ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [191] -- The White Knight Is Talking Backwards...

[ Posted Friday, December 9th, 2011 – 17:01 PST ]

We've got quite a few awards to hand out this week, so we're going to just quickly note two events from the past week, and move right along. Oh, and as for this week's article title, well, it just felt appropriate, somehow. I promise, by the end, we'll have at least one blatant Alice In Wonderland reference to justify it, OK?

The week dawned with the exit of Herman Cain from the Republican nomination battle. Cain, love him or hate him, will be missed on the campaign trail because he had two qualities most of the other Republicans are sorely lacking: personality and cheerfulness. Cain was a character, you have to admit. And -- right up until he had to defend himself from the echoes of his social life -- he was almost always smiling and upbeat. After his sex life entered the discussion, he looked a lot more annoyed and a lot less cheerful, but while it lasted Cain was a bright spot in the Republican field of snoozers and the Uncles McGrumpy (and Aunt Shrill). So Cain will be missed, at least for that.

That wacky gang of Republicans running the House of Representatives acted swiftly and decisively this week -- to overturn a big, bad environmental rule that didn't actually exist. At some point, this morphs from sheer ridiculousness into downright Swiftian satire. Or, perhaps, "clinical paranoia" (but then I am no doctor and do not even play one on the internet, so I'll leave such sweeping conclusions to others). Seriously, we pay these guys for this? Sigh.

You know, it strikes me that this week may be one politics-watchers look back on when proving the thesis: "Anything can happen in politics, and usually does." I can picture seeing some wise pundit a few years down the road making the historical reference: "Yeah, but remember when Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul were leading the polls in the Iowa caucuses? Anything can happen... just anything..."

Enough silliness, let's get on with the awards.

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made big news this week with her announcement that the United States will consider gay rights as basic human rights, when dealing with foreign policy and foreign aid around the world. She deserves an Honorable Mention for this announcement, at the very least.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wins an Honorable Mention this week, for letting his fellow senators know that they'll be working through the Christmas holiday, until they pass the payroll tax cut extension and the unemployment insurance extension. The Senate, in recent years, simply does not act on anything unless they are facing a deadline. Sometimes this deadline is externally imposed, such as the United States of America going into default. More often than not, though, it is the deadline of their precious, precious vacation time being possibly cut. Reid has a very good track record at moving legislation right before a holiday by holding this threat over the Senate, and an especially good track record of doing so right before Christmas. This is not an empty threat, and every senator knows it. They can either get it together and pass a bill, or they can spend two weeks farting around and then get it together and pass a bill -- while missing their flights home. Reid has made the choice clear, and it is very likely going to produce some action very soon now -- for which he deserves recognition.

President Obama gets an Honorable Mention this week, for also saying he'll stay in town until the bill is on his desk. Obama qualifies on two other issues, as well. The first was for issuing a veto threat against "poison pill" amendments the Republicans are trying to attach to the tax cut and unemployment bill. Veto threats from Obama are always good, because he hasn't flexed this executive muscle nearly enough, in our opinion. Obama also gave a wowzer of a good speech this week in Kansas, which the mainstream media noted was "defining" and "opened his re-election campaign." This is because the mainstream media and other inside-the-Beltway types are patently incapable of remembering things which happened only a few months ago, so you'll have to forgive them. This is (by my count) about the fourth or fifth time Obama has "defined his re-election campaign" since about mid-summer, and I'm sure I'll hear this hack phrase used at least ten times before April Fool's Day (to pick a random date... ahem).

But while Obama had a mostly-impressive week, he didn't quite make it to the level of Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week, for reasons I will explain in the next section.

Instead, the coveted MIDOTW award goes to Elizabeth Warren, and her Senate campaign up in Massachusetts. Warren just posted a solid lead against Scott Brown in a recent poll, pulling in 49 percent to Brown's 42 percent. She's done so as Karl Rove and company attacked her with an absolutely ridiculous ad claiming that she's the candidate in the race closer to Wall Street. Maybe Karl's losing his touch, or something, because with every negative ad run, Warren's numbers seem to get stronger.

Warren's race is going to be the most important Senate race to watch for Democrats next year. This is probably the best chance Democrats have to pick up a seat from Republicans. Warren is also running as purely populist a campaign as can be imagined in today's world. Her campaign could become the template for other Democrats to use next year out on the campaign trail, to put it another way.

For her campaign getting stronger by the week, and for her strong reaction to the Rove ads (more on this in the talking points), Elizabeth Warren is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Congratulate Elizabeth Warren on her campaign site. We are unable, due to journalistic ethical considerations, to provide a link to her site here... but you can always Google it easily enough yourselves.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

Sadly, there was a swarm of Democrats behaving badly this week. There were so many, in fact, that we had to leave out a few minor ones (at the state level).

First, let's quickly note the (Dis-)Honorable Mentions this week. Barack Obama earned one, but (once again) it will be explained a bit later.

Former head of the Federal Aviation Administration Randy Babbitt has also earned a (Dis-)Honorable Mention, for getting arrested and charged with driving drunk. He did the right thing and immediately stepped down, but still, this is just shameful for anyone in a position of trust on transportation. Babbitt was appointed by Presidents Clinton and Obama, so we're assuming he's a Democrat.

Also in the "too much holiday cheer" category are three staffers for Representative Rick Larson, who were not only drinking shots of whiskey at their desks at work, but Twittering about it as well. Larson deserves an Honorable Mention for -- within the hour he found out about it -- doing the right thing and firing all three staffers.

Speaking of the criminal justice system, we have a final (Dis-)Honorable Mention award for Rod Blagojevich, who was sentenced to 14 years in prison this week -- which will make him not only the fourth ex-governor of Illinois to get sent to jail for corruption in the past few decades, but also Blaggy (as we've always called him) will actually be in jail at at the same time as the man he replaced as governor. Illinois has definitely moved to the top of the garbage heap when it comes to corruption in state government. Can't wait to see Blaggy in a prison haircut....

New Jersey's former governor (and former senator) was on the legal hot seat in Washington this week. Jon Corzine had one of those lapses of memory while testifying, stating that he had no idea where $1.2 billion of his customer's money went at the Wall Street firm he headed. "We looked under the couch cushions and in all our pockets, but we couldn't find it," he testified. Well, no, he didn't actually say that, but still... for this monumental lapse in memory skills, Corzine wins his own (Dis-)Honorable Mention. We'll try to remember to mail it to him.

