image from Think Progress

I understand that people of different political persuasions tend to view things slightly differently from each other. For instance, I bristle when I hear that MSNBC is the flip-side to FOX "News." I think that is objectively not true (and stand by that), but I also understand that I'm feeling a bit of "I know you are, but what am I?" when I hear it. So, I believe it is probable that the reverse is true. Conservatives who watch FOX probably are a bit defensive about it, and they probably see MSNBC in the same harsh light that I see FOX. They're wrong, but that's not the point.

The point is, they see all media (other than the 99% of talk radio that is right-wing, which somehow doesn't count) as liberally biased, with only FOX "News" speaking the truth. What is that story? You know, the one where the mother sees her kid marching in a parade, and proudly claims that he's the only one in step? Yeah, this is kinda like that. And it gives credence to my theory that conservatives think any media that isn't right-leaning, is de facto left-leaning.


[Excerpt]


Survey: Republicans Trust Fox News And Nothing Else 

A new PPP poll confirms what many have long suspected — that many Americans get their news from sources that hew to their pre-existing beliefs. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

Daily Show: Debt Ceiling Alternate Realities

Hilarious.

The Daily Show - Broke Bank Mounting - America's Dystopian Future
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

House Progressives' Alternate Budget Plan? Sounds Great to Me

Yeah, I'm not familiar with this guy either.
Photo from Raw Story.

Really, there may be some issues inside the thing somewhere to be ironed out, but just try to argue with the headline:

[Excerpt]

House progressives offer budget plan: Tax the rich, end the wars, slash oil subsidies, invest in jobs



As the focus on Capitol Hill shifts to America's long-run fiscal woes, Congressional progressives are one step ahead of the White House and Democratic leaders in offering a counter-proposal to the  House GOP approach. . .
 
Read more at: Raw Story
 
Sounds friggin' perfect to me.

Captain Obvious: Budget Comprimise Pleases NOBODY

This is just a quickie Captain Obvious to note that Friday night's comprimise in Congress to avert a government shutdown--temporarily--pleased no one, and worked mainly as a stalling tactic for all involved. 

Democrats and liberals are not happy about the concessions made to Republicans, nor the apparent bragging by the President at the resolution:

"As for the rest, it was a sucky deal. Billions of dollars axed from programs mostly dedicated to easing the lives of Americans who, even in the best of times, have a rough go of things economically. And these are not the best of times.

". . .Politicians must make compromises. This can be frustrating, infuriating, but necessary. There is, however, no need to put lipstick on a pig. And that's what touting the "biggest annual spending cut in history" as a good thing does. . ."

Read more at: Daily Kos

And conservatives aren't happy either. First, I must point out that every time John Boner Boehner makes a public declaration on the issue, he lets more average Americans know who he is, which could raise him to a Newt Gingrich like target, instead of an orange, drunken, crying man nobody recognizes. But oh, the tea baggers know who he is already!  To wit:

"John Boohoo is done. He’s public enemy number 2 next to any democrat. Well, maybe he’s just “number 2”. Either way...done."

"Just go away, Boehner. Thanks for handing the scum zero and Reid a victory so they can parade about on TV. Grow a pair, you weakling."

"To OHIO FREEPERS: Is anyone up for helping to Primary Boehner? Cheers!"

Read more at: Free Republic

Government Shutdown Averted. . .For Now

"Are we done now? I need a drink. . ." Photo from MSNBC

Though he drug his big orange feet, in the eleventh hour, John Boner Boehner acquiesced to the Democrats' "compromise," and for now, the government will not be shut down. And I'm focusing on Boehner here, because supposedly many Americans aren't familiar with this crying doofus's face. HERE it is! The fact that the holdup here was a bunch of "riders" mostly focused on stupid things like "federal funding for abortion"--which is already illegal--was proof that this was never an honest discussion in the first place. Nobody comes up smelling like a rose here, the fight isn't over, and this is all pretty sickening, I don't care who you are. But whatev's yall, hopefully this won't delay my tax refund. Selfish, yes. But we peons have shouldered enough of our share of the burden. We deserve to feel a little selfish.

[Excerpt]


Budget deal reached, government shutdown averted
 
Perilously close to a government shutdown, President Barack Obama and congressional leaders reached a historic agreement late Friday night to cut about $38 billion in federal spending and avert the first federal closure in 15 years. . .
 
