Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Republican Dreams Crushed By Big Boob Mistake

My initial response was to sue her for defamation of character, but then I realized that I had no character ~ Charles Barkley (dob 2/20/1963) an American retired professional basketball player and current analyst on the television program Inside the NBA.

Hearing a knock at his door Joe Truth shoved his beagle Dudley off his lap and got up to see who it was. Opening his front door Joe saw a young man in a suit standing there impatiently. "Can I help you?" Joe asked the stranger. "Yes", the man replied. "Are you Joe Truth?".

"Yes, that is me" Joe confirmed. "I am a process server from a law firm representing the actress Salma Hayek. The reason I am here is to deliver this to you"... the man withdrew some papers from his breast pocket and handed them to the confused Truth. "What are these?" Joe asked, accepting the documents.

"It's a cease and desist order that demands you immediately halt production of your Big Boob Headphones due to your unauthorized use of Salma Hayek's... shall we say, assets... on which you modeled your product. Lucky for you we found out about this before they actually went to market, otherwise you'd be facing a multi-million dollar lawsuit. Mrs. Hayek's lawyers are insisting you destroy the unauthorized product".

"What are you talking about, man?" Joe protested. "My headphones were modeled on the big boobs of some generic size 36C hooters, not the rack of this Hayek chick. An individual I've never heard of, for the record".

"Mrs. Hayek's lawyers do not believe this claim. First of all, you know her measurements off the top of your head, and secondly, you have Mrs. Hayek's picture displayed on the webpage where you announced your product. If you fail to comply and actually attempt to sell your headphones... you will be sued".

Joe Truth frowned as the man walked away. Suddenly his cell phone started vibrating. Removing it from his pocket Joe flipped it open and held it to his ear. "Hello, Joe Truth, CEO of Big Boob Headphones Inc here".

"It's your sole investor, William Hartenbaum" the voice on the phone said. William sounded angry. Joe wondered if William's anger had something to do with this lawsuit. "You jackass, Truth!" William shouted. "I just found out that you went ahead with the design for our headphones that we agreed you wouldn't use. The design modeled on the breasts of Salma Hayek".

"What makes you say that?" Joe asked innocently. "What makes me say that is a cease and desist order I was just served with. That, plus I just got off the phone with the manager of the manufacturing plant in Vietnam where our headphones were manufactured by slave labor. He faxed me a copy of the design specs you submitted".

"So what?" Joe asked. "So what? So they're the ones you had the designer draw up based on a picture and the measurements of Salma Hayek. The papers say we have to destroy the headphones or face further legal action".

"I swear I sent over the other design!" Joe protested. "No way, Joe. Hayek's lawyers have an inside source. They know the truth of the matter. And Hayek's picture is on the freaking box, for crying out loud! And speaking of the finished product, a cargo container of the headphones is scheduled to be delivered tomorrow. That's 50 thousand units that I, as your only investor, will have to take a complete loss on. Not only that but I'm going to have to pay to have them destroyed".

"That's a shame. I was eager for the profits to start rolling in so I could become a rich Republican who complains about paying his taxes" Joe lamented. "It is a shame, shithead" William replied. "Now I'm going to sue you, seeing as you're the one who fu*ked this up. By the way, I read what you wrote about me on your blog and didn't appreciate it".

"Oh, no!" Joe cried, tears welling up in his eyes. "I'm finished!". Tears were running down Joe's face now; the fact was that he could not afford to reimburse William for 50 thousand headphones. He would probably lose everything. Could he declare bankruptcy? He'd have to call his lawyer immediately.

Hanging up on William, Joe went back inside and flopped down in his easy chair, first shooing Dudley out of it. He took a swig of his beer and reached for his sandwich. Gone. That darn Dudley must have eaten it. Damn! Mrs. Truth wasn't going to be happy about this. She had warned him that his Big Boobs headphones idea was a bad one. Why oh why didn't he listen? He had just finished publishing a post on his blog in which he called a number of people shitheads, but clearly the real shithead was Joe Truth.

Video 1 Description: Music video of the "Weird Al" Yankovic song "I'll Sue Ya", an original composition by Yankovic (not a parody) from the 2006 album Straight Outta Lynwood. This is the 4th cut on Al's 12th studio album (3:52).

Video 2 Description: Salma Hayek talks about her breasts on the David Letterman show, 6/25/2006 (1:42).

SWTD #198, PIF #20.

Tuesday, August 27, 2013

A Decidedly Non Auspicious Adventure (Part 5)

Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before ~ Edgar Allan Poe (1/19/1809 to 10/7/1849) an American author and poet best known for his tales of mystery and the macabre.

Joshua spotted a dim light that grew brighter as it drew closer. "Could be the missing William" Joshua surmised as the figure (now he could see it was a figure) was holding a staff with a glowing light atop (possibly Suri's missing mage staff). The figure walked closer, scanning the area, obviously looking for something or someone. Now the half elf could see that it was indeed William, but William didn't see him or the still unconscious Suri. William now stood but a few feet from where Joshua was crouched down next to Suri, but still he did not notice them.

"Over here" Joshua said, an action that cancelled the SEP field that had been shielding him from William's view (it was about to expire anyway). "There you are" William remarked. "I thought you had left without me... and absconded with my gems" William added, remembering his rucksack filled with treasure. Maybe Joshua had helped himself to a few choice gemstones while William was away? Suddenly he was quite suspicious of the half elf.

"That might have been a good idea" Joshua grumbled under his breath, referring to William's suggestion that he and Suri had left him behind. "What's that?" William asked. "Nothing" the half elf replied. "Did you find any water, William?". "Yes, as it so happens I did" William confirmed. "I found an underground brook. It's over there to the right a couple of yards or so. If you're looking to refill your canteen I'd avoid the reflecting pool over there" William cautioned, pointing to the left. "Looked like a good place to take a wiz".

"Sure" Joshua said, more interested in the brook William mentioned first. "Did you bring back any water?". "Oops" William replied. "I forgot to fill my canteen". "By the Gods, William. You are completely useless, aren't you?" Joshua sputtered angrily. Rather than waste time explaining to William why he was desperate for water, Joshua jumped to his feet and started toward the direction William had indicated at a quick pace. "You stay here and watch Suri while I go fill our canteens". "Sure, why not?" William agreed. "Hey, can you take mine too?" William asked, but Joshua paid him no heed. "How rude!" William thought as the half elf practically ran into the darkness.

"Let's see if there was any thievery while I was away" William muttered, dropping to his knees and rummaging through Joshua's belongings. Nothing, although that didn't mean Joshua didn't stick a few gems into his pockets. He did, however, find a prepackaged meal. Realizing how hungry he was William tore open the waxed paper covering of the ration and quickly consumed it's contents. A bit salty, but better than nothing given how famished William was.

A dozen or so minutes passed as a nervous William strode around their makeshift camp waiting for the Joshua to return. Hearing a noise William's hand went immediately to the hilt of his sword. Was he just supposed to wait until some monster found him in the dark? William had romantic feelings for Suri, but she dumped him awhile ago for the half elf with the chiseled good looks.

If something dangerous showed up William was thinking, much as it would pain him, he would have no choice but to leave Suri to fend for herself. He looked down at the still unconscious sleeping beauty. Suri would be dead meat for sure. Fortunately leaving her to a certain death wasn't something William had to ponder for that long, as Joshua appeared a few seconds later, running through the dark.

"About damn time, pretty boy", William said as Joshua trotted toward him. Circling the camp again, William noticed something odd. "What's this?" William said, looking down and noticing a wooden bowl sitting on top of a large rock. He reached down and picked it up. "Give that to me William!" Joshua practically screamed. A shocked William almost dropped the bowl.

"Chill out dude" William said, handing the bowl to a glaring Joshua. Pouring a small amount of water into the bowl Joshua used the pestle to stir the mixture of ground herbs and fungi into a paste. "What's that?" William inquired, "you thinking about getting high?" "No, this is a poultice that will counteract the toxins in Suri's system" the frustrated cleric explained.

Joshua sat down on the ground next to Suri. Lifting her tunic a large blistering red patch of skin was revealed. "Didn't the spell you cast previously take care of that?" William asked, remembering the poison dart that had pierced Suri's side several hours ago. "No, my prayer only slowed down the poison, it did not counteract it. That is what this poultice is for" Joshua said, spreading the paste on Suri's skin around the area of the injury. "What kind of crap magic is that?" William wondered out loud.

Ignoring William's sacrilegious comment Joshua proceeded to wrap a length of cloth around Suri's torso. "Now what?" William asked. "Now we wait for the medicine to work", Joshua remarked, lowering Suri's tunic. "Probably 20 minutes or so, which means the antidote was administered just in the nick of time, given that the period of grace granted by Pollale has nearly passed". "Right" William grumbled quietly. Again with the God stuff. Being a devout atheist William didn't appreciate Joshua's deity delusions. Suri never said any of her magics came from some imaginary friend.