Kidding aside, though, our real winner of the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week is none other than Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. In an unprecedented move, she overturned the scientific conclusion of the Food and Drug Administration to allow sales of the "morning after" pill to everyone, over the counter. Her reasoning was that it would be harder for Barack Obama to get re-elected if this change in regulations went through. Well, no, she didn't actually admit that, or anything. Still, the conclusion is inescapable. She overruled science for purely political reasons.

This is also why Barack Obama gets his own (Dis-)Honorable Mention this week -- for backing Sebelius up. In an otherwise strong week for the president, this was yet another disavowal of a position Candidate Obama had taken -- making drug decisions based on science, and not on politics. Of course, medical marijuana advocates have been saying this for quite some time now, but this week's action made it a lot clearer, since it will affect a lot bigger slice of the American public.

Sebelius (and Obama) simply don't have a leg to stand on. Their explanations are laughably thin. Young girls are going to use Plan B every day? Please... the pill costs $40-$50. They're going to causally pick it up with the batteries at the drug store? See former comment on pill's cost. Now 16-year-old (and younger) girls will have to continue doing what I assume they've been doing for the past few years: convincing their older sister, friend, cousin, sister's friend, or schoolmate to go buy them a pill. This means delay in taking the pill, which means a loss of efficacy. All to improve a politician's chances of keeping his job.

For shame, Secretary Sebelius. For shame, President Obama. So much for making "science-based" decisions, eh? For this crass interjection of politics into the scientific decision-making process, Kathleen Sebelius is our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week.

[Secretary Sebelius doesn't seem to have a contact page on the official H.H.S. webpage, so we suggest you contact her boss at the White House, to let President Obama know what you think of her actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 191 (12/9/11)

Kind of a mixed bag of talking points this week. Towards the end, we descend into ridiculousness, but hey, that's the political world we live in nowadays.

As always, these talking points are offered up in the hopes that Democrats everywhere will start using them to frame the political argument. President Obama did a good job this week of laying out his priorities, and we could easily have pulled seven talking points from the transcript of his speech. But, due to the end-of-the-year deadline, we thought it'd be better to concentrate on what's going on in Congress this week instead.

 

1
   Democrats are for consumers, not Wall Street

This one is easy. Republicans filibustered a presidential appointment this week, just as they promised they were going to do. This wasn't because they don't think the candidate is qualified, but rather because they are in an extended hissy fit that the bureau was even created. This needs pointing out, in no uncertain terms.

"Democrats passed a bill creating a federal bureau whose sole responsibility is looking out for the little guy -- the consumer -- and forcing Wall Street and the banks to play by a few commonsense rules. Republicans still can't get over the fact that we did so, and they have sworn they'll filibuster any candidate to run the bureau. This is disgusting. Republicans are standing firmly with their Wall Street buddies on this one. They are doing their Wall Street masters' bidding -- there's just no other way to put it. It's a very simple equation. Democrats are standing up for consumers, Republicans are standing up for Wall Street. That's what it boils down to, in the end, and that's what the voters should be aware of."

 

2
   Recess!

Republicans have been abusing a clause in the Constitution (Article I, Section 5) to keep Congress in session over their breaks -- to prevent the president from being able to "recess appoint" his choice to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. But what they may not have realized is that this isn't the final constitutional word on the subject. Because Obama has a clause (Article II, Section 3) he can use to override these games, and in this case he would be fully justified in doing so.

"If the House of Representatives does not agree to recess Congress over the end-of-year break, I will fully support the president acting to appoint a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. When the two houses of Congress do not agree to adjourn, the Constitution states that 'in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment' the president 'may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.' The president doesn't need either house of Congress' approval, he can singlehandedly adjourn them. I strongly advise President Obama to do so over the holiday break, and make any recess appointments he sees fit to fill important federal positions which Senate Republicans have been unreasonably blocking with filibusters."

 

3
   Two million checks will stop

Moving along to the legislative logjam, it is important to frame the two issues clearly and in simple enough terms that every American realizes what is at stake in the next few weeks. Democrats, to date, haven't done a great job of explaining -- in very plain language -- what it is they're fighting for. These next two talking points show how to do so.

"If Republicans have their way, beginning in January, two million unemployment checks will stop. Two million American families will get cut off from the safety net, right after Christmas. That is what Democrats are fighting to avoid -- two million families having their last resort cut out from under them."

 

4
   YOUR paycheck

The second one is just as important, and it is frustrating listening to Democrats get all wonky about this issue, when it really is quite simple. Imagine a Democrat being interviewed on a Sunday political chat show, and putting it like this:

"If Republicans have their way and we don't extend the payroll tax holiday [turn to speak into camera], YOUR paycheck WILL be smaller -- in JANUARY. Your taxes will go up, and they won't go up at the end of the year when you fill out your 1040 form -- they will go up in a few weeks' time. All of a sudden, money will start disappearing from every workers' paycheck-- to the tune of over a thousand dollars a year. Do the math. A thousand bucks divided by the number of paychecks you get -- that is what will disappear from your own paycheck next month. That is what we're talking about here, Mr. and Mrs. America."

 

5
   GOP's answer: throw more people out of work

Republicans will attempt to counter that they're trying to pass these ideas, but the Democrats won't let them pay for it by slashing federal payrolls. So put it another way, for the listener at home.

"Democrats want to pay for this bill by taxing millionaires at less than two cents on the dollar. Republicans, on the other hand, want to pay for this by throwing a bunch of federal employees out of work. Does that really make sense in our economy? We've already given a pink slip to over half a million government workers, and the Republicans' only answer is to chuck more of them out on the street? Democrats think that's a travesty, and we think it'd be a lot easier for billionaires to pay a tiny bit more on their taxes, than to force tens of thousands more people our of work."