Read more at: MSNBC

In Case You Were Wondering: It's Not About the Budget

Those were the days! Picture from Think Progress

As in 1995, the big government shutdown is not really about the budget. It's about riders. Culture war ultra-conservative issues shoe-horned into the budget bill. It's a cornucopia of conservative crap is what it is. It amounts to blackmail: give us everything our tea baggers tell us they want, or we will shut down the government. NPR? Planned Parenthood? That stuff isn't really about the budget, and everybody knows it.

[Excerpt]

FLASHBACK: GOP Insistence On Unrelated Policy Riders Shut The Government Down In 1995



This morning, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the Senate floor and announced that, while Republicans and Democrats had essentially agreed what spending cuts should be included in a bill to keep the government operating, a shutdown was likely because of the GOP’s insistence on unrelated policy riders. . .
 
Read more at: Think Progress

Still No Budget: Government Shutdown Looms

"That orange, crying mother*#%@ is #^&ing me off!"
Image from Huffington Post

You know, I'm not sure why the Democrats didn't produce a budget months ago. I'm sure there was some sort of reason--most likely a political calculation having to do with the election--that lead them to not pass one earlier. And what a miscalculation that turned out to be, as it turns out. See, Democrats are used to comprimise (usually their own ideals) to get things done. They've gotten bad at it, giving away the good stuff without trying, but that's what they do. The current crop of TEApublicans refuses to compromise. They'll stamp their feet until they get what they want, consequences be damned.

As Rachel Maddow pointed out tonight, that may not have as big as a downside as it did in 1995 when Newt Gingrich was branded a "big baby" after that government shutdown. John Boner Boehner has been annoying as hell to his political opponents, and to Democrats who pay attention. But the public at large has no idea who he is. So putting a face (an orange face, hah!) to the blame for this shutdown won't be as easy. But make no mistake, the only ones who want a shut down are some--not all--Republicans.  Which shows that some Republicans are insane, because anyone who wants the government to shut down is either insane, or is gambling that this pays off politically.

That would be a very craven and hideous thing to actually admit to.  Because a shut down will cost a lot of money. It could endanger a fragile, recovering economy. It could make our troops work for no pay for the duration. It could do the same for countless government employees who--contrary to AM radio--are people, with real jobs and real lives. It will delay our tax refunds. It will cause all sorts of disarray, and acomplish nothing. Unless somebody would like to show me the positive, because I see zero for anybody.

[Excerpt]

Government Shutdown Not Yet Averted As White House Meeting Fails To Produce Deal



President Barack Obama says another round of talks with congressional leaders has helped but there is no deal yet to avert a government shutdown. . .
 
Read more at: Huffington Post

Crowds Protesting in Wisconsin Only Getting Bigger

Image from Guardian UK

So, Governor Wanker Walker,  what's your next move?

[Excerpt]

Largest Crowd Yet Descends on Wisconsin Capitol

A state Capitol thrown into political chaos swelled for a fifth day with nearly 70,000 protesters, as supporters of Republican efforts to scrap the union rights of state workers challenged pro-labor protesters face-to-face for the first time and GOP leaders insisted again Saturday there was no room for compromise. . .

Read more at: AOL News

Where Do You Fall on the Political Compass?

Several months ago, I took a political compass test. It gauges where you fall in the right vs. left, and also the libertarian vs. authoritarian political ideologies. I decided to take the test again, just to see if I've shifted in any direction. As it turns out, I've pretty much stayed put.  Here is the original graph from my first test:

And here is where I fell today:

Amazingly enough, I ended up at almost precisely the same position, though the graphics has changed, making the comparison more difficult. But I'm happy to say that I'm not extreme in any dimension, finding myself ensconsed in the left/libertarian quadrant, though more left than libertarian. Where do you fall? Find out at: Political Compass

Dancing With the Stars Spoiler Alert

I don't watch Dancing With the Stars, nor do I care who wins it. I even wrote a post recently expressing a small measure of glee whenever a silly reality show gets punk'd by its own rules. And while I seriously doubt anyone will land on this page who could possibly be spoiled for the revelation of who the winner is, I also don't wish to spoil anyone's fun. So, I'm putting the rest of this post low down on the page. Scroll on down to read more.

Now that you're here, I'd fist like to point out that Bristol Palin didn't win. Despite the best efforts and nearly mentally unbalanced effort given by conservatives such as Tammy Bruce and the whole of FreeRepublic.com, Jennifer Grey managed to pull out a win.  This doesn't give me any real joy. The results of the contest are usually completely off of my radar. But given the all out, insane push to stuff the ballot box as some delusional "payback" for the nonexistent voter fraud by the left in actual elections, I do have a small bit of satisfaction.

