Is It Really Real? - updated

So, right on schedule, The Curse of the Second Term comes home to Obamaland.

The IRS thing is a bit lame when I stop to think that every Prez (at least since Kennedy) has used the threat of an IRS audit to fuck with their political enemies.

And scooping up the AP phone records has a good solid stink to it too, even tho' it's pretty easy to remember how lotsa people tho't that was just peachy under FISA and USA PATRIOT Act.  Yeah, it sucks, but c'mon.

I'm not saying we shouldn't slap some people around if they've pulled some shit - but I will say a coupla things that I think oughta get said.

First, this is a game of power.  If you give anybody the power to fuck with people, you'll need to try a little harder not to act surprised when they start fucking with people. Power will be abused.

Second, stop giving them that kinda power.  The laws they're hiding behind can be changed.  We can do that here in God's America.  Maybe we could try evoking a little of that Star-Spangled American Exceptionalism we hear so much about (that nobody seems to understand very well).

ie: These little games are played everywhere, all the time - we're supposed to be THE EXCEPTION.  See how that works?

Today's Pix

Today's Stoopid

This is the pic somebody working for The Director of Communications chose for the White House's twitter account:

Now, if you're a Wingnut, then it has to be perfectly obvious that Obama is sending a subtle message to his fellow-Islamists that the plan is proceeding apace, and that the US is on the verge of collapse, and Death To America, my bruthuhs!

What this is actually - is what visitors to the Oval Office see when they're standing in front of Obama's desk and they happen to look up at the ceiling above them.

So yeah.  Obama's trying to kill us all by making it possible for everybody to get decent healthcare insurance; and by dis-entangling us from foreign wars; and by making sure the banks work properly; and why even bother debunking this crap?  I need to stop.

Don't be such a fucking rube.

Here We Go Again

Along the same lines as a post from a few days ago (Why Benghazi?), here's what I imagine is the Repubs' plan for running against Hillary - which of course is not going to be about running against Hillary at all.  It's always about running against those godless socialist librul bastards, no matter who the individual happens to be.  It's how the swarm-brain works; and it's what makes the rubes do what the "conservative" bosses want them to do.

They have a few items in their basket already - Fast & Furious, Solyndra, ACORN, The New Black Panther Party, Benghazi, etc -  and now they have the IRS thing.

I know you're ready to jump in and tell me it's all a crock, so I should say right here and right now that it makes no difference that any random 12-year-old could dismantle each of those "scandals" after about 10 minutes with The Google.  That don't matter cuz that ain't the point.

You could prove nine ways from Sunday that taken together, the entire body of evidence in favor of anything these pricks are trying to tie to Hillary's tail is about the size of a positive hydrogen ion and it wouldn't matter because that's not the fucking point.

The point, my darlings is that when the time comes, one of the main themes of the Repub message will be: "Aren't we all a little tired of this constant scandal?...the libruls have been in charge for 8 long years and all they ever bring us is disappointment and corruption and abuse of power...do we really want more of this? blah blah blah..."

And of course it sounds oh so very familiar because that's what Turd Blossom threw against the wall in 2000, and it just looks to me like they're setting that frame again, gearing up for another go at it.  It's generic enough to fit anybody wearing the Dem label, but it's almost a custom fit for Hillary.

The kicker is that the Repubs fret and whine about "all this scandal" when they're the ones (generally) making way more of these things than is warranted; bringing up all the bullshit as if it was the biggest thing since Kim Kardashian's ass - so they're really saying, "We'll keep making life miserable for everybody until ya'll get your minds right and hand everything over to us".

Don't be a rube.

And ya heard it here first.

How It's Done

A quick reminder and a general How-To for when you need to manipulate large numbers of rubes.

(I've updated it a little - and sorry, but I don't remember who I stole this from in the first place, so I can't put in an attribution.  Anyway, it's not like you can't just Google it or look it up in Wikipedia, ya lazy buttheads - no wait - it was truthout.  Never mind.)

So anyway - don't be a rube.

14 Propaganda Techniques

1. Panic Mongering. This goes one step beyond simple fear mongering. With panic mongering, there is never a break from the fear. The idea is to terrify and terrorize the audience during every waking moment. From Muslims to swine flu to recession to homosexuals to immigrants to the rapture itself, terrorizing your audience is the fastest way to bypasses the rational brain. In other words, when people are afraid, they don’t think rationally. And when they can’t think rationally, they’ll believe anything.