 

6
   It leaves you speechless

OK, this is where we go back to getting silly. Two quotes, this week, sum the season up. The first is from Elizabeth Warren herself, expressing her amazement at the fact that Karl Rove and his buddies in PAC-Land have run (1.) an ad against her saying she's with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which was closely followed by (2.) an ad against her implying she has a much-too-cozy relationship with Wall Street. Really -- you just can't make this stuff up, folks. Here is her brilliant response (quoted in the "Plum Line" blog over at the Washington Post):

Their strategy now is the kitchen sink strategy. Throw everything you can at her and let's see what happens. Let's keep in mind what was going on just a little over three years ago. Karl Rove was part of the inner circle while George W. Bush is telling Congress and the nation, 'we've gotta bail out the big financial institutions.' His Secretary of the Treasury is handing out money to the largest financial institutions -- no strings attached. I go down to Washington and I'm calling them out for it. I'm calling them out on executive bonuses. I'm calling them out on the fact that they're giving this money, no strings attached. And I get attacked for it. Okay. Then we roll forward three years. Now Karl Rove takes money from Wall Street, in order to attack Elizabeth Warren for being cozy with Wall Street? This one goes beyond anything I've ever imagined. I'm just amazed. It leaves you speechless.

 

7
   We're all mad here!

I saved this one for last, just because. From the story on the House tilting at the windmill of non-existent E.P.A. regulations comes the following excellent quote to close on, from Representative Diana DeGette of Colorado:

This session of Congress has felt to many of us like a trip into Alice's Wonderland. While our nation struggles with a devastating economy, we do nothing about jobs or getting Americans back to work. Instead, we repeatedly fall down the rabbit hole of extreme legislation, and now with this [bill] … it seems that we're even having tea with the Cheshire Cat. To paraphrase our friend the Cheshire Cat, "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad. You must be mad, or you wouldn't have come here." … [The bill] is a mad solution to an imaginary problem.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: Democrats For Progress
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

58 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [191] -- The White Knight Is Talking Backwards...”

  1. [1] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Beta Testing Continues...

    Two changes, everyone.

    (1) There is now a "Donate!" button in the top menu. Let me know if it looks weird.

    It takes you directly to the PayPal donate page, which might be a little confusing. I can make this point to the "Holiday Fundraising Drive!" page, if people think that might be better, so let me know.

    (2) The Preview is half-broken, and half-fixed. What it now shows me are: correct pagaraph breaks and single line breaks, and correct tags like "bold" -- but in the wrong font, and with no word-wrap (long paragraphs just trail off to the right side...)

    I know this is semi-broken, but I'm running it like this for 12 hours or so to see if it appears the same to everyone else. I'll set it back to the other semi-broken state on Saturday, promise. It's just kind of a test.

    Anyway, that's it for now.

    -CW

  2. [2] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    "[The bill] is a mad solution to an imaginary problem."

    Tilting at windmills of their own construction.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    Obama also gave a wowzer of a good speech this week in Kansas,

    I wouldn't consider a 3-Pinocchio speech to be a "wowzer".. Oh, I'll grant you, the rhetoric was good. But it usually is...

    But the speech was short on facts. And the facts it DID state were so horribly mangled to fit a certain agenda, they were completely useless..

    It was a great campaign speech. But Obama is always at his best when he is campaigning..

    He is always at his worst when governing, however..

    We need a "wowzer" of a governing speech....

    For her campaign getting stronger by the week, and for her strong reaction to the Rove ads (more on this in the talking points), Elizabeth Warren is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week.

    I won't begrudge ya'all this, as it's likely the ONLY bright spot Dems will see in the 2012 Elections.

    She overruled science for purely political reasons.

    That's the Obama administration in a nutshell..

    For shame, Secretary Sebelius. For shame, President Obama. So much for making "science-based" decisions, eh?

    I saids it before and I'll says it again..

    This is what happens when our president and our government uses policy based evidence making instead of evidence based policy making..

    Democrats are for consumers, not Wall Street

    Unless Wall Street is giving Democrats hundreds of thousands of dollars.. Then, the Democratic Party is Wall Street's bitch.

    "I know that you're talking because I see your lips moving, but I can't understand you because I don't speak little bitch."
    -Demon, SUPERNATURAL, Caged Heat

    Ya lose the real good effect in print, but trust me. When you hear it, this line was pure gold.. :D

    Recess!

    Oh yes, King Obama gets to override Congress once again..

    I really have to wonder what ya'all will say when the next GOP president wields this kind of power... It's going to be interesting, to say the least.. :D

    Two million checks will stop

    Can I ask ya'all something???

    Where is the incentive to go find a job, if the government is going to keep paying you and paying you NOT to work???

    I mean, seriously.. OVER TWO YEARS!!!?????

    If a person can't find a job in six months, then there is something seriously wrong.

    Unemployment should cease after 6 months...

    (1.) an ad against her saying she's with the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which was closely followed by (2.) an ad against her implying she has a much-too-cozy relationship with Wall Street. Really -- you just can't make this stuff up, folks.

    Is that really such a stretch??

    President Obama does it all the time..

    Says he is with the now-defunct Oowzwers, yet spoons with Wall Street....

    Why can't Warren be doing the same thing??

    PREVIEW is looking great, CW!!! :D

    Michale
    152

  4. [4] 
    Michale wrote:

    Unless Wall Street is giving Democrats hundreds of thousands of dollars.. Then, the Democratic Party is Wall Street's bitch.

    For the record, there is no doubt in my mind that the GOP is ALSO Wall Street's bitch..

    But at least the GOP is pretty straight-forward about it..

    Michale.....
    155

  5. [5] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Here in the land of Massholes, we watch with baited breath (no really, lots of fishing going on up here) for the next kitchen sink to be slung at Mizz Warren. All the first set of ads did was to increase name recognition.

    Karl Rove has not lost his touch, he just doesn't know didly about small state politics. Karl Rove's entire playbook consists of (re-)defining the public personna of the opposition nominee. In a large state where the nominee is not well known, this is relatively easy if you have the $$$ (see:Ohio/Kerry). In a small state ... not so much. Quite frankly, Warren could visit and speak at every damn population center > 500 in the State in the next 6 months.

  6. [6] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    More on the Rovian non-knowledge of Massachusetts.

    I lived most of my adult life in the Deep South. Down there admiring persons courage, integrity and honour is roughly akin to dating a girl with a nice personality. You might admire it, but you don't vote it.

    Pretty much goes for up here, except for a term called moxie. "courage and aggressiveness; nerve."
    The definition is not really accurate.

    An example would be if a young man (say 10yo) stood up to a more or less equal bully and defeated him in a fist fight ... that would be described as COURAGE. Now a situation where an 8yo girl calls a 10yo boy (YOUR SON) a shithead and then proceeds to make a fistfight of it ... win, lose or draw, THAT would be moxie. You don't admire the act, you admire the sheer unmitigated gall of the person doing it.

    The difference between the South and the NE is that the NE is willing to vote for moxie ... even if you don't like the person, the person's politics, or the person's manner.

    I've heard the term moxie applied to Elizabeth Warren. Not to Scott Brown. Karl Rove does not know the term at all.

  7. [7] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    AND ANOTHER THING!!!!

    I don't watch any tv (I actually don't have one) but I do read 3 newspapers.

    In the past 2 weeks (more or less) there have several pieces about Elizabeth Warren, several about Karl Rove/AXR/big outside $$$ and NOT several about Scott Brown.

    If I were a major party incumbent running for state-wide office, I'd be kinda weirded out that my opponent and a sneered at ally were out newsing me in a small state.

    I don't think this will keep up and the article imbalance will right itself, all else being equal. But an incumbent being behind in both the polls and newscycle impact has got to be worrying. But then anyone who thinks Rove actually cares what Brown thinks would buy my land in SE Louisiana.

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another, unrelated note.....

    http://www.funnyjokeshub.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/391876_10150517132986654_386056616653_10748477_255610661_n.jpg

    Ever have one of those days at the office?? :D

    Michale...
    158

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm running it like this for 12 hours or so to see if it appears the same to everyone else.

    Yep, that's how it shows up for me in Firefox (on Ubuntu Linux). ... Just checked Chrome, and it shows the same there too.

    Even though Saturday had come and gone.

  10. [10] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Many bloggers and news organizations are currently proclaiming the reality that ROMNEY HAS LOST.

    I'm not so sure that it's a done deal but I said it first (12/2/11)!

  11. [11] 
    Kevin wrote:

    I'm so sorry to be off topic yet again, but this guy keeps hitting it out of the park...

    http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/12/everybodys-so-different-i-havent.html

    This should be required reading for everyone.

  12. [12] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    update on "y'all"

    the resident expert has nothing to add to what i wrote. it's a second person pronoun contraction, both nominative and objective, gender neutral, familiar plural but can also be used either as the formal singular (which no longer exists in standard english, e.g. thou/thee), or collective (your type).

  13. [13] 
    dsws wrote:

    I'm happy just so long as þe expert hasn't given any aid and comfort to the doctrine of inherency.

    I said it first (12/2/11)!

    I admit I've bought into the Romney ascendancy in recent months. But back in June I couldn't take him seriously as a front-runner: http://www.chrisweigant.com/2011/06/13/the-2012-republican-presidential-field/#comment-14734

    (The other "front-runner" at the time was none other than Sarah Palin.)

  14. [14] 
    dsws wrote:

    New question for grammatical/semantical nitpickery: Should that have been "any aid or comfort" instead of "any aid and comfort"? Obviously, I went with "and".

  15. [15] 
    dsws wrote:

    Stonekettle wrote, as linked in [11]:
    Until there is a fundamental change in human nature, war and conflict will be a necessary evil.

    The tendencies in human nature that have contributed to violent conflict will persist until and unless there is a sufficient change in human nature to remove them. That's darn near a tautology. However, those tendencies need not continue always to lead to the particular sort of large-scale, organized, unlimited conflict that constitutes war.

    Total war is so catastrophic that it will happen at most once more. Everyone should be able to understand that it must be prevented, almost no matter what. Limited war looks different now, in that light, than it did when it was a fool's detour on the way to total war.

    Taking von Clausewitz's romantic notions seriously was part of the soil the Great War and its sequel grew in. Teddy Roosevelt loved a great struggle. You could have a "splendid little war" then.

    Today, even after learning the lessons of Viet Nam, we could still try to have a splendid little war, to offer any would-be Teddy Roosevelt the chance to prove his manhood. We did try, and the result was a fiasco.

    Even as human nature stays the same, the institutions and calculations can change.

    --

    On the main point of the article, he's right. Or rather, he's correct: he has become "left" despite having stayed in the same place. I've moved to the right over the years, objectively, as I've tried to find any and all grains of truth in positions I disagree with. I've gained some appreciation for old-fashioned conservatism. But I've gone from center-left to far-left as the political spectrum has shifted to the right much, much faster than I have.

  16. [16] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Update:

    Woo hoo! We've passed halfway towards our fundraising goal!

    I'll get to answering comments a bit later, as I spent all weekend hanging lights and dealing with trees and other seasonal stuff.

    Just wanted to say "Woo hoo!" Less than halfway to go, folks...

    :-)

    -CW

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    Total war is so catastrophic that it will happen at most once more.

    "I don't know what weapons World War III will be fought with, but I do know that World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."
    -Albert Einstein

    Taking von Clausewitz's romantic notions seriously was part of the soil the Great War and its sequel grew in. Teddy Roosevelt loved a great struggle. You could have a "splendid little war" then.

    Capt. Ramsey: "You do qualify your remarks. If someone asked me if we should bomb Japan, a simple 'Yes. By all means sir, drop that fucker, twice!' I don't mean to suggest that you're indecisive, Mr. Hunter. Not at all. Just, uh... complicated. Course, that's the way the Navy wants you. Me, they wanted simple."

    Hunter: "Well, you certainly fooled them, sir."

    Capt. Ramsey: [chuckles] "Be careful there, Mr. Hunter. It's all I've got to rely on, being a simple-minded son of a bitch. Rickover gave me my command, a checklist, a target and a button to push. All I gotta know is how to push it, they tell me when. They seem to want you to know why."

    Hunter: "I would hope they'd want us all to know why, sir"

    Capt. Ramsey: "At the Naval War College it was metallurgy and nuclear reactors, not 19th-century philosophy. 'War is a continuation of politics by other means.' -Von Clausewitz."

    Hunter: "I think, sir, that what he was actually trying to say was a little more -"

    Capt. Ramsey: "- Complicated?"

    Hunter: "Yes the purpose of war is to serve a political end but the true nature of war is to serve itself."

    Capt. Ramsey: [Laughing] "I'm very impressed. In other words, the sailor most likely to win the war is the one most willing to part company with the politicians and ignore everything except the destruction of the enemy. You'd agree with that."

    Hunter: "I'd agree that, um, that's what Clausewitz was trying to say."

    Capt. Ramsey: "But you wouldn't agree with it?

    Hunter: "No, sir, I do not. No, I just think that in the nuclear world the true enemy can't be destroyed."

    Capt. Ramsey: [Chuckling, tapping glass] "Attention on deck. Von Clausewitz will now tell us exactly who the real enemy is."

    Capt. Ramsey: "Von?"

    Hunter: "In my humble opinion, in the nuclear world, the true enemy is war itself."
    -CRIMSON TIDE

    New question for grammatical/semantical nitpickery: Should that have been "any aid or comfort" instead of "any aid and comfort"? Obviously, I went with "and".

    My two cents..

    From a legal standpoint, I am of the opinion that "aid or comfort" should be the correct choice, of the two you gave..

    However, to be perfectly accurate in the description of the legal charge, I think "aid and/or comfort" would be the best choice.

    CW,

    WOOT!!!!! :D Still have lots o' time!!! :D

    Michale...
    165

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    dsws,

    New question for grammatical/semantical nitpickery: Should that have been "any aid or comfort" instead of "any aid and comfort"? Obviously, I went with "and".

    Of course, if you are a MY COUSIN VINNY aficionado, then....

    "aidn' an' abetin'!"
    -Sheriff Farley, MY COUSIN VINNY

    :D

    Michale.....
    166

  19. [19] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    dsws -
    When I got excited about the I said it first, I meant that I said it on my blog. I'm not really sure about the standards of conduct about linking to your own blog in someone else's blog. It feels like its not quite right ... like knocking calling someones son an old geezer. Not quite done, don'cha know.

    As far as aid and/or comfort, it would depend upon how badly you wanted to mess up the donor. Giving $$$ to a homeless person while cursing him for his smell is giving aid but not comfort. Giving that same homeless man a rose and telling him to take heart, things will get better is giving him comfort but not aid (from the point of view of the donor). Doing both would be aid and comfort. So why do you want to hang this dude anyway???

    Parenthetically, I believe the term OR is correct. The intent is clearly to treat the accessory as a principal, and the inducement of charging is clearly up to the the prosecuting entity.

    What the hell happened to the Preview????

  20. [20] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    I read the Stonekettle article and was totally blown away. He hit the nail exactly on the head, and explained it in such a way that anyone not braindead and/or brainwashed can understand it. Not an easy task.

    I particularly liked his reference to the bumber sticker: Tolerance is for those who lack conviction. The end result of intolerance is far too easy to see to be mistaken here. Unfortunately, most political intolerance comes when someone decides that THIS intolerance (fill in the blank) is justified because of circumstances ... the ends justify the means.

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    Unfortunately, most political intolerance comes when someone decides that THIS intolerance (fill in the blank) is justified because of circumstances ... the ends justify the means.

    I couldn't have said it better myself... :D

    Michale
    167

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    On another note...

    Hypocrisy at it's finest...

    The Left is always ready to use the power of boycotts at the drop of a dime..

    But let a conservative movement use boycotts to further THEIR agenda and the Left and the Hysterical Left goes apeshit...

    I am, of course, referring to the Lowes' boycott against the TLC show showing Muslim American families...

    All of the sudden boycotts are evil, wrong and completely uncalled for...

    As I said.... Hypocrisy at it's finest...

    Michale
    171

  23. [23] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    So, Michale, WHEN does intolerance become "any means to the desired end"?

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    All of the sudden boycotts are evil, wrong and completely uncalled for...

    Don't get me wrong. My opinion of boycotts is the same, no matter where they come from..

    It's tantamount to economic terrorism that invariably hurts the very people the boycott'ers claim to represent or want to protect...

    That opinion remains, regardless of what agenda the boycott serves..

    I just think it's ironic that the Left, who has made boycott'ing practically a national past-time, would be so hysterical about a Right inspired boycott...

    Michale.....
    172

  25. [25] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/crazy
    1. Affected with madness; insane.
    2. Informal: Departing from proportion or moderation

    Gee, I must no longer be part of the Left. I haven't heard of this boycott. A quick review of my Hysterical Left blogs show no mention of this boycott.

    But after all, its Michale who is posting this. It MUST be true. Even if there is no reference. Who'd a thunk it?

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    Seriously???

    You haven't heard of this???

    What kind of politico are you!?? :D

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Muslim%20Lowes%20Boycott&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

    Michale.....
    173

  27. [27] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    THAT'S what your talking about????

    But I don't see actual boycotting going on. EVERY SINGLE ENTRY on the first page uses terms like:
    weigh boycott
    Considering calling for
    facing backlash
    weigh boycott
    heard expressions of anger, calls for boycott
    so on, and so on, and so on.

    These aren't boycotts. Coor's Beer -- now THAT was a boycott. I still won't drink that horse piss. But this?

    Nah. You're hyperventilating over nothing but words from the same people quoted over and over again. Change you name to Bill O'reilly and try again.

  28. [28] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Uh..am I missing something? I did not go beyond the first page but according to all the stories I read a conservative christian group complained, not boycotted mind you, but complained about a Lowes Ad. Lowes pulled it and now some parts of the left in addition to muslim groups are calling for a boycott/talking about calling for a boycott. Where exactly is the right's boycott that the left is complaining about, cuss it's ain't in the stories your search linked to...

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay, yer preaching to the choir..

    It's the LEFT that's hyperventilating over the fact that Lowes' pulled it's advertising from the TLC show..

    It's actually hilarious..

    Lowes' pulled it's advertising from the show on threats from the Right of a boycott..

    NOW, the LEFT is threatening to boycott Lowes' *BECAUSE* Lowes' pulled it's advertising...

    How frak'in hilarious is that!!!??? :D

    Simply more evidence that, when it comes to being political fanatics, there really isn't any difference between the Right and the Left...

    Michale.....
    174

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bashi,

    Conservative groups in FL and other states threatened to boycott Lowe's because of it's advertising on the TLC show about Muslim families..

    Lowes' caved in and pulled their advertising from the show..

    Now, the LEFT (in the form of California lawmakers, PACs and Leftist Blogs) have cried out that they will push a boycott of Lowes' if Lowes's doesn't restore it's advertising.

    Like I told DF, ya'all are preaching to the choir as to how utterly ridiculous it all is..

    But YOU tell that to the Leftist blogs and California lawmakers that are pushing this crap..

    They won't take my calls... :D

    Michale
    175

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, Bashi... Apparently you and DF are "missing something"... ;D

    After the Lowe's home-improvement giant pulled its ads from TLC's All-American Muslim reality show, a local state senator this weekend helped sparked what appears to be an all-out movement to boycott the chain's stores.
    laweekly.com/informer/2011/12/lowes_boycott_muslim_all-american_sen_ted_lieu.php

    LOS ANGELES – Angry calls for boycotting Lowe’s Home Improvement, the national hardware chain, are gaining support after the giant retail pulled its ads from a reality TV show on American Muslims, Bikyamasr website reported on Monday, December 12.

    Calling the Lowe’s decision “un-American” and “naked religious bigotry,” Senator Ted Lieu, a Democrat from Torrance, started calls for boycotting the giant retail.
    onislam.net/english/news/americas/454982-lowes-face-boycott-over-tlc-muslim-show.html

    LOS ANGELES (KTLA) -- A California senator is threatening a boycott against homebuilding supply chain Lowe's after it pulled advertising from the reality TV show "All-American Muslim."
    ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-lowes-pulls-ads-from-muslim-reality-show,0,570740.story

    Michale
    176

  32. [32] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    How many CA lawmakers? Don't know. no reference
    How many Leftist blogs? Don't know. no reference
    Who on the Left Blogosphere? Don't know. No reference.

    Like I said. Change your name to Bill O'Reilly.

  33. [33] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Interesting. Your search did not link to that. Those stories said complained only.

  34. [34] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    You truly do epitomize the venerable ostrich, don'tcha?? :D

    If you choose to stick yer head in the sand, fine... It's nice and safe there, I realize... :D

    Bashi,

    Actually, those links were taken from the first page of the link I sent..

    Like I say, guys.. I AGREE with you.. It's a bunch of hulaballooo about nothing....

    It's completely inane and moronic...

    But it IS happening... :D

    Michale
    177

  35. [35] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    PS --

    ONE California legislator? Please.

    You can find ONE California legislator in favor of damn near anything from naming a green initiative after Pol Pot to open carry of AK-47's in the statehouse.

    One legislator. Right. Real good Michale, Real good. I forsee a solid future for you in Fox News.

  36. [36] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    And all are consistent with what I posted before. Muslim groups/left groups are calling for the boycott not the right as you have argued would be hypocrisy.

    All the stories have a variation on:

    The retail giant stopped advertising on TLC's "All-American Muslim" after a conservative group known as the Florida Family Association complained, saying the program was "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values."

    The Florida Family Association's website does not call for a boycott. It calls for those who agree to send an email to complain to sponsors and get them to not sponsor the show. It looks like that is pretty much all this group does.

    Like I say, guys.. I AGREE with you.. It's a bunch of hulaballooo about nothing....

    It's completely inane and moronic...

    I agree it is, but so far you have not proven the hypocrisy from the left angle.

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    DF,

    One legislator. Right. Real good Michale, Real good. I forsee a solid future for you in Fox News.

    Unfortunately, most political intolerance comes when someone decides that THIS intolerance (fill in the blank) is justified because of circumstances ... the ends justify the means.

    I just mention it.. :D

    Bashi,

    I agree it is, but so far you have not proven the hypocrisy from the left angle.

    Yes, Bashi... The Left would never engage in hypocrisy... :D

    You Left Wing Warrior, you! :D

    The Right wings calls for letters to the advertisers...

    What do you think those letters were saying??

    Probably much the same thing when Right Wing groups wanted to boycott McDonalds and other advertisers of the MARRIED WITH CHILDREN show...

    You can play semantic games all ya want..

    But it's clear that the Right Wing group was threatening a boycott of the advertisers of that TLC show..

    Why else do you think the advertisers caved??

    NOW the Left wing is slamming the advertisers for caving into the Right Wing boycott...

    I guess the Left thinks that only THEIR boycotts should be adhered to...

    Like I said... Hilarious... :D

    Michale.....
    178

  38. [38] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Yes, Bashi... The Left would never engage in hypocrisy... :D

    You are arguing a specific case of hyprocrisy that you seem unable to back up with evidence.

    As the group in question has a pre-formatted email I can tell you exactly what those emails say:

    Please do not support TLC propaganda.

    The Learning Channel's new show All-American Muslim is propaganda clearly designed to counter legitimate and present-day concerns about many Muslims who are advancing Islamic fundamentalism and Sharia law.

    The show profiles only Muslims that appear to be ordinary folks while excluding many Islamic believers whose agenda poses a clear and present danger to the liberties and traditional values that the majority of Americans cherish.

    One of the most troubling scenes occurred at the introduction of the program when a Muslim police officer stated "I really am American. No ifs and or buts about it." This scene would appear to be damage control for the Dearborn Police who have arrested numerous Christians including several former Muslims for peacefully preaching Christianity.

    Many situations were profiled in the show from a Muslim tolerant perspective while avoiding the perspective that would have created Muslim conflict thereby contradicting The Learning Channel’s agenda to inaccurately portray Muslims in America.

    Clearly this program is attempting to manipulate Americans into ignoring the threat of jihad and to influence them to believe that being concerned about the jihad threat would somehow victimize these nice people in this show.

    I encourage you to stop supporting this show with your advertising dollars.

    I see no mention of boycott stated or implied.

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    I see no mention of boycott stated or implied.

    Really????

    I encourage you to stop supporting this show with your advertising dollars.

    Seems like the threat is implied.. The "or else" is plain... At least to people who live in the real world..

    But, let me get this straight.

    You are DEFENDING the FFA???

    Boy, ONE of us is really confused.

    But, we are agreed.. It's is ridiculous that the Left would threaten a boycott of Lowe's and BofA for their actions...

    Michale....
    179

  40. [40] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    I am defending the left of a specific accusation of hyprocrisy that you did not prove.

    But, we are agreed.. It's is ridiculous that the Left would threaten a boycott of Lowe's and BofA for their actions...