"You happen to see any exits while you were off wandering about?" Joshua asked, interrupting William's thoughts. "Indeed I did. There is a large set of double doors over there" William said, pointing toward the far right corner of the cavern". Although Suri was still unconscious Joshua thought it best that they be on their way. "Without the protection of the SEP field I don't want to risk lingering here any longer" Joshua said. "And, no William, I don't want to expend another charge, seeing as the talisman is running low and draining it completely would make mean it would either be more expensive or impossible to have recharged".

Suri groaned and her eyes fluttered open. "What happened?" the mage muttered. "You almost expired thanks to Joshua's weak magic" William replied; although he was in reality almost taken aback that Joshua's doctoring seemed to have worked. A perfect example of how reliance on magic was a bad idea, regardless of where it came from. "Are you hungry" Joshua asked Suri, thinking some food might help her recover her strength. "I've got one ration left in my pack...". But he wasn't able to locate it. "That's strange, I am positive it was here" a perplexed Joshua said, rummaging through his belongings.

SWTD #197, WTM #9.

Sunday, August 25, 2013

On Libertarians Scared Out Of Their Minds Regarding Statism But Who Worship The Wealthy Elites

Libertarianism is good because it helps conservatives pass off a patently probusiness political agenda as a noble bid for human freedom. Whatever we may think of libertarianism as a set of ideas, practically speaking, it is a doctrine that owes its visibility to the obvious charms it holds for the wealthy and the powerful. The reason we have so many well-funded libertarians in American these days is not because libertarianism suddenly acquired an enormous grassroots following, but because it appeals to those who are able to fund ideas. Like social Darwinism and Christian Science before it, libertarianism flatters the successful and rationalizes their core beliefs about the world. They warm to the libertarian idea that taxation is theft because they themselves don't like to pay taxes. They fancy the libertarian notion that regulation is communist because they themselves find regulation intrusive and annoying. Libertarianism is a politics born to be subsidized. In the "free market of ideas", it is a sure winner ~ quote from The Wrecking Crew by Thomas Frank.

The Libertarians who are scared out Of their minds regarding statism but worship the wealthy elites couldn't be bigger fools, in my opinion. You've seen their comments across the blogosphere; they are constantly warning us about the dangers of "big government" and "statism". They demonize both by claiming that there are those among us who "worship" big government as if it were a religion (see cartoon below). I authored a commentary on one such Libertarian a while back. In the mind of this Ayn Rand worshiping rational self interest as the highest ideal believing individual, what those who value freedom need to fear the most is tyrannical Progressivism.

The problems is that what they decry as "statism" is actually the citizens of the United States instructing our elected governmental representatives that they should pass legislation to provide services and assistance that benefits We The People. "Statism" is (in large part) when the citizens of a country decide we should have a strong social safety net, and, beyond that, there are some things (known as the Commons) that should be administered by the government on behalf of us all.

Healthcare (or health care insurance, the method by which the vast majority of us access health care) is one of those things that many of us on the Left believe should be a part of the Commons. Republicans and Libertarians believe that the health of the citizens is something corporations have the right to profit off of. In my mind the best method by which health care could be delivered to the people would be to open up Medicare to everyone. Medicare operates on a very low overhead (in the neighborhood of 2 percent) on a not-for-profit basis (which is in line with the Progressive belief that health care should be a part of the commons, or a RIGHT).

A compromise solution, passed into law via a piece of legislation known as the Affordable Care Act kept the profit motive intact. Originally proposed by "the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate" a mandate to buy HC insurance from FOR PROFIT providers (with some government assistance based on income), the ACA is now being vociferously opposed by Conservatives and Congressional Republicans who don't want the Democrats (and Barack Obama) to get credit (and receive the appreciation of the electorate).

The Republicans could have joined with Democrats and help shape the legislation and later share in the credit. Instead they decided to oppose (legislation and ideas they previously endorsed) and obstruct everything (even going as far as to oppose legislation that would benefit the country economically). According the Representative from the 32nd district of Texas, Pete Sessions, the plan was to wage a Taliban-like insurgency. They would, in other words, sabotage the Dems and Obama at every turn, regardless of the harm they might inflict on the country (a worsening economy would, in fact, be beneficial to them).

Not that any of this represents the Libertarian point of view. Repubs, Conservatives who distance themselves from the Republican Party, and Libertarians all demonize the ACA as a threat to "liberty" and all believe health care should be for profit (and it is not a part of the commons). Libertarians explicitly reject the very notion that any resource (or service) can be held in common (or administered for the common good). Ayn Rand, the source of many of the ideas that make up the ideology of Libertarians believed that anyone who accepts government assistance can be described as "parasites, looters and moochers [who used] the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor".

A "hero" to a Rand devotee would be a rugged individualist who made his own way in the world relying only upon him or herself. He (or she) was the type personified by the "I built this" meme of the 2012 GOP presidential convention. These are the people otherwise known as the Makers, while most of the rest of us are the Takers. In the Objectivist's eyes (a religion created to worship Rand) most of us fall into the category of the unwashed masses who deserve nothing more than a life of poverty and to die in the gutter.

Although the Libertarians did not support Mittens Romney, he and his running mate (Paul Ryan) did tear a page out of the Rand Bible in their adoption of the "makers and takers" meme of demonizing the vast majority of us who are not wealthy, or at least well off (this was the thinking behind Mittens' 47 percent comment). Mittens later walked back, and then even denied insulting Americans who have the gall to believe the reason government exists is to provide services and see to it that nobody (or as few people as possible) fall though the cracks.

The fact is, however, that this is the mentality of people who describe themselves as "fiscally conservative". What they actually mean is that the government should keep it's hands off the money of the people who have it. Even though capitalism is a flawed system that allows some to manipulate things to their advantage and wind up with a huge pile of money that was earned mainly via the labor of others (workers they force into "contracts" that tend to favor themselves).

Redistribution is the key in balancing the equation in the minds of the Left. Seeing as capitalism tends to favor a small minority and wealth concentrated in a small number of hands is not healthy for the economy or society, it is the RIGHT and JUST role of the government controlled by We The People to step in and attempt to do SOME equalizing. Who wants to live in a country where a small number of wealthy elites control everything and the vast majority of the populace lives in miserable squalor?

I know I sure as hell do not, but for the Libertarians the dystopian nightmare they envision would be a world gone completely Socialist. In their minds what we should all fear the most is that the government does too much us and that the taxes on rich folks are too high. There does come a point where I think the government could (hypothetically) go to far. I don't want the government to control the means of production (which it would have to in order to be fully Socialist), but we are leagues away from ever crossing that Rubicon.

That there are dupes and stooges who genuinely believe that the United States has swung dangerously toward far Left Socialism would be laughable, if not for the fact that it is these fools (extremist Republicans, Tea baggers, Libertarians and even some Conservative/Corporatist Dems) who are to blame for the obstruction that is retarding an economic recovery. The fact is we have much more to fear from the fascist Right that believes the plutocrats should rule. Them and their deluded dupes and stooges who think government should get out of the way and the right won't step in to fill the power vacuum.

The choice here is, I believe, is between two rulers... should We The People rule (via our elected representatives) or should the wealthy rule? As far as Libertarians are concerned, there is a distinction that should be noted (one that the Libertarians believe is quite significant)... that is while the Repubs think government should assist the wealthy in their quest to rule over us (and help the wealthy siphon off the fruits of our labors to enrich themselves), while the Libertarians believe government should get out of the way and allow the wealthy to rape workers and the common man without their assistance.

I say the result is much the same, so I place a lesser significance on this distinction. The utopian gates of the Progressive Kingdom (or greater equality and a healthier economy) will only open (or become possible) when the populace wakes the hell up and realizes that wealth must be kept in check. Wealth begets greed and corruption, whether it is in the private or the public sector. BOTH the Conservative Republicanism and Libertarianism that says redistribution/socialism is an evil must be guarded against.

Although, as the recent abuses of governmental power highlighted by the unconstitutional spying and data mining of the NSA shows, a big government that seeks to ever increase it's power can be a danger akin to that of the unchecked corporations. That answer is not, however, to strip down government, defund it, or keep it "out of the way". Doing that would [1] allow the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum and lead to a greater concentration of money and power in the hands of the wealthy. "Big government" is the only tool We The People have to keep the power of the wealthy in check. THAT is why some seek to destroy (or diminish) the power of government (by fooling some with slanders like "Big Guv").

The answer is not "small government" but more democracy and more transparency. The Citizens United SCOTUS decision was an effort by the Right to corrupt our elections. Elections under the influence of big money will tend to favor those paying for the elections. Unfortunately commercial propaganda campaigns CAN influence the gullible and cause them to vote against their own interest.