2. Character Assassination/Ad Hominem. Don't waste time debating the idea. Instead, go after the person’s credibility, motives, intelligence, character, or, if necessary, sanity. No category of character assassination is off the table and no offense is beneath them. DumFux News and like-minded media figures also use ad hominem attacks not just against individuals, but entire categories of people in an effort to discredit the ideas of every person who is seen to fall into that category, e.g. “liberals,” “hippies,” “progressives” etc. This form of argument – if it can be called that – leaves no room for genuine debate over ideas, so by definition, it is anti-democratic. Not to mention just plain crass.

3. Projection/Flipping. This one is frustrating for anyone who is trying to actually follow the debate. It involves taking whatever underhanded tactic you’re using and then accusing your opponent of doing it to you first. We see this frequently in the immigration discussion, where anti-racists are accused of racism, or in the climate change debate, where those who argue for human causes of the phenomenon are accused of not having science or facts on their side. It’s often called upon when the media host finds themselves on the ropes in the debate.

4. Rewriting History. This is another way of saying that propagandists make the facts fit their worldview. The Downing Street Memos on the Iraq war were a classic example of this on a massive scale, but it happens daily and over smaller issues as well. Why lie about the historical facts, even when they can be demonstrated to be false? Well, because dogmatic minds actually find it easier to reject reality than to update their viewpoints. They will literally rewrite history if it serves their interests. And they’ll often speak with such authority that the casual viewer will be tempted to question what they knew as fact.

5. Scapegoating/Othering. This works best when people feel insecure or scared. It’s technically a form of both fear mongering and diversion, but it is so pervasive that it deserves its own category. The simple idea is that if you can find a group to blame for social or economic problems, you can then go on to a) justify violence/dehumanization of them, and b) subvert responsibility for any harm that may befall them as a result.

6. Conflating Violence With Power and Opposition to Violence With Weakness. This is more of what's known as a “meta-frame” (a deeply held belief) than a media technique, but it is manifested in the ways news is reported constantly. For example, terms like “show of strength” are often used to describe acts of repression, such as those by the Iranian regime against the protesters in the summer of 2009. There are several concerning consequences of this form of conflation. First, it has the potential to make people feel falsely emboldened by shows of force – it can turn wars into sporting events. Secondly, especially in the context of American politics, displays of violence – whether manifested in war or debates about the Second Amendment – are seen as noble and (in an especially surreal irony) moral. Violence becomes synonymous with power, patriotism and piety.

7. Bullying. This is a favorite technique of several "conservative" commentators. That it continues to be employed demonstrates that it has some efficacy. Bullying and yelling works best on people who come to the conversation with a lack of confidence, either in themselves or their grasp of the subject being discussed. The bully exploits this lack of confidence by berating the guest into submission or compliance. Often, less self-possessed people will feel shame and anxiety when being berated and the quickest way to end the immediate discomfort is to cede authority to the bully. The bully is then able to interpret that as a “win.”

8. Confusion. As with the preceding technique, this one works best on an audience that is less confident and self-possessed. The idea is to deliberately confuse the argument, but insist that the logic is airtight and imply that anyone who disagrees is either too dumb or too fanatical to follow along. Less independent minds will interpret the confusion technique as a form of sophisticated thinking, thereby giving the user’s claims veracity in the viewer’s mind.

9. Populism. This is especially popular in election years. The speakers identifies themselves as one of “the people” and the target of their ire as an enemy of the people. The opponent is always “elitist” or a “bureaucrat” or a “government insider” or some other category that is not the people. The idea is to make the opponent harder to relate to and harder to empathize with. It often goes hand in hand with scapegoating. A common logical fallacy with populism bias when used by the right is that accused “elitists” are almost always liberals – a category of political actors who, by definition, advocate for non-elite groups.

10. Invoking the Christian God. This is similar to othering and populism. With morality politics, the idea is to declare yourself and your allies as patriots, Christians and “real Americans” (those are inseparable categories in this line of thinking) and anyone who challenges your views must be the opposite of those things. Basically, God loves DumFux News and Republicans and America - and he hates taxes; and so he hates anyone who doesn’t love those other three things. Because the speaker claims godly authority to speak on behalf of all Americans, any challenge is perceived as immoral. It’s a cheap and easy technique used by all totalitarian entities from states to cults.

11. Saturation. There are three components to effective saturation: being repetitive, being ubiquitous and being consistent. The message must be repeated over and over, it must be everywhere and it must be shared across commentators: e.g. “Saddam has WMD.” Veracity and hard data have no relationship to the efficacy of saturation. There is a psychological effect of being exposed to the same message over and over, regardless of whether it’s true or if it even makes sense, e.g., “Barack Obama wasn’t born in the United States.” If something is said enough times, by enough people, many will come to accept it as truth.