But what if Bristol had won? What exactly would that have proven? Nothing, not really. But it does speak to a trend.  One of the biggest reasons expressed by people voting 1,000s of times for Bristol was "to see liberals' heads explode." This was all about making the left angry, frustrated or otherwise get their panties in a twist. If you read any of the online chatter about it, you'll quickly find that there is far more talk about how many times they voted, and how great it would be if Bristol won--than anything about her skill as a dancer.  Check it out here if you don't believe me.  This situation is nearly exactly mirrored in just about any discussion around Sarah Palin's prospects for the Presidency.  They talk about her chances. They spin away her gaffes and malapropisms. They pump her up, and tout her as the ultimate candidate. But she's about as good a politician as Bristol is a dancer. No, scratch that. Bristol's better than that.

[Excerpt]

Jennifer Grey is Dancing with the Stars Winner 2010: Did She Deserve It?

There was a lot of controversy on Season 11 of Dancing with the Stars and the controversy is continuing even after the winner has been announced. While Jennifer Grey has been given the title of Dancing with the Stars 2010 Champion, there are many viewers who think (for one reason or another) that she wasn’t deserving of the win. . .

Read more at: Twirlit

Maybe Not Such a Blowout for the Midterm Elections?

Image from source, Huffington Post

I am among the group of Obama Democrats who is not excited about the upcoming election.  Nobody's excited about--as the cliche goes--voting for the lesser of two evils.  That cliche is a bit overblown. With no Cheney on the ballot, evil is maybe not quite what we have to vote for.  But Democrats haven't excited me in a while. The irony of course is that Republicans (particularly those of the tea bagger variety) are painting all Democrats big and small as radical, far-left, commie pinkos.  And we Democrats are not excited this go around because we find our slate of candidates too centrist.  Sure, the Dems have managed to get some things done (particularly in the House), but almost never without having watered down their positions to--naively--gather "bipartisan" support for them.  What we end up with is centrist policy, with at best, one or two Republican votes. It's maddening.

But just because I'm not excited to vote doesn't mean I'm not gonna. I'll be there.  And I'm hopeful that the Democrats can use their own "fear card" to get more of us to feel the same way. And I don't mean ginning up xenophobic fears like on the other side, I mean simply pointing out the things Republicans have done and promise to do. Pointing out the slate of crazy pouring out of the tea party (Sharron Angle, hello. . .).  Pointing out that voting against our best interests is stupid.  I don't know if they can do it, I don't know how they should best do it, but they'd best get cracking. 

[Excerpt]

Maybe Not Such a Mid-Term Blowout

Winston Churchill once said that you can always count on Americans to do the right thing--after they've tried everything else.


The Obama administration has kept progressive economic policies to be used as a last resort -- In Case of Emergency Break Glass. . .

Read more at: Huffington Post

Tax Cuts, Democrat vs. Republican

Look at the chart on the left. Remember it.  Because over the next three months, we're going to hear Republican candidates talking about tax cuts, and about how much better the Republican plan is.  As you can see here, if you make $200,000 per year or less (and let's face it, that's most of us), you'll save a few bucks with the Democrats.  If you're very well off at under $500,000 per year (which has to be an extremely thin slice of the populace), you'll do ever so much slightly better with Republicans. But no so much you'd really notice.

But if you're rich or super-rich? Boy howdy!  That sorta looks like the moon orbiting the Earth, doesn't it?  Vote Republican and make the very rich even richer?  Somehow, I don't think they'll be using that slogan.

Hat-tip to AmericaBlog (and many others) for the graphic. Pass it on.

The Return of Rachel Maddow!

Image from source, MEDIAite

Hey, it's a new month, and I haven't run a Rachel Maddow blog post in many days. Mostly because she's been on vacation of course. But if you've landed at this blog, there's a better than average chance that you share some of my interests.  The article excerpted below is an excellent write-up on Rachel, and explains her appeal in a way I've attempted to in the past (less successfully, I'm sure).  Check it out.