    I think this is a valid action and not ridiculous at all. It would be better to send letters but a boycott works. If people can prove to lowes and other corporations that more money is to be lost listening to this group than ignoring them it lessens this groups power. Which to me is a good thing...

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    The FFA is better known for boycotts of advertisers to get a transgender character removed from the teen drama Degrassi — which FFA termed “salacious and irresponsible propaganda” — and spending its spare time monitoring the behavior of park patrons at Disney World’s “Gay Days”. (No, really.) Seeing their cries of terror at the homosexual threat falling on increasingly deaf ears, they have branched out into paranoid attacks on Muslims
    secularnewsdaily.com/2011/12/12/should-secular-minded-americans-boycott-lowes/

    Oh, yes...

    The FFA would never stoop to boycotts..

    I guess you were right and I was wrong, Bashi..

    The FFA is in the right here.... :^/

    I guess you'll argue ANY point, as long as it's a point that I am making.. :D

    Well, that's kewl too.. Allows me more posts... :D

    Michale
    180

  42. [42] 
    BashiBazouk wrote:

    Dude, you got caught red handed not vetting the links you post to back up an argument you made. Again. Descending in to the juvenile is not going to change that fact...

    That's what you are, what am I?
    That's what you are, what am I?
    That's what you are, what am I?

    Yawn.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, Gee Whiz Bashi,

    To Our Valued Customers:

    As some of you may have heard, Lowe’s Home Improvement has recently come under fire from the Florida Family Association (FFA) for advertising on cable TV’s TLC – The Learning Channel.

    Specifically, they have asked us to terminate all adverting until that network removes the television reality show, All-American Muslim. It is the FFA’s concern that this show portrays an American Muslim family in a positive light, as they go about their lives as home-owners struggling to realize the American Dream held dear by so many of us. The FFA has asked that we spend our advertising dollars only on television shows that portray American Muslims as enemies of our country. They have called for a boycott of Lowe’s Home Improvement stores until we have agreed to their demands.

    Apparently, another Left Wing site claims there was a boycott by the Right...

    Even our own Matt Osborne claims that there was a "pressure campaign"...

    Florida Family Association, best-known for their campaign against Disney’s “Gay Day,” are so terrified of a new TLC show about Muslims living in America that they’ve engaged in an advertiser pressure campaign. Bank of America and Lowe’s have already removed their ads, and FFA claims dozens more have followed suit. Their website calls the show
    osborneink.com/2011/12/duggars-okay-muslims-not.html

    So, here are the facts...

    A radical Right Wing group threatened a boycott of Lowes' if they didn't drop advertising of the TLC show...

    Lowes' caved into that radical group's demands..

    The Left didn't like that the poor Muslims were being picked on (apparently the Left doesn't give a rip when CHRISTIANS are attacked and ridiculed, but that's another debate) and didn't like that the Right's boycott threat against Lowes' worked..

    So, the LEFT threatened their OWN boycott of Lowes'...

    Get that??!! The Left didn't like that Lowes' caved in to the RIGHT's boycott (pressure campaign) so they threatened their OWN boycott...

    Jeezus H Christ, you need a frak'in playbill to keep track of all of this..

    Interesting question, though... Is a Left Wing boycott ALSO called a "pressure campaign"?? Just wanna get my terminology straight..

    Ya gotta admire the twisted logic..

    After all is said and done, it appears that YOU (Bashi) think that the Left Wing boycott is OK, but the Right Wing boycott (or "pressure campaign" as some would call it) stinks..

    Now THERE'S a shocker, eh?? :D

    My opinion, of course, has remained constant..

    Boycotts from the Right or the Left all suck. They are stoopid and moronic and invariably hurt the very people the boycott'ers claim to represent or want to protect..

    But what the hell.. It was good for a half dozen posts or so... :D

    Michale
    181

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    DerFarm [5] -

    That's a good point about knowing the local lay of the political landscape -- a point a lot of national political operatives miss frequently.

    Michale [8] -

    OK, THAT was funny, I have to admit!

    dsws [9] -

    Had lots to do this weekend, but it should be back to normal (half-broken, but normal) by now.

    Kevin [11] -

    I have to respect anyone who puts Heinlein in with Hemingway and Kipling... Kidding aside, that is an excellent article. The flip side to Ronald Reagan's "I never left the Democratic PArty, they left me."

    dsws [14] -

    I'm still going to file "Y'all" in "colloquialisms" personally. I would go with "any aid or comfort" in the spirit of the eitherness of the statement.

    DerFarm [20] -

    Reminds me of the (intentially) oxymoronic bumpersticker: "Death to all fanatics!" Heh.

    Michale [22] -

    Do tell. Got a link? Hadn't heard of it...

    [26] -

    Oh, OK, there we go. Well, I support both sides' right to boycott each other. Strong language seems to be coming from both sides, you're right about that. But I have no problem with duelling boycotts.

    To be scrupulously full-disclosurey, there is no Lowe's near me, so I'm not affected either way.

    [37] -

    Married with Children got boycotted? I've heard of the Coors beer one, but not that one. Why? Because the show was so moronic? My wife just about ruined my enjoyment of "Futurama" recently by pointing out that Leloo was the voice of the MWC wife. (Shudder)

    In general -

    Boycotts are as all-American as apple pie. Before and during the Revolution, many businesses were boycotted by the "Patriots" (rebels), and many businesses were destroyed and their prorpietors ridden out of town on a rail, tar and feathered, or both. We've been boycotting businesses which don't share our politics since BEFORE our country was born. Boycotting, like talking points, is a tool -- a hammer is neither "good" nor "evil," it's just a tool. It depends on how you use it, but that's a subjective decision for all.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    DerFarm wrote:

    Damn Chris,

    You take a perfectly good flame war and douse it with flame retardant ... in Michale's case Intellectual Retardant.

    Who died and elected you king of the universe.

    And you STILL haven't fixe the damn preview.

  46. [46] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    My wife just about ruined my enjoyment of "Futurama" recently by pointing out that Leloo was the voice of the MWC wife. (Shudder)

    katey sagal is actually a pretty good singer and character actress. she just had the misfortune, if one can call it that, to become famous for a part in a bad show.