The answer it to stop worshiping the wealthy as Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians and Conservative/Corporate Democrats do. The answer to improving society and our economy is Progressivism. Socialism (Democratic Socialism) is not an evil. Fascism (rule by the wealthy and corporations) is the real evil... and when they corrupt our government via bribery THIS is what you could conceivably call "Big Guv". But when the "big government" (big enough to stand up to the corporations and the wealthy and keep them in check) is transparent and acting on our behalf? That could be a greater force for good.

Image Description: Ridiculous Libertarian cartoon that will cause gullible Righties to laugh and say, "that's so true" when the assertions it makes are actually false.

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

Responding to the assertions made in the "Shrine of the Statists: Big Guv" cartoon...

1. Speech Balloon: Big Guv is hungry. Will feed him more taxes!

My Response: Taxes are for needed government programs. Waste exists and we should work to eliminate as much of that as possible, but taxes aren't a "tribute" to "appease" this "Big Guv" god. Nobody is arguing that tax money should be intentionally wasted.

2. Speech Balloon: Big Guv will keep us safe!

My Response: Keeping us safe is the JOB of our police and military (supposed to be, at least). Nobody is arguing that people should give up the right to defend themselves.

3. Speech Balloon: Only Big Guv should have guns!

My Response: The courts have interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean citizens have a right to own guns. After the Sandy Hook tragedy the crazies in Congress (Repubs and some Conservative Dems) shot down modest restrictions and safeguards, yet this cartoonist suggest gun confiscation is a possibility? This is a total straw man.

4. Speech Balloon: Curse those who disbelieve!

My Response: Another straw man. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, is currently serving in the Senate. He ran for office and was elected, not "cursed".

5. Sign: Worship Obey.

My Response: Straw man. Nobody "worships" government. People are only expected to "obey" so far as laws are concerned. Disagreement is protected under the first amendment.

6. Gun in the right hand of "Big Guv": Government force.

My Response: Force is used to enforce laws passed by our elected representatives. What is this, a call for anarchy? (Actually it's the old canard that the collection of taxes is backed up by force and is theft. Sorry, Libertarians, but the collection of taxes is authorized by the Constitution).

7. Door in side of "Big Gov": Implication that dissenters will be jailed.

My Response: Free speech is protected by the first amendment. People aren't thrown in jail for being Libertarians.

8. The Fed in the left hand of "Big Guv": Implication that the Fed is under the control of "Big Guv".

My Response: Incorrect. Wikipedia says "the Federal Reserve System has both private and public components, and was designed to serve the interests of both the general public and private bankers". Why should the Fed serve the interest of private bankers instead of only acting in the OUR interest? Answer; it shouldn't. The Fed needs to be brought fully under the control of "Big Guv".

SWTD #196, lDel #5.

Wednesday, August 21, 2013

The Miseducation Of Whitey On The Subject Of Reverse Racism

[An] article published in one of psychology's top journals, Psychological Science... [confirms] ...that lower intelligence in childhood is predictive of greater racism in adulthood, with this effect being mediated (partially explained) through conservative ideology. [The study] also found poor abstract reasoning skills were related to homophobic attitudes which was mediated through authoritarianism and low levels of intergroup contact ~ Except from the article Do Racism, Conservatism, and Low I.Q. Go Hand in Hand? by Goal Auzeen Saedi (Ph.D) reporting on a 2012 study by Gordon Hodson and Michael A. Busseri of Brock University.

Conservative Crackers like to cling to their accusations of reverse racism. They see Black folks claiming racism from White folks and the Crackers say "us too". It's not just White people who can be racist, Black people can also be racist. Fact is, White people are actually the bigger victims. How so? It's because Blacks whining about racism is mostly phony. They've largely become dependent on government handouts and need to keep complaining about racism in order to keep getting free stuff. Black leaders take advantage of this situation by whipping up racism (where it doesn't exist) in order to enrich themselves. These Black hucksters are known as "race hustlers" or "race pimps".

This theft (Blacks whine about racism and get free stuff from the enabling Democratic politicians) results in further victimization of the Conservative Cracker. If only the racist Dems would stop enabling racist Blacks (and force them to stop whining about racism and pull themselves up by their own bootstraps) then we would be a lot closer to achieving a post racial society. It's all the fault of lazy Blacks and Dems playing them for their votes, in other words. That's how Barack Obama got elected. A Black Dem running as a Democrat motivated all the Black folks (more than 90 percent of them) to vote when they otherwise would have stayed home.

Now the White Conservatives are paying the price. They are the true victims of this conspiracy between lazy Blacks who like laying back and relaxing in their social safety net hammock and the Democratic Party (the providers of the hammock). If not for the Tea Party and the obstructing Republicans (obstruction being a positive in this case) Obama and the Democrats would have taken this country fully Socialist by now.

At least that's how they see it (in my estimation). Me, I see things quite differently. In regards to "reverse racism", I, after a small amount of Googling, found a blog post by the (African American) singer Lauryn Hill that made a lot of sense to me. My opinion already was quite similar, but her articulation of the concept, IMO does a good job of making the case that "reverse racism" is largely a bogus concept created by White Crackers in an attempt to downplay actual racism by insisting it's all the same. Whites are racist toward Blacks and Blacks are racist toward Whites. Racism is racism - in their minds.

Following is an excerpt from the Tumblr blog post by Ms. Hill...

Lauryn Hill: The concept of reverse racism is flawed, if not absolutely ridiculous. Most, if not all of the negative responses from people of color toward white people, are reactions to the hatred, violence, cruelty and brutality that they were shown by white people for centuries. Much of the foundation of the modern world was built on the forced free labor of black peoples. The African Slave Trade, the institution of slavery, colonialism, its derivative systems, and the multiple holocausts throughout history, where whites used race as the defining reason to justify their oppression, conquest, and brutal treatment of non-white peoples, are how race became such a factor to begin with. ... In order to justify reverse racism one would have to first create an even playing field, undo the generations of torture, terror, and brutality, and then judge whether or not a non-white person is in fact a racist. (Excerpt from Lauryn Hill's Tumblr blog post on the subject of "reverse racism", July 2013).

My takeaway is that what some Whites perceive as "racism" is actually the reaction of some Black people to the racism of some White people as well as White culture and institutions run largely by Whites (i.e. institutional racism). Certainly not all Whites are racist, and therefore any blaming of Whitey by Blacks folks (or any specific African American harboring resentment toward Whites in general) is not completely justifiable, although it is certainly understandable.

This is the point on which the Conservative Crackers strongly disagree and strongly object. And this is why the Republican Party will never attract any more than a tiny sliver of the Black vote. It isn't (by and large) because the Democratic Party gives freebies to poor Blacks (as well as poor Whites, but the Crackers ignore this reality), but because they offer respect for the very real problems Black people face as a result of racism. They don't place the blame on the Black community itself or on Black leaders with slurs like "race hustlers".

This is why our country's changing demographics favor Democrats. The Republican Party recently acknowledged that they need to adapt in order to attract minority voters. But then they did nothing and, in fact, indicated that they really have no intention of changing - new restrictive voter ID laws passed with the CLEAR intention of disenfranchising minorities being one of the primary examples of the Republican Party's recalcitrance.

At least as far as the presidency goes I think they're walking away from the changes they need to make to win it. Because of this I think it looks like the Democrats may have a lock on the White House for some time to come. Only problem is that, due to the Repubs having control of the House during the redistricting following the census... there are a number of seats that are pretty much a lock for the Repubs. Could mean more gridlock and obstruction for the next Democratic president (which could very well be Hillary Clinton).

The bottom line I think is that we aren't going to make any kind of significant progress until the younger generation takes over and the United States transitions from a majority White nation to a majority minority nation. This, by the way, is not a situation I am dreading. Fact is, if it means a shift to the political Left then this is something I look forward to, although it may not happen in my lifetime (estimates from the last census say this won't happen until 2043).

Not soon enough as far as this middle-aged White guy is concerned. Although it looks good as far as there being enough minorities and White Democrats to outvote the Repubs where the presidency is concerned. Bring on President Hillary, I say (even though I'd prefer someone a little more Progressive; someone like Jill Stein). Don't get me wrong, however. Even though I've been disappointed by a number of the positions of President Obama, I'm still going to be voting Democratic and will enthusiastically cast my ballot for Hillary (should she run). I'm not throwing my vote away on a third party candidate who has no chance of winning.

And you can bet I'll be laughing heartily if (or WHEN) Hillary defeats whatever White guy the other side nominates. No doubt then the attacks will shift from being racial to being misogynistic in nature. Anyway, to bring this post back around to the topic I was originally started with - let me just say that "reverse racism" is, in my strong opinion, largely absolutely ridiculous (I am in agreement with Lauryn Hill on this). It's nothing but a (mostly) false construct utilized by racist (largely Conservative) Whites to blame Blacks for the consequences of White racism.

(FYI: this post was prompted by a comment from a clearly racially biased individual who uses the ID Rusty Shackelford. He wanted me to author a commentary about a case of Black on White violence, and brought up "reverse racism"; although he said it would apply to *me* if I failed to write a post on the subject... even though I think, given that I'm not expressing the outrage Rusty demanded, "race traitor" may be the applicable term... the one a Cracker like Rusty would use, at least).

SWTD #195

Sunday, August 18, 2013

A Decidedly Non Auspicious Adventure (Part 4)

There is poison in the fang of the serpent, in the mouth of the fly and in the sting of a scorpion; but the wicked man is saturated with it ~ Chanakya (circa 370–283 BCE) an Indian teacher, philosopher and royal advisor. Originally a professor of economics and political science at the ancient Takshashila University, Chanakya managed the first Maurya emperor Chandragupta's rise to power at a young age. He is widely credited for having played an important role in the establishment of the Maurya Empire.

Speaking in the mystical tongue Suri read the scroll containing the Knock spell. Upon completion nothing happened. "I knew it" William muttered. "Faulty magic, most likely". "Hush, William" an annoyed Suri replied as a crack in the wall appeared. "There IS a door" Joshua confirmed. "William should take the lead" Suri decided, concerned about booby traps.

"What? You're the one who found it. Ladies first, I say" William complained. Both Suri and Joshua flashed their companion a dirty look. "Well, I guess you did open it. My turn then" William acquiesced. By this time the crack had spread all around the chalk outline and the now apparent door began to swing open. The three associates stepped back to allow the stone slab to swing into the room. Suri tilted her staff forward so that the glowing stone on top could illuminate what lay beyond.

A narrow corridor that extended beyond the reach of the light-spell-powered rock was revealed. Meanwhile the noise that indicated their enemies might be trying to bash their way through the opposing wall continued. "I think they are getting close to breaking in", a worried William remarked. "Time to go" William decided, hoisting up his gem-laden pack he steped over the threshold and into the corridor. Suri followed closely behind. "Close the door behind you" Suri said, speaking to Joshua. William stopped short and Suri ran into him. "Move it, William!" she grunted, her face in his hair. "My pack is slipping out of my grasp" William snarled, explaining why he had stopped short.

Standing in the door frame Suri felt a sting in her side. "Ow! what the Hades was that!" Suri cried. William moved forward and everyone entered the passage. Suri grasped her side in agony as the small sting turned into a searing pain. "Let me take a look" Joshua said, first closing the door behind him, then kneeling down to get a closer look at the area Suri indicated was the source of her discomfort. "A dart has pierced your skin" Joshua said, carefully plucking out a tiny barbed projectile.

"William, you arsehole" Suri muttered as her body went limp. Suri's mage's staff clattered to the floor and Joshua quickly stood to catch Suri before she collapsed. "Look at her face, it has gone completely white" a concerned William gulped. "She has been poisoned" Joshua replied. "Luckily I have a slow poison spell memorized" Joshua whispered. "What about the Croakers?" William cried, looking worried. "The door clicked shut behind me. It usually is the case with secret doors that their magic is reactivated once they close. So, hopefully it will not be noticed from the other side" Joshua replied in a hushed tone. "Now be quiet while I cast my spell. I have to act quickly or Suri will die".

The cleric spoke words of power relayed to him by his God and Suri seemed to stabilize. "She is OK for now" Joshua observed. "Now help me carry her body". "I can't help you carry Suri and bear the burden of my heavy rucksack" William complained, looking annoyed. "Quickly William, we must depart posthaste!" Joshua hissed. "No way" William said, refusing Joshua's command. "After all we have sacrificed I am not walking away empty handed".

Knowing that an argument would only delay their escape Joshua spun his knapsack around to his front, then squatted and secured Suri's staff to the side of her knapsack. Finally he draped Suri's right and left arms over his right and left shoulders. Standing he took a few steps while dragging Suri behind him. "Proceed" Joshua grunted, indicating that William should move forward. In this manner William and Joshua made their way slowly down the passage. Apparently their Caecilanite friends would not, or had not yet found the secret door.

After walking for a while William and Joshua came to a fork in the tunnel. "Which way should we go?" William asked. "Well, we could turn, hoping that the Caecilanoids go straight if they follow us, but that tunnel seems to slope downward. I say we continue onward" Joshua decided. "OK" William agreed. The exhausted companions trudged onward, noting the slight incline. "This would be a lot easier if you dropped your sack" Joshua finally said, observing that William was slowing down considerably. "We just need to find a place to rest" William replied.

"I can't drag Suri much longer" Joshua agreed. Still the two continued on for quite a while longer. "What's that?" William whispered as the light from Suri's staff illuminated a enormous cavern dead ahead. Exiting the narrow passage William dropped his sack and sank to his knees, exhausted. Joshua carefully lowered Suri to the ground. Removing her pack Joshua placed her bedroll under her head. "I'm exhausted, but have nothing to rest on, seeing as I left my bedroll behind" William complained, looking at Joshua. "Don't look at me, I'm using my bedroll" Joshua answered. He unrolled his sleeping mat and laid down next to Suri. "You could keep watch" the half elf suggested.

But, knowing it would be foolhardy to rely upon William to protect them Joshua removed his SEP talisman from his pack. Mentally reciting the activation command Joshua expended one of the enchanted item's charges. Now they should be relatively safe. Even if a monster happened to stumble across them (literally) in the dark it would be somebody else's problem, and whoever (or whatever) it was would continue on without giving the reason for the trip a second thought. The magic only worked on living creatures with a modicum of intelligence, however, so there was still a risk that something unthinking or incredibly stupid would find them. But, as dead tired as he was, Joshua decided he had little choice.

William curled up on the hard stone and tried to fall asleep. Waking with a start some time later he found himself surrounded by utter blackness. When William's eyes adjusted he noticed a soft glow on the ground next to a sleeping Joshua. It was the illuminated stone atop Suri's staff, covered with a handkerchief. The piece of cloth fluttered to the ground when William grabbed the staff and used it as a crutch to rise from the hard stone. "Oh, my aching back" William muttered as this spine cracked.

William's throat was parched, so he wandered away to see if he could find any potable water, but not before he checked both Joshua's and Suri's canteens. Unfortunately only one contained a mouthful of water, which William gulped down. Crossing the rocky terrain William moved toward what he imagined was the sound of gurgling water. Discovering a small sub terrestrial brook the still thirsty William sank to his knees and drank his fill. "That hit the spot" a sated William sighed after imbibing a bellyful of the cool liquid.

Meanwhile Joshua awoke and found the light staff missing. "William!" he hissed. Where was the doofus? Joshua was almost convinced that he should slit William's throat and take his chances with Suri alone. Still, they might need him. And his religion forbade such act of betrayal against a friendly traveling companion. Also, for some odd reason it seemed that Suri liked him, or had some kind of unnatural connection to the lout.

Digging around in his pack in the pitch-blackness Joshua found the medium sized leather pouch he was looking for. Opening it, the half-elven cleric withdrew a small item wrapped in cloth. Unwrapping the cloth revealed a coin from which an eerie light emanated. Clearly it would not have been prudent to travel below the earth without a back up light source, and this light spell powered coin was his.

Silently Joshua said a prayer to Pollale, the Goddess of healing. When he was finished he received his reply. No voice spoke to him, but Joshua knew what needed to be done none-the-less. Quickly he pulled from the pouch a variety of herbs contained in small metal canisters. Using his wooden mortar and pestle Joshua mixed several dried herbs and fungi into a fine dust; an antidote to the poison that would have killed Suri if not for the slow poison spell he had cast earlier (a spell he sensed was about to expire). Now all he had to do to add a teaspoon or so of water to complete his poultice. Luckily he remembered he had a small amount of liquid remaining in his canteen.

Joshua unscrewed the cap and titled the lip of the container into the wooden bowl, but no liquid was forthcoming. "What happened to my water?", a confused Joshua wondered out loud. The vessel did not appear to be leaking. Joshua tried Suri's canteen and found it was also empty. And still no sign of William. But wherever he had got to it was not what was most pressing at the moment, as Suri had less than a half hour remaining before the magic keeping the poison within her at bay expired. If that happened it would be to late. Suri would be dead within minutes.

SWTD #194, WTM #8.

Saturday, August 17, 2013

An Apology To Paula Deen

It is a good rule in life never to apologize. The right sort of people do not want apologies, and the wrong sort take a mean advantage of them ~ P.G. Wodehouse (10/15/1881 to 2/14/1975) an English humorist whose body of work includes novels, short stories, plays, poems, song lyrics and numerous pieces of journalism.

A couple of days ago I received the following news (and suggestion) from a regular (and loyal) reader of my blog, Rusty Shackelford...

Rusty Shackelford: Hey Col. Sanders, yesterday a federal judge dismissed all race based discrimination charges against Paula Deen. will you write one of your 40,000 words posts apologizing to her? (8/13/2013 AT 8:31am).

OK, so I looked into it and it turns out Rusty is right, According to the Chicago Tribune "the U.S. District Judge William Moore ruled on Monday that Jackson had no grounds to sue on the basis of racial discrimination because she is white".

So Paula Deen didn't allow any racial discrimination in any of her Savannah Georgia restaurants? Paula Deen's brother Bubba Hiers never told an employee to keep the front "light" when hiring, nor referred to any of the people working in the back as coons? Paula herself never said (in her deposition for the Lisa Jackson lawsuit) that racial jokes aren't a problem, so long as they are not mean, or that the use of the N-word in a joke might OK depending on context? And, of course, Paula absolutely never said she wanted "a bunch of little ni**ers... to tap dance around" at her brother's wedding?

The judge's ruling means none of that happened, right? Even though a few of those accusations Paula Deen flat out admitted. She probably just misremembered. You might reach this conclusion if you have a reading comprehension problem like Rusty apparently does. Or maybe Rusty just read the headline and didn't bother looking into it further? Who knows, and more importantly, who cares? The important thing to note here is that Rusty is wrong (as well as an idiot).

Rusty is wrong because the judge's decision was based on the legal concept know as "standing"... For those who don't know what "standing" is (Rusty), I have excerpted a portion of the definition from the legal dictionary website as follows...

Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

So the ruling had absolutely nothing to due with Paula Deen being "not guilty" of any of the racial-bias-related charges contained in Lisa Jackson's lawsuit. Regarding their validity (or lack of validity) the judge made no determination at all. He only said Lisa Jackson lacked standing to sue for racial discrimination because she isn't Black... even though she was offended by the racial discrimination that took place in Paula Deen's eateries. Also despite the fact that there was PLENTY of evidence to back up the racial discrimination/harassment claims.

Adding a Black co-plaintiff would have been a sure way to head off this issue (the White Lisa Jackson filing a lawsuit that contained charges of racial discrimination/harassment). Whether or not she attempted to find a co-plaintiff I do not know, but am sure it likely that she would (or did) have a difficult (or impossible) time finding someone willing to step forward... because anyone who did would lose their job and could find it hard to get another one (who wants to hire someone who sued a former employer?). People are usually not eager to risk their ability to earn a living and possibly lose everything - even if they know they are in the right (any Black employee of Paula Deen who was racially discriminated against or harassed).

In any case, the bottom line is that the judge did NOT say there was no racial discrimination (one way or the other), only that Lisa Jackson lacks standing to sue Paula Deen for it. However, the lawsuit will be moving forward in regards to the sexual discrimination/harassment also alleged by Ms. Jackson. This ruling HARDLY vindicates Deen... even if the pea-brained Rusty thinks it does...

Rusty Shackelford: The moron Col Sanders had Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder and Paula Deen in prison for racial hate crimes. duh, dead wrong on both counts. the twit see's a racist behind every tree. (8/13/2013 AT 11:13am).

Actually, Rusty, I did not "have" Zimmerman guilty of first degree murder. I wrote a post in which I presented a theory concerning the possibility that Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin in cold blood - but I was very clear about my musings being nothing more than speculation (another demonstration of Rusty's reading comprehension problem). In regards to me having "Paula Deen in prison for racial hate crimes"... she's being sued in civil court, moron. She can only lose money, not her freedom. There never was any chance that Paula Deen could have been sent to prison.

Also, I only see possible racial biases motivating people's actions where they may actually exist. Facts exist that point to Zimmerman's actions being racially motivated. The (disputed) racial epithet on the call to the police and the accompanying "they always get away" remark ("they" being Black thugs). In addition there was a witness (who didn't testify during the trial) that said "Zimmerman and his family were racists who disliked blacks". And then there is the racist friend of Zimmerman who made the rounds defending him on various media programs. According to Frank Taafee (the friend) whites and blacks have no business mingling. Appearing on the podcaset "The White Voice" Taaffe said, "they don't want to be with us and we don't want to be with them". Obviously he considered George to be one of "us".

The only way you could say that I'm the kind of person who sees a racist behind every tree would be to be willfully ignorant of these facts... as many Conservatives are. When the topic of Frank Taafee came up a commenter on my blog (an Anon calling himself "Food4Thought) said, "who Gives A Shit About Frank Taaffe? I don't even know who the hell he is and furthermore I don't care". Of course you don't care. Any evidence that points to Zimmerman possibly being racist has to be ignored because it doesn't fit your (racist) "Black thug" narrative.

And now that the judge has thrown out the judge has "ruled that Jackson had no grounds to sue on the basis of racial discrimination because she is white" Conservatives (like Rusty) will continue to ignore the abundant evidence that says Paula Deen was guilty anyway. In their minds Paula Deen has been vindicated. Paula only used the N-word 30 years ago and none of the other stuff ever happened (the examples I gave at the top of the post nor anything else referenced in the lawsuit or deposition).

Obviously ignorance is bliss (or dissonance reduction is bliss). With that in mind, time for my apology...

My apology to Paula Deen: Mrs. Deen, I am terribly sorry you got lucky and won't be held accountable for the racial discrimination you've tolerated at your eateries for so long... you needed a wake up call and now (due to this ruling) you will wrongly feel you have been vindicated. Here is hoping you'll at least be punished for the sexual discrimination you permitted against Lisa Jackson by your racist misogynist lout of a brother (the primary perpetrator) and that will finally get you to acknowledge that no discrimination (of any kind) should be tolerated in your businesses. Maybe then you'll actually do something to put an end to it? No employee of yours should be subjected to the hostile and discriminatory workplace that you have allowed for far too long.

Whatever happens I hope the lawsuit against you results in a big judgment (dollar figure-wise) against you and in favor of Mrs. Jackson. Then, at the very least, Lisa Jackson will be vindicated and compensated for the harm you visited upon her due to the hostile work environment and resulting job loss. Even if the rest of your employees will continue to be harassed and discriminated against, at least one of your victims will attain some justice.

And that is the best apology I can muster up. Whether or not it's good enough for Rusty and other like-minded conservatives remains to be seen (I'm guessing no).

Finally, in regards to Rusty's 40 thousand-word remark... I have never authored a post of that length. For example, the post "Severe Conservative Delusions: MLK Quote-Off Edition" consists of 1350 words (or 6634 characters not including spaces). As you can see this post falls FAR short of 40 thousand words Rusty implies is my average (number of words determined via the use of the Microsoft Word Word count tool).

There was, however, one really long post (and this is the one Rusty is probably thinking of) titled "Severe Moderate Delusions: GZ Tripping Straw Man Edition (Volume 2)". Is this post anywhere near 40 thousand words? No, Microsoft Word says it contains 6905 words... although it comes close if characters (including spaces) are counted. The number of characters is 39,139. But this post was several times longer than normal (the 1350 word post is about average). I doubt I'll be authoring a post of that length again anytime soon (if ever).

So, big fail in regards to the 40k-word post mega-exaggeration, Rusty. I've never written a post anywhere near that length.

SWTD #193

Friday, August 16, 2013

A Display Of Dishonesty And Deception In Regards To A Rejected Truce

The greatest deception men suffer is from their own opinions ~ Leonardo da Vinci (4/15/1452 to 5/2/1519) an Italian Renaissance painter, sculptor, architect, musician, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist, and writer.

This post is a message from me to the blogger formerly known as dmarks. If this sounds like something you would not be interested in (and you very well may not be), feel free to stop reading.

Still reading? OK, then let me explain (in case you aren't dmarks)... dmarks recently changed his Blogger ID to D. Luthor. Why? Could have something to do with me writing a number of posts about him on this blog. Maybe he wanted to escape the name dmarks and the unflattering things I said about him? Before anyone accuses me of having a big ego -- in that I'd actually think another blogger would change his name because of something I said on my blog... relax. This is just a theory. Still (I think) there is a good possibility that this is exactly what happened.

Now, before I get to the message, first I'll reveal the reason behind it, which has to do with a comment Luthor/dmarks recently made on the Rational Nation blog...

D. Luthor: About that Dervish blog? The guy that ran it made a big deal about a "truce" in which he would stop calling me Dennis (no big deal for me) and I would not call him by Sanders' name or rank (very important to him). In return I would un-ban him from my blog (also important to him). I accepted his truce. His response was to go on and break his promise and use the "Dennis" name which gives him so much joy. As a result of his display of dishonesty and deception, I have re banned him... along with the Hitler baby anon guy (comment from the RN blog, 8/14/2013).