[Excerpt]

Rachel Maddow: The New Voice Of The Left, From Cable News To Capitol Hill

In his New York Times column last week David Carr notes that there have been times of late when it seems that the “Democrats picked up talking points from Rachel Maddow.” Carr places Maddow in a group that includes Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin, whom he describes as having “become an important source of political wisdom for many Americans.” While one suspects this is perhaps not company that Maddow would prefer to keep, it is interesting to see Maddow included in the upper echelon’s of media’s political heavy hitters. . .

Read more at: MEDIAite

War of the Words: Bill O'Reilly vs. Rachel Maddow

Is a seven-post gap enough space between Rachel Maddow Show posts? It'll have to be, because there is a battle afoot between the top-rated cable news host (if you consider FOX to be "News") and the second-highest-rated non-FOX host.  This is tangentially related to my post below, about false equivalency.  See, from my admittedly biased point of view, Maddow and O'Reilly are not equals at what they do. O'Reilly is higher rated, but Maddow is by far the more principled of the two (and smartest, and funniest, etc., etc.).  O'Reilly has a scolding parent, tsk tsking, "because I said so" disposition, and Maddow has a smart alecky, smart kid (who happens to be right) demeanor.   O'Reilly is apt to blow his top.  Maddow more likely to be amused, even if she's scolding.  Just take a peek at the clip below. See if you agree.

Oh, and I really ought to stop promising a temporary moratorium on TRMS posts, because I apparently just don't have it in me. [And it's worth pointing out that this video got truncated in its trip to the internets. Maddow's last words to O'Reilly?  "Your Highness."]

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

False Equivalency: Breitbart vs. Huffington Post

Image from Salon

For some time now, the mainstream press--ever leery of liberal bias charges--has treated every story like it has two equally weighted sides.  If there's a controversy surrounding the teaching of evolution, equal time will be spent talking about "intelligent design."  If there's a story about anything gay, the media will trot out some "family" organization to trash-talk.  It can get pretty ridiculous, and is especially so when you consider that the press will be called liberally biased no matter what they support, unless they are FOX "News."

This "balance" has found its way into everyday discourse.  If you express a disdain for Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity, you'll be told that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow are just as bad, the opposite side of the same coin.  Criticize FOX "News" and you'll be told that MSNBC (and CNN, ABC, CBS, NPR, NBC. . .) are just as biased in the opposite direction.  These things become "common knowledge" regardless of their veracity.  As a liberal blogger, I am deemed to be unable to argue the point objectively, and that might be true to an extent.  Do I see the world through a liberal lens, and just not see all the lefty winguttery coming out of the mainstream media?  Is there a liberal equivalent to the odious Andrew Breitbart, and I just don't recognize it?

You could try to argue that Democratic Underground is the mirror image of FreeRepublic. I would strenuously disagree.  I think any collection of partisans in a discussion board are bound to have a few (or many) rabble-rousers who can be pointed to as having crossed the line.  Anger is strong fuel in both places.  But the general tone--in my experience, mind you--on a liberal site is a desire to help people: the poor, women, gay people, people of color, and on and on.  On conservative sites, there seems to be an active desire to prevent helping anybody. A mean-spirited desire to stick it to any of those people.  Liberals: we. Conservatives: me.  Does that make them exact opposites?

But when you get to entities like The Huffington Post and Breitbart's collection of sites, there are things you can examine besides their political leanings. What are the journalistic standards? Who are the journalists?  There are objective ways to tell if these things are really the same thing from opposite sides.  In all of the examples above, I am of the perhaps biased opinion that a false equivalency is being drawn.  But in this last example, I think it is clear. They are not the same thing.

[Excerpt]

Politico editor stands by comparison of Huffington Post to Breitbart

Politico executive editor Jim VandeiHei said on the radio yesterday that the lesson of the Shirley Sherrod mess is that the "media-activist industrial complex" such as "Breitbart on the right or Huffington Post on the left" has "a huge incentive ... to engage in real tough combat, and to overreact. . ."

Read more at: Salon

Rachel Maddow Exposes the "Deficit Hawk" Lie

One of the many issues of the diffused agenda of conservatives and tea baggers is the deficit. You'd think that when Republicans are in office, the deficit hawks have been in power, and spending is brought under control. And, by the same logic, when Democrats are in office, they spend willy-nilly, and run up massive deficits, heedless of the consequences.

Not really. Check out this clip from The Rachel Maddow Show (yep, her again). Seriously. Especially if you are in the camp that believes this myth. At about 2:41 in this video, Rachel shows a graph comparing Republican spending vs. the current Democratic health care reform plan. See if you can talk around that one.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy