Today's Pix

Today's Douchebaggery

Via HuffPo:

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-N.Y.) got in a reporter's face and threatened him after President Barack Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night.

During an interview with NY1 after Obama's speech, Grimm refused to answer questions about allegations concerning his campaign finances. Grimm can be seen in the video walking away from the reporter, but returning and getting in the reporter's face after he went off air.

From CNN:



Quick Aside to the CNN Anchor Blonde:  "...don't let it happen on camera, if you're gonna let it happen at all".  Really?  That's your take-away?  You guys say shit like that and then you wonder why your numbers are spreading into the leach field?

Quick Aside for the NY1 reporter guy, Michael Scotto:  Yo, Mike - ya gotta stay on camera even when you're afraid you're about to take a whuppin'.  I know it goes against your survival instincts, but if we get to see you cowering a little - or even better, gettin' yer ass kicked by some Congress Goon - it makes for great television.  Cuz never forget: if it bleeds, it leads.  Could make ya a star.  But really, ya done awrite, bubba.

Anyway, this is Grimm's "statement" to HuffPo afterwards:

I was extremely annoyed because I was doing NY1 a favor by rushing to do their interview first in lieu of several other requests. The reporter knew that I was in a hurry and was only there to comment on the State of the Union, but insisted on taking a disrespectful and cheap shot at the end of the interview, because I did not have time to speak off-topic. I verbally took the reporter to task and told him off, because I expect a certain level of professionalism and respect, especially when I go out of my way to do that reporter a favor. I doubt that I am the first Member of Congress to tell off a reporter, and I am sure I won’t be the last.

So ya see, he was doing NY1 a favor by graciously deigning to cast a few pearls before the swine.  But then that bad ol' reporter just had to go and ruin a beautiful moment by trying to ask a buncha uppity questions about how maybe the guy's a fuckin' crook.

For future reference, Mr Grimm - you just lost all your Bitchin' Privileges when it comes to the GOP's standard Blabber Point of "America's sense of entitlement".

One last thing - Grimm didn't "tell off a reporter" - he threatened that reporter with grievous bodily harm because the reporter tried to do what we desperately need reporters to do.  Scotto was pretty gracious about it - saying he didn't take it seriously - but let's not be silly enough to think a tin-plated martinet like Michael Grimm wouldn't love to do exactly what he threatened to do.

Watch your 6, guys.

Why We Fight

The Lt Governor in Texas is the guy who runs things - at least that's how the Repubs do it.

C'mon now, you don't really think guys like Lil Shrub Bush and Rick (Trigger Dick) Perry are actually capable of managing anything other than a high school car wash do ya?

Anyway, meet the braintrust of the Texas GOP.  These guys are the cream of the Repub crop:



It's all such standard patter now.  And I have to give 'em a point or two just for being able to recite it all, especially since each one says almost exactly the same thing while saying it with enough variation to make the rubes think they're listening to differing views on the subject.  So even tho' it all sounded the same to me, I'll bet shekels to shitballs there's a large pile of Texas Conservatives whoopin' it up over what a nice diverse buncha guys they've got to pick from.

I don't know much about the Dems, but you can take a look at 'em here.

On Second Thought

And here's a picture of all the fucks I give about anything Sean Hannity has to say:

A New Way Of Doing The Same Old Thing

...which is to say, "Fuckin' us over".

From truthout:

Here's food for thought: Fast-tracking could become the model for a new and profoundly subversive model of governance – one in which elected government becomes little more than an afterthought to corporate-backed deal-making. It's not hard to imagine a dystopian future where this becomes the norm.

In the right hands it might make a good science-fiction novel: a world in which individual governments, treaty organizations and even the United Nations have been replaced by a new governing body comprised entirely of corporate representatives. Think of it as a World Financial Parliament or a Global House of Corporate Lords, where the only "voting" the rest of us do happens when we watch a movie, play a video game, or take a prescription medication.

And even when we do, we don't really have much of a choice at all.