What I'd like to tell Lex is that he is mistaken. I offered to stop calling him "Dennis" on 8/11/2013 (in a comment on the blog of Lester Nation). I wrote a post in which I called him "Dennis" and published it on 8/10/2013. Of course, when I offered to stop calling him "Dennis" I meant GOING FORWARD. I never offered to go back and edit any old post in which I referred to Luthor/Marks as "Dennis".

I don't care for being accused of dishonesty or deception; even though I'm sure Lex simply didn't notice the dates on which the truce was made compared to the date on the offending post. No biggie if he acknowledges the error, but that isn't the only untrue accusation put forth by Lex in his comment. He also says me calling him "Dennis" was "no big deal" for him, when it clearly bothered him quite a bit (even if he didn't change his ID for that reason... there were other signs he didn't like it). Then he says that me getting him to stop referring to me as "Harland" or "Colonel" (based on the Sanders surname) was "very important" to me.

Also very important to me (according to Lex) is me not being banned on his blog. But Lex is wrong on all counts. In fact, I SPECIFICALLY SAID none of these things were that big a deal to me when I offered the truce. And, while I did ask he not call me "Harland" or "Colonel", I never said anything about being unbanned from his blog. That was entirely his idea.

Everything Lex says is important to me is actually not important to me AT ALL. And I know Lex reads this blog. He doesn't comment (although he may have commented anonymously before I disabled that option), but there have been no "D. Luthor" comments here. He did comment before changing his ID on the Paula Deen post, but before that I can't remember the last time I saw a dmarks' remark here. As for how I know he reads? He revealed he knew things on the RN blog that he'd have no way of knowing otherwise.

Given that he has read, I'm thinking he will read this. I do not care if he doesn't however, as the actual purpose of this post (despite what I said in the opening) is so a public record refuting his claims of "dishonesty" and "deception" exists. And to emphasize that my offer was genuine. There was definitely no deception or dishonesty. I am, however, only guessing that the post concerning MLK quotes (the one where I referred to dmarks/Luthor as Dennis) is the reason Lex now thinks I'm dishonest and deceptive. It's possible I called him Dennis in a comment somewhere, although I don't think I did. And if I did it was out of habit and not on purpose.

However, he did say "about that Dervish blog". This is why I assume he was referring to the aforementioned post. In any case, the cease-fire is clearly now off, as calling the one making the overture dishonest and saying the proposition was a "deception" pretty much voids it, I think. Also, despite the name change he kept the first initial of "D", which I still say stands for "Dennis". That would explain why it upset him so. Dennis was like, "how did he know??".

Update 10/14/2013: "D. Luthor" changed his blogger ID back to "dmarks". Perhaps, as suggested by another blogger, "d marks" stands for the grades he got in school? That, or his name actually is Dennis. I think it more likely that Dennis Marks got D marks in school.

SWTD #192, dDel #13.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Who Is Quilty Of Being The Sword Of Truth?

It's like if you have a quilt and a thread is loose and they see that thread, they say, forget the rest of the quilt. It's not guilty ~ Gil Garcetti (dob 8/5/1941) Los Angeles County's 40th District Attorney for two terms, from 1992 until November 7, 2000. Garcetti's first term was dominated by his office's prosecution of the O.J. Simpson double-murder trial.

Who is "The Sword of Truth"? An individual using the anonymous option and typing in the name The Sword of Truth (TSOT) previously commented on this blog... although now that I have disabled anonymous commenting TSOT is gone (or the ID is gone but not necessarily the person behind it). I have previously guessed that TSOT was another blogger known as Truth101, but he denied it was him. Prior to me disallowing anonymous commenting an Anon suggested that TSOT might be rAtional nAtion.

Now (using my Sherlock skills), I have hit upon a clue that may point to the blogger behind TSOT. I noticed this clue while reading the blog Progressive Eruptions. Specifically I noticed the clue contained in the following comment left by TSOT...

The Sword of Truth: Partisanship, by it's very nature blinds one to thoroughly considering, let alone understanding all viewpoints. ... Both ideological extremes are quilty of this. Denying this truth is either naive or stupid. (8/13/2013 AT 11:41am).

Speaking against partisanship? That could be something an individual who identifies as Libertarian and has problems with both of this country's two major parties might do, no? But (and this is the clue)... both ideological extremes are "quilty" of this? Quilty? This could just be a typo (even thought the "Q" and "G" keys are nowhere near one another), but I do remember another individual who made this same typo numerous times. That individual? rAtional nAtion.

Following are eight examples of this typo from Mr. nAtion (found via Google)...

1. rAtional nAtion: Yeah, Zimmerman is quilty of his elevator stopping shy of the top floor. I'll leave it at that. (RN comment from Contra O'Reilly post "wd Lies AGAIN 2", 8/1/2013).

2. rAtional nAtion: Again, a verdict of "not quilty" does not necessarily imply innocence. It does default to fully restoring to the individual found "not guilty" of the charges brought against him/her their full freedom. (RN comment from the RN post "Race Baiting at the Highest Level of the Federal Government", 7/19/2013).

3. rAtional nAtion: And today the jury spoke. Not quilty of second degree murder. (RN comment from the Libertarian Republican post "Zimmerman's Trial: Day 1 of Closing Arguments", 7/13/2013).

4. rAtional nAtion: My disgust with both parties, their antics, and their inability to resolve the major issues of times. Rather than talking with and negotiating they talk at each other, more interested in winning and preserving power for the party. In all honesty I must say the rEpublicans are most quilty of this. (RN comment from the RN post "The Scandal That Won't Go Away", 5/17/2013).

5. rAtional nAtion: Was there a cover up? Likely not! Possible mismanagement, maybe. If this were a crime GWB and others before him are quilty and their Secretaries as well, maybe. (RN comment from the PE post "Benghazi: Krokodil for Conservatives", 5/9/2013).

6. rAtional nAtion: As much as I am sure the bastards are quilty and I would like nothing better than to see the surviving bastard tried as an enemy combatants and when convicted put to a slow torturous death it can't logically be justified under the Constitution. (RN comment from the Swash Zone post "Mirandize This!", 4/21/2013).

7. rAtional nAtion: The tone of this post is as critical of neo cons as it is of ultra liberals. Because in general {at least in MHO} Both are quilty of the divide and conquer mentality. (RN comment from RN post "Thoughts On Our Current Political Climate", 10/22/2011).

8. rAtional nAtion: Read Animal Farm. you will see the eventual ends of the socialist/statist juggernaut. The quilty verdict is in part justified. However, a second guilty should be pronounced on a complicit democratic party as well. (RN comment from Truth101 post "Judgement Day!", 4/15/2010).

When someone makes the same typo SO MANY TIMES can it be pointed to as an identifying trait? Yes, I found the same typo made by other people - but with Mr. nAtion, not only do we have multiple examples of the "quilty" typo, but we also have similar sentiments in regards to the rEpublican and dEmocratic parties. So, could TSOT and RN be one in the same? I report, you be the ultimate judge. Your views and thoughts are most welcome.

However, if RN is TSOT, the question then is... why is he submitting so many comments using this ID to his supposed friend Shaw's blog? For example, on this comment thread TSOT submits four comments in a row that don't add up to much. Whoever TSOT is, what is the point of this? And if TSOT is RN, why use an anonymous ID? PE isn't a blog RN is banned from. Also, note another typo in this comment thread... TSOT publishes as "The Sword pf Truth". P and O are at least near each other on the keyboard I suppose.

Anyway, RN seemed to enjoy my "Sherlocking"... when I noticed that an Anon frequently placed periods in the middle of his sentences, RN made fun of my observation on his blog with a post praising me that also mentioned "misplaced periods". Given that, here is some more sherlocking presented for the enjoyment of my readers; but more importantly, for the enjoyment of RN (I'm sure he will LMAO).

After my last post I thought RN had been discussed here enough and that it was time to move on to other topics. But because RN recently asked, "now, why don't you do another post about RNUSA?", I have decided to do one more to satisfy RN's request. Why? Because Mr. nAtion's wish is my command. RN should consider this commentary my tribute and gift him. Maybe we can be friends now?

SWTD #191, lDel #4

Wednesday, August 14, 2013

Blogger Who Laughably Calls Himself Rational Fights Imaginary Progressive Hitlers (What A Piece Of Work This Guy Is)

Someone who is a "piece of work" is a person who is unaware of his own foolishness. The term originates from the "what a piece of work is a man" monologue from Hamlet. More precisely an ironic reflection of how little most men achieve despite being endowed with relatively enormous powers to act and reason. Generally used as a sarcastic "compliment" ~ An entry from the Urban Dictionary, which is "a Web-based dictionary of slang words and phrases".