  47. [47] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    DerFarm -

    I elected myself king of this site. As for king of the universe, well, if I had that power, I would now hold Andy Rooney's job. Heh.

    I've always been a supporter of boycotts, in a non-partisan way, the same way I'm a supporter of political protest, in a non-partisan way. I think I've been pretty consistent on this, although Michale does indeed like to attempt yanking my chain on the issue every now and then... my favorite was his "boycotts = economic terrorism"... still chuckle when I think about the twisted logic behind THAT one....

    I'm still working on the comment thingie. The "pre-wrap" didn't work, but I've got a request out for advice from a WordPress expert user group, to see why things that should be working don't seem to be. Patience, patience... other commenters here have been begging for a preview function for YEARS now... heh.

    nypoet22 -

    Yeah, that's what my wife says too, but somehow the mental image of a sexy purple-haired one-eyed alien is forever tarnished by the MWC associations, for me at least. I can't picture her now without picturing a gigantic hairdo. (shudder).

    Heh.

    -CW

    PS. Hey everyone, we're HALFWAY to our fundraising goal! Woo hoo!

  48. [48] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @CW,

    try watching "sons of anarchy" - she's the matriarch of a biker gang.

  49. [49] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Oh, now, that's much more like it!

    Heh.

    -CW

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    Strong language seems to be coming from both sides, you're right about that.

    Thank you. That's all I was saying!

    Jeezus, I never thought I would have to FIGHT anyone to say that the Right is acting like a bunch of assholes...

    Married with Children got boycotted? I've heard of the Coors beer one, but not that one. Why? Because the show was so moronic? My wife just about ruined my enjoyment of "Futurama" recently by pointing out that Leloo was the voice of the MWC wife. (Shudder)

    Ya never knew!?? Yea.. Katie Segal.. She's actually a pretty good actress. Showed up in a couple episodes of LOST, plus a bunch of other shows I can't recall right now..

    Anyways, yea, there was a big boycott of McDonalds when MWC first aired by the Right Wing groups. Had debates with my cousin into the wee hours of the morning over the complete and utter nonsense of one group trying to impose their morality over another group..

    Hmmmmm Funny. After that, I was never invited back to the family reunions... :D

    Boycotting, like talking points, is a tool -- a hammer is neither "good" nor "evil," it's just a tool. It depends on how you use it, but that's a subjective decision for all.

    I disagree... Boycotting, like terrorism is inherently evil. While both are, in fact, tools as you say, they are probably the ONLY "tools" that I can think of that ARE inherently evil..

    Because Boycotting, like terrorism, counts on collateral damage, to be effective. They both target innocent people.

    I'll have to respectfully disagree with you on the value of boycotting.

    Unlike others here (not you)my opinion is the same, whether we're talking about a boycott from the Right or a boycott from the Left..

    NYPoet,

    katey sagal is actually a pretty good singer and character actress. she just had the misfortune, if one can call it that, to become famous for a part in a bad show.

    It wasn't THAT bad.. Had it's funny moments.. Ed O'Neil is now in MODERN FAMILY, a show which should be right up ya'alls alley...

    It's hilarious.. I highly recommend it...

    Michale
    183

  51. [51] 
    dsws wrote:

    Boycotts can be a form of coercion, or attempted coercion. They can also be a token action that reinforces the boycotter's awareness of and support for the cause, with no expectation of any effect on the boycott-ee.

    Coercion can be justified or unjustified, and have various degrees of legitimacy. The fact that it takes the form of a boycott isn't of great importance in determining which such judgments rightly apply.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    Boycotts can be a form of coercion, or attempted coercion.

    One would be hard pressed to come up with an example of a boycott that ISN'T coercive...

    Coercive is the very definition of boycott.

    boy·cott ?[boi-kot]
    verb (used with object)

    1.to combine in abstaining from, or preventing dealings with, as a means of intimidation or coercion: to boycott a store.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/boycott

    Coercion can be justified or unjustified,

    Any coercion that hurts innocent people, it would be hard to justify...

    Don't get me wrong. You probably won't find a more firm believer in the mantra, "The Ends Justifies The Means" than I...

    But there are some instances where it is not applicable..

    Michale
    191

  53. [53] 
    dsws wrote:

    Means of doing anything are sometimes ineffective. Means of doing various things are sometimes so obviously ineffective that even the person doing it has to know it won't work, at least at accomplishing ing the supposed purpose. In such cases, there's quite often another purpose involved.

    "Usually so laughably ineffective as to be harmless" isn't in the definition of boycott, because it goes without saying.

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    And, in the hypocrisy moment...

    "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt."
    -David Axelrod, referring to Newt Gingrich

    If anyone had said this about Obama, accusations of racism would have been screamed to the high heavens...

    Michale....
    197

  55. [55] 
    Michale wrote:

    Grrrrrrrr....

    Forgot to preview....

    Michale
    198

  56. [56] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    "The higher a monkey climbs on the pole the more you can see his butt."
    -David Axelrod, referring to Newt Gingrich

    If anyone had said this about Obama, accusations of racism would have been screamed to the high heavens...

    michale,

    that's because monkey is a well known racist slur. it's not a double-standard if the same words would take on a different meaning depending on who they reference. the hypocrisy you're attempting to reference may very well exist, but that is absolutely not an example of it.

    here's a reverse example: if you called obama "wall street's bitch," it would not be inherently hypocritical in the least that the same comment leveled at michelle bachmann would be labeled sexism. for hypocrisy to exist, the comment would have to mean the same thing when leveled at both individuals.

    "you keep using that word. i don't think it means what you think it means."
    ~the princess bride

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    that's because monkey is a well known racist slur. it's not a double-standard if the same words would take on a different meaning depending on who they reference. the hypocrisy you're attempting to reference may very well exist, but that is absolutely not an example of it.

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that calling a black man a "monkey" is a racial slur..

    But calling a white man a "monkey" is not???

    To be perfectly honest, I never knew that..

    I guess I have led a sheltered life...

    Michale.....
    213

  58. [58] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that calling a black man a "monkey" is a racial slur..

    But calling a white man a "monkey" is not???

    To be perfectly honest, I never knew that..

    now you know. in 1983 howard cosell apparently didn't know, and his career took a big hit because of it. all

Comments for this article are closed.