Back in the 90s, I tho't NAFTA was a great idea.  I was wrong.  See how that works?  You take a look at the effects of a given policy after it's been in place for a while, and you learn a little something about how maybe we shouldn't have done what we did, and then you do that most horriblest thing that anybody could possibly do - ya change your mind.

ed note:  it grates on my soul to think I agree with Ross Perot, but hey - even a blind hog roots up an acorn now and again.

Free trade is great.  Free trade is a good way to break down some really stupid artificial barriers and get people to work together instead of blowin' shit up.  Unfortunately, if that free trade isn't fair trade, and it ends up slamming millions of rock-solid Americans so hard they practically drop out of the labor pool completely, then it's just a matter of time before people get hip to these tricks, and we're right back to blowin' shit up again anyway.

Things like TPP and KeystoneXL are great deals for (almost literally) a handful of people who don't feel the need to wash their hands before they pee.  But it's a really lousy deal for anybody who actually works for a living, and for whoever thinks we should figure these things out together instead of leaving it up to a few guys in $800 suits.

Call your Congress Critter.

Damage Done

Not that anybody's at all likely to do anything about it now, but:

A key figure in the Republican establishment surrendered belatedly on the central tactic for voter suppression, the myth of voter fraud. For the Presidential Commission on Election Administration, Jan 2014 to admit that voter fraud is “rare” is an understatement. However, for a commission co-chaired by vaunted Republican election law attorney Benjamin L. Ginsberg to sign off on that admission is epic.

Voter fraud is the rational for voter identification (Voter ID) requirements. For years, Republican legislatures across the country have enacted voter identification card (voter ID) requirements to suppress the Democratic vote. There can be no other reason since it was established years ago by the Bush Justice Department that voter fraud didn’t exist. A comprehensive study in 2007 showed that in three years of Bush Justice Department efforts (2002-2005), only 38 cases of voter fraud were brought with only 24 guilty findings. Voter fraud isn’t just “rare,” it is virtually non-existent.

Yet, thanks to the fantasy of voter fraud, we have voter ID laws in 20 plus states. It’s a little late to say “I was wrong.” But, it is not too late to repeal all those voter ID laws based on the voter fraud scam.

Read all about it at The Agonist.

Try that one on when you're blabbering away about "both sides do it". There's only one party that thinks keeping people from voting is good for democracy.

Today's Little Twist

If I can convince you that the propaganda I'm peddling is the truth, then it's easier for me to convince you that the truth someone else is telling you is propaganda.

The Opposites Game

Using the same tactics you criticize your opposition for using.

Let's call this one The Alinsky Gambit.  The following is a list of Power Tactics that Saul Alinsky put together in his 1971 book, Rules For Radicals - A Pragmatic Guide For Realistic Radicals.  See if you can spot the ones being employed by your favorite "conservative" organization.

Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.

The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

The fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.

The fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.

The sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.

The seventh rule: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time, after which it becomes a ritualistic commitment, like going to church on Sunday mornings.

The eighth rule: Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.

The ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative.

The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying "You're right — we don't know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us."

The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

hat tip = Snopes

And yes, the Dems use the same tactics - but then the Dems aren't saying it's a bad thing for the other side to be doing it.  There's only one side doing that.

Along the same lines - "conservatives" bluster and harrumph about something like Rules For Radicals, but then turn around and mimic the thing they spend so much time and energy slagging.  Here're a coupla books on Amazon that I guess are intended to countervail Alinsky:

Just A Quickie

...on the Bob Menendez thing.

I think it's a bit suspicious that Menendez suddenly has another "corruption problem" pop up just as Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell are getting fried for actually and obviously being corrupt.

I'm not saying it's not possible for Menendez to be less than a perfectly straight shooter - there's a fair probability that he's at least a little crooked, cuz a) he's a politician and b) he's a New Jersey politician.  It's just that the timing seems a little too coincidental, and after the bullshit allegations about him and Dominican hookers, this new stuff has to be seen through very skeptical filters.

But here's the real kicker.  This is a tweet from Brad Dayspring, Repub Nat'l Senatorial Committee:

"one man’s allegations are another man’s evidence."

As long as that other man's a booger-eatin' moron - which is what the GOP Brain Trust thinks we all are.  Unfortunately, they're right when it comes to about 25% of us.

It Occurs To Me