12. Disparaging Education. There is a disturbing lack of reverence for education and intellectualism in much of the mainstream media discourse. In fact, in some circles (eg: DumFux News comes to mind), higher education is often disparaged as elitist. Having university credentials is perceived by these folks as not a sign of credibility, but of a lack of it. In fact, among some commentators, evidence of intellectual prowess is treated snidely and as anti-American. The disdain for education and other evidence of being trained in critical thinking are direct threats to a hive-mind mentality, which is why they are so viscerally demeaned.

13. Guilt by Association. This is a favorite of Glenn Beck, Breitbart, and other "conservatives pundits. Here’s how it works: if your cousin’s college roommate’s uncle’s ex-wife attended a dinner party back in 1984 with Gorbachev’s niece’s ex-boyfriend’s sister, then you, by extension are a communist set on destroying America. Period.

14. Diversion. This is where, when on the ropes, the media commentator suddenly takes the debate in a weird but predictable direction to avoid accountability. This is the point in the discussion where most DumFux News anchors start comparing the opponent to Saul Alinsky or invoking ACORN or Media Matters, in a desperate attempt to win through guilt by association. Or they’ll talk about wanting to focus on “moving forward,” as though by analyzing the current state of things or, God forbid, how we got to this state of things, you have no regard for the future. Any attempt to bring the discussion back to the issue at hand will likely be called deflection (see Projection/Flipping above).

Moms' Day

From The Atlantic:

Few holidays succeed in disappointing mothers and striking terror into the hearts of fathers on an annual basis more than Mother's Day. The holiday—which once served as a simple way to honor mothers—now conjures up images of crowded brunches, breakfast in bed, and sappy Hallmark cards. It's developed into a commercialized, ridiculous holiday overwrought with expectations.

(ed note: I waited a day to post this because I'm trying to be a little less trollish - I hope everybody had the kind of day they always wished it would be.)

Wow

The pic down there at the bottom is a very high-res composite, pieced together by a guy named Miloslav Druckmuller from Brno University of Technology in The Czech Republic.  

(y'know, if them Euro schmucks are so smart, how come they can't come up with catchy nicknames; like Czech Tech?  They prob'ly don't even have a real football team. Just sayin')

Anyway - I dunno what all happens if you click on the image; it might make your monitor explode or something - but give it a try.  And while you're gazing at it in wonderment, wonder this too: how come it seems like nobody from the US ever does this kinda thing anymore?

How come we think it's OK to build a coupla thousand M1A1 tanks that sit in mothballs doing nothing; will never be used for much except maybe target practice; and will most likely end up making some politician's brother-in-law quite wealthy 20 years from now when he suddenly discovers his burning passion for the scrap metal business), but we can't send a guy to the Pacific to take a few snapshots of something that's damned close to the most amazing thing our part of the universe has to offer?

Tell It To The White man

We're Number - What?

hat tip = Addicting Info

(And here's why Maureen Dowd's panties eyes get moist when she waxes romantic about what she wishes Obama would do for her):


BTW - Aaron Sorkin ain't the only dude been sayin' it:

Why Benghazi?

Because it's about attacking the opponent's strength(s).  It's classic Turd Blossom. Obama and Hillary and "the Dems" have gained an awful lot of ground on Foreign Policy.  And of course the Repubs won't admit it to the rubes (the rubes can't even admit it to themselves), but after Jr Bush, how could anybody not look good on Foreign Policy?  The Continentals were so relieved we elected a guy with a living thinking brain they creamed their jeans and gave him the Peace Prize before he'd actually done anything - they were just desperately hoping the Cheney/Bush nightmare was finally ending.  So the perception for the rubes is that the whole world is ass-over-apricots-in-love with Barack and Hillary, and so of course we'll need to pull them down a peg or two; and it doesn't matter that they look all shiny and clean - we'll just make something up.

It worked on The Big Dog back in the 90s.  It worked on Kerry in 2004 and they believe completely there's no reason it can't work on Hillary now.



If you wanna make your argument stick, you lead with your strength.  Because there's a brain thing that happens in humans - I've forgotten what's it's called, but it has something to do with our ability to Generalize - and it says that if I can knock down your first point in the debate, then I can knock down all the rest of your points without even knowing what they are - my brain is just wired to make that assumption.

So you attack the opponent's strength; if you can make even the tiniest dent, you can move the opinion needle back in your guy's direction; and in a political climate where the two sides are so closely divided, that tiny movement can make a big difference.