An anonymous commenter told me that Lester Carpenter of the blog rAtional nAtion USA is a "blog attacker". According to this Anon Mr. nAtion and his buddies have harassed a number of bloggers until they could take it no longer and shut down their blogs. I honestly do not know if there is any truth to this or not. I am fairly certain that Lester commented anonymously a few times as "Ludoc". When "Ludoc" was outed as Lester by an Anon, "Ludoc" commented once more, saying "Anonymous must be high", and then vanished. No sense in using that name anymore once we all knew who it was. Also, Lester recently admitted that "I've had fun playing games with your delusional ass".

Anyway, the reason for this post is that Lester published a commentary on his blog (dated 8/6/2013) that concerns me and my blog. According to Lester's post, my blog "Sleeping with the Devil" is "relatively new, yet up and coming". This post, which largely appears to be complementary, is a prime example of how Lester operates. The same Anon I mentioned above also asked, "ever notice how RN never really says what he thinks? He likes to bait people, without stating his position". Indeed.

I HAVE noticed that Lester does this. For example, he recently "authored" a post titled "The Second Amendment and Security". I put "authored" in quotes because there is not much to the post. Just a link to an Alex Jones video and the sentence, "I know what I say. It may not be exactly what you're thinking".

Someone reading this post might assume Lester agrees with Alex Jones, a conspiracy-minded insane person who believes the Left wants to confiscate all guns and then commence with the murdering... of Conservatives & Libertarians, presumably. Those who aren't slaughtered would go to those FEMA concentration camps we've all heard of. Is Lester on the same page as Alex Jones? Who knows, and really, who cares? If he wanted to discuss the topic why did he not just state outright what his position is?

He does not because... apparently this is Lester's idea of something a really clever person does. Like this blog post of his "promoting" me. Lester says my blog is "an up and coming progressive site", when he's actually been leaving numerous comments referring to this blog as a "garbage dump of a progressive site" and saying "the caliber of people it attracts is beneath [him]".

The purpose of these comments is clear... Lester wants to convince others my blog is a "garbage dump" and drive them away. No doubt the "caliber of people" included many "people" who were actually the rAtional oNe posting anonymously (The Sword of Truth is another possibility). With this post of Lester's, a post in which he refers to my "edgy razor sharp analysis [that] is as blunt as a hoe", has Lester made it official his intent to try to shut me down? Stage one involved Lester posting insults, both anonymously and as himself. Step two looks like Lester using his blog to encourage others to visit my blog and continue the assault on his behalf.

Although it looks like step two has failed (if this was Lester's plan). Nothing has happened that is causing me to consider shuttering my blog. Looks like this development has left the rAtional dUde rather grumpy boiling over with pure rage. On his blog he says I "confirmed" his negative assertions about me... because I dared to take offense to his insults, and because I attempted to bring my "crap fest" to his blog... although this "crap fest" is me pointing out Lester's hypocrisy (he insults me in his post but objects when I defend myself) and arguing with another commenter.

No big deal. I don't have a thin skin so I can deal with Lester's mildly insulting commentary. But now he says "enjoying yourself wd/DS/Anon - and likely a multitude of other aliases". Presumably he's referring to some Anon comments he didn't publish (as well as one he did publish from an Anon who calls him/herself "Gail"). But Lester has an acknowledged a problem with unwanted and harassing Anon comments long before I showed up. dmarks gave this Anon a nickname... calling him the "Hitler Baby". Now suddenly these Anons are all me?

In any case, this bullsh!t is what prompted me to finish this rebuttal. I repeated accusations from an anonymous commenter about Lester commenting here anonymously... so he does the same thing on his blog. Now *I'm* a bunch of (unpublished) Anon commenters? How original Lester. I submitted ZERO anonymous comment to your blog. In phony disgust at all the anonymous comments I've (not) been submitting Lester says, "what a piece of work you are". You want to see a "piece of work" Lester? I suggest looking in the mirror. In my strong opinion it is the HEIGHT of foolishness to declare yourself a devotee of Ayn Rand and Objectivism. As foolish as making comments about pacifist Jews going willing to gas chambers and then feigning outrage about your comments being taken "out of context". Specifically I refer to this comment from Lester's blog...

rAtional nAtion: American Jews are the offspring of the pacifists that willing were led to the gas chambers in Hitler's Holocaust. (comment from RN's own blog, 7/29/2012).

Lester later "explains" remarks that some might consider antisemitic with the following...

rAtional nAtion: and others choose to take my comment out of the context in which it was meant is not my concern nor is it my problem. I acknowledged on PE that the comment was poorly worded and understood it was not sensitive and could be misinterpreted as it was. There have not been any following comments made anywhere since. There is a reason why. The continuing attacks and fallacious statements by the turd Anon, Steve, and whoever are contemptible and my response to the same justifiable. (comment from SWTD #178, 7/16/2013).

And this is the acknowledgment of "poor wording" and being "not sensitive" Lester refers to...

rAtional nAtion: ...After a great deal of thought over my ill advised, over the top, and unnecessarily defensive comment I have determined it appropriate to offer my apology to all who were rightfully offended by said comment. Should I comment here in the future I shall refrain from such over the top rhetoric. Or as the President might say, I have considered this unfortunate circumstance "a teachable moment". (comment from PE, 7/30/2012).

This "apology" was proffered after several hostile and angry comments from Lester in which he took offense at people continuing to bring up his comment regarding American Jews which was made in response to a comment by Shaw of Progressive Eruptions - who asked, "explain why American Jews, who also care deeply about Israel's security, overwhelmingly support Mr. Obama", then added "apparently you agree with the neocon Pipes and disagree with [Gary] Johnson [who is] "the only candidate who doesn't want to bomb Iran".

So, in defending his original commentary (in which he praises Mittens Romney for making it "clear that America would stand stand behind Israel in the face of threats to their sovereignty or their very existence") Lester says American Jews are the offspring of the pacifists that willing were led to the gas chambers? This is what explains why they support Obama?

Finally we come to the explanation regarding what "out of context" means. Lester just published the following on his blog...

rAtional nAtion: My comment "the Jews went willingly to the gas chambers", which I fully acknowledge I made was in fact taken out of context. The context in which is was meant, and was actually understood by all those who think and are interested in more than their sick destructive bullshit in their attempt to destroy the character of an honest and unbiased person was exactly the following... The Jews, during the era of Adolph Hitler's bigoted and tyrannical REIGN of TERROR did not, based on my understanding of HISTORY... resist forcibly... My purpose was to point out the possibility of it happening any time a people do not resist the tyranny of an hyper-active ideologically driven politically agenda such as the progressive movement in America.

Huh. Makes sense now that Lester has finally explained himself. For the record I did not initially think Lester was antisemitic. Even after I read the comment about Jews going willing to the gas chambers - I still thought there must be some other explanation. And now we have it. And I am not really surprised that Lester the Libertarian believes citizens hoarding guns is the solution if governments should turn tyrannical.

Only the pacifist American Jews who are the offspring of the pacifists (the ones that "willing were led to the gas chambers in Hitler's Holocaust") support Obama. The non-pacifist ones support other candidates... I guess.

So... the rAtional dUde's comments weren't antisemitic... they were anti-pacifist? Squares with the belief of (some) on the Right that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the citizenry is armed - and able to rise up against their government should it become oppressive.

Still, you can see why this comment is RIPE for being "misinterpreted" as antisemitic. Suggesting that any Jews went to the gas chamber "willingly"? Yeah, this situation (Lester being attacked for his "antisemitism") is entirely of his own making. And - because I allowed some discussion of this comment on my blog - I have become (in Lester's imagination) the "leader" of the Anons who are attacking him.

Which is why, when I offered a truce to Lester (mostly because I was tired of this topic and tired of commenters on my blog wanting to discuss little else), the rAtional gUy rejected it.

So be it Mr. nAtion. I was willing to let this drop but Lester has decided I should not. Now he's saying I'm banned from his blog. The following comment from Lester confirms it...

rAtional nAtion: Effective as of this time and comment neither you or your asshat buddies will be posted here again, Now, GFY. [Also] in response to your last attempted comment post wd/DS/BS... Take your offer of a truce and shove it. Note that you will no longer be able to post anonymously nor will you be posted period. Neither will the LEGIONS of other ASSHAT PROGRESSIVES whose ONLY purpose is to start a liberal progressive crap fest be posted here any longer. ... Feel free to post whatever bullshit about me you choose. (comment from RN's blog, 8/12/2012).

It is OK by me that I will "no longer be able to post anonymously" as this is something I never did. Nor do I have any buddies that post on RNUSA anonymously. Also, what an ego Lester must have, as he believes he has "legions" of detractors (all of which are Progressive)! I took a look at the sites of some of these people, and many of them are Conservatives.

My take-away from this "explanation" is that Lester isn't so much an antisemite as he is a total freaking nut-job who thinks Progressives represent tyranny and that pacifism is genetically inherited. No hate for ALL Jews, just Progressive Jews... who are both pacifists AND supporting of a tyrannical ideology. Honestly, I find not that much difference between people who have biases they acknowledge and people who have biases but are in denial regarding them (this describes RN). And again Lester attacks the true subjects of his hatred/paranoia... "asshat Progressives".

For example, here is a post dmarks dug up in which Lester "defends" Israel by attacking Helen Thomas (his post contains two videos... in the first one I agree with Helen, but in the second one I say she goes to far). But defending Israel is sacrosanct with those on the Right. In this post Lester uses his "support" of Israel to beat up someone on the Left he doesn't like... and he attacks Thomas based on her looks, even though she was 89 years old when she made the comments... so clearly he's willing to use ageism against Mrs Thomas and comments bordering on antisemitism against American Jews who vote Progressive.

According to dmarks this post (the attack on Helen Thomas) proves Lester isn't an antisemite because "it would take a very twisted mind to interpret these views and the man presenting them as someone who dislikes Jewish people". But attacking anyone who is in any way critical of Israel the boilerplate Conservative defense of Israel crapola known as new antisemitism. Crappola IMO because "it conflates anti-Zionism with antisemitism, defines legitimate criticism of Israel too narrowly and demonization too broadly, trivializes the meaning of antisemitism, and exploits antisemitism in order to silence political debate.

I didn't know Libertarians bought into this BS. But obviously Lester does, what with his praising of Mittens for doing what any rEpublican candidate for president MUST and sucking up to Israel, then flying off the handle and making ridiculous and insensitive assertions about Jews who support Obama.

He does have the Libertarian gun nuttery down pat, however. I'm give him that (Jews who support Obama must be anti-gun pacifists and related to WWII-era Israeli anti-gun pacifist Jews who went "willing" to the gas chambers because they didn't have guns to fight back).

7/3/2015 Update: Apparently Mr. nAtion is done worrying about the pRogressive Hitlers? A comment from 6/8/2015 in which he says "Conservatives, should they regain the presidency and hold both houses of congress for long will, I am almost certain, destroy our democratic republic" seems to suggest that Lester is now more worried about the "cOnservative Hitlers". What explains this complete 180?

SWTD #190, lDel #3.

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Severe Conservative Delusions: MLK Quote-Off Edition

In King's teachings, affirmative action approaches were not "reverse discrimination" or "racial preference". King promoted affirmative action not as preference for race over race (or gender over gender), but as a preference for inclusion, for equal opportunity, for real democracy. Nor was King's integration punitive: For him, integration benefited all Americans, male and female, white and non-white alike ~ Paul Rockwell writing for FAIR, as quoted in his 5/1/1995 article "The Right Has a Dream: Martin Luther King as an Opponent of Affirmative Action".

Affirmative Action. Conservatives hate it. Why? I'd say that it's because they have racial biases; biases they willingly acknowledge or biases they are in denial regarding. Many of these Conservatives (in denial or not) like to cloak their biases in lies about their goal being total equality. As an example I present to you the words of one Dennis Marks, a Conservative who often argues against AA, often asking (something along the lines of), "What is so wrong, Dervish, about giving everyone a fair shake?"

Then he, as many Conservatives have done over the years, quotes Martin Luther King Jr in defense of his anti-Affirmative Action position...

MLK: I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. [source].

The "I have a dream" speech was "a public speech delivered by American activist Martin Luther King Jr. on 8/28/1963". A speech "in which he called for an end to racism in the United States". Note the "end to racism" bit. Does anyone seriously believe that racism in the United States has been ended? Witness the stark racial divide in the aftermath of the George Zimmerman verdict. According to a WP-ABC News poll "86% of African-Americans disapproved of the not guilty verdict [while] 51% of whites... supported the verdict".

We are not living in a post-racial society; and I could come up with many more examples than the Zimmerman verdict to prove it. Most (if not all) of us know this, so I believe the following advice from MLK still applies (and I offer this quote to rebut the previous quote from Dennis. A quote he incorrectly believes shows that MLK would oppose AA).

MLK: It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? [source].

The large number of hits and responses to my posts about the Zimmerman trial were a wake up call to me. Although I'm sure these Conservative bloggers do not represent the mainstream thinking of the Republican electorate (as with the primaries, it appears as though the Conservatives who blog represent the fringe)... still, it was a little shocking to me how racist many of the comments I received were.

The Repubs and racists (those who exist in both parties and in society at large) still have their thumbs on the scale, tipping it in disfavor of Black Americans. Therefore, as MLK advised, it is still appropriate that there exists some method by which the scales can be tipped back (if even only a little bit) in FAVOR of African Americans.

But the Repubs (even though there may be White Dems who fall into the racist camp) are still the party of the racists. They left the Democratic Party and traveled over to the Republican camp after then candidate Richard Nixon used the Southern Strategy to gain "political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans". They've been employing it ever since, yet some Conservative are in total denial regarding this strategy.

To illustrate this I present another quote from the Conservative who is hip with those who wish to rewrite history (I'm talking about Mr. Marks)...

dmarks: The Southern Strategy? Quite defensible. When the Dems became racist, favoring "affirmative action" policies which tilted the playing field in favor of blacks and instead of whites, people who wanted a fair, level playing field were understandably disenchanted with the Dems. A ripe time for the GOP, which then and now pushes for a level playing field to come in. (5/5/2013 AT 4:53pm, comment on the blog My Daily Trek).

The Dems became racist by opposing racism? The Dems became racist when they realized racism was tipping the scales in disfavor of Blacks - so it was necessary to come up with something to counteract that? Some will try and convince the gullible that up is down and black is white, but rational thinking people reject this nonsense (peddled by the likes of Dennis Marks and others on the deceitful Right). In response to these people (those who complain about the "reverse racism" of Blacks "discriminating" against Whites), I offer another quote from MLK...

MLK: Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. [source].

In my opinion this quote applies to many Conservatives. Those who do not practice conscientious stupidity or are sincerely ignorant use calculated deceptiveness to dupe others (those in the first camp) into voting Republican. But the duping is only possible because they are receptive to it. If not strongly racist they harbor some racial biases. These biases usually concern Blacks wanting "freebies" (even though more Whites receive government assistance) as well as blaming them for being victims of poverty (even though the number of poor Whites is greater).

Yes, there are more Blacks than Whites living in poverty, percentage-wise, but this is due more to White privilege and generational poverty, and much less to do with poor Black people getting comfortable in a social safety-net hammock created by Dems in an scheme to trick them into not voting Republican. This is the kind of victim blaming Republicans excel at.

The bottom line is that the Republicans will use any tool at their disposal to keep poor people down. That there is a group of people who can't compete (and get ahead) due to their race is just fine by them. In fact, we should maintain that disadvantage. Although they lie about that being their goal, which explains the denials when it comes to the racists in the Tea Party (for example). Dennis sounds sincere, but his denials give him away. It would be another thing altogether if he acknowledged the racism within the Republican Party; if he acknowledged that the ENTIRE PURPOSE of the Southern Strategy was to appeal to Southern racists. He does not; instead Dennis presents a laughable lie that "the GOP... THEN and now pushes for a level playing field".

He says they did this "then", as in back then when Richard Nixon used the Southern Strategy. That would be the same Richard Nixon who said this...

Richard Nixon: From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats. [Source].

But Dennis says the Southern Strategy was all about the Democrats moving "away from equal rights, leaving their political opponents a space to rush into". Sure. Clearly Dennis is employing the big lie strategy... and I find it hard to believe that Dennis does not know exactly what he's doing. Anyone who would defend the Southern Strategy and actually attempt to portray it as an anti-racist platform to go against the "racist" Dems?... I say that person has a screw (or more) loose, or is big lie-ing his ass off.

2/11/2016 Update: dmarks sez (in a 5/4/2015 comment) "whatever someone said about riots being the language of the unheard: they were very wrong on that. Riots are the language of the greedy, the violent, debased, the savage: those who just want to steal stuff and commit savage acts of violence".

The ignorant dmarks is obliviously unaware that it was MLK who said "a riot is the language of the unheard". Which it is. Although, MLK identifying that people riot because they feel they are unheard doesn't indicate he supported it. This I pointed out to Mr. Marks after he wrote "I find it hard to that this American saint of nonviolence was supporting such orgies of violence against innocent people".

Again displaying his ignorance, in that, Dennis, as a White guy, has no clue what's it's like to be unheard. And yet Dennis quotes MLK on his blogger ID page (where it says: "Life's most persistent and urgent question is, What are you doing for others?"). Looks like another example of a Conservative cloaking his biases, IMO. I'd bet a lot of money that if MLK were alive today he'd be strongly WITH the Black Lives Matter movement... and that Dennis would be calling him racist.

SWTD #189, dDel #12.