Oct 22 2009

T-Shirt as Billboard

Kal @ 16:27

All of these shirt images came in the same e-mail. They are not the most obnoxious images that have been sent my way.


I suppose the idea of this first one is that patriotism and socialism are somehow opposites. But it can just as easily be read as one equals the other; that is, patriotism and socialism are two sides of the same coin.  Of course, neither of these is correct by itself; there can be good or bad socialism and good or bad patriotism, and points between for each.

Vote Democrat-300

Good idea. We need all the votes we can get. Bring your own reasons.



Category: Morals | wingnuttery

Oct 20 2009

Oh how they love to make up stuff about the Obamas

Kal @ 23:10

Greg took a couple of days off and even looked up the story on FactCheck where it is thoroughly debunked, but I guess he just could not resist, he forwarded it on anyway. It has been obvious for some time that wingnuts do not care about the truth, only the chance to point a finger and snigger to one another.

Fw: The First Lady solves Unemployment problem in US

The new Camelot...........lololol

Something I'm sure you'd love to forward on.  Though it is incorrect, as to the staff for prior First Lady's.



Seriously! First Lady's 22 Assistants.
First Ladies do  have assistants.  A history sampling with background story.  
Laura Bush = one  
Hillary Clinton =  three
Jackie Kennedy =  one
Michelle Obama =  twenty-two

This was followed by detailing these civil servants and their salaries, which I am not going to include because the factcheck link has it all. You can look it up if you care. But I will include the FactCheck answer:

Michelle Obama’s Staff

Q: Does First Lady Michelle Obama have an "unprecedented" number of staffers?

A: A spokeswoman for the first lady says that Michelle Obama currently has a staff of 24. That may indeed be the largest of any first lady, but Hillary Clinton, with 19 staffers, and Laura Bush with at least 18 and perhaps more, weren’t far behind.



Category: wingnuttery | Politics | Morals | misinformation | hoax

Oct 19 2009

This set of lies started about 2004 or earlier

Kal @ 17:47

I am still trying to figure out what the point of this was other than to attack Obama. The original e-mail included photos of each of the presidents, reasonable photos also, but I am going to skip that part and just try to make sense of the text.

If you jump to the end of this piece, you will see that both Snopes and FactCheck debunk it as mostly lies. However, note all the details and the colors. To the extremely gullible it might even seem plausible.



Category: wingnuttery | Politics | hoax | misinformation

Oct 18 2009

Poor People Are Lazy

Kal @ 13:40

Doesn’t everyone know that the only reason some people have very little money is because they are lazy and did not work hard enough? The wingnuts use this not so subtle form of self delusion to justify their greed.

In the good old U.S. of A., I recently read, upward mobility is even lower than it is in Europe. Whch translates into something like, the chances are that if you are financially better off than someone else, it is because your daddy was more lucky than his or her daddy (or not such a good thief, as the case may be). Of course there are exceptions, but for most it is just a matter of having chosen the right parents. And I use the term daddy loosely here, often times the wealth accumulation was more than one generation removed.

Even Halloween gets a political slant these days. Sorry for the lack of credit to the cartoonist, I was not able to decipher the signature, and the e-mail provided no credit.

How accurate is this? LOL

Halloween Fallacy

It would have been more accurate to show the republican/conservative taking the milk from a poor baby, selling it, and giving the proceeds to a Goldman Sachs executive as a bonus.

Goldman Sachs: Your tax dollars, their big bonuses

Goldman Sachs is having a banner year, and is getting a big boost from government programs.

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- It's probably cold comfort, but Goldman Sachs couldn't have done it without your help.


Category: Politics | wingnuttery

Oct 18 2009

Dehumanize to facilitate aggression

Kal @ 13:09

From Wikipedia – Dehumanization

Dehumanization is the process by which members of a group of people assert the "inferiority" of another group through subtle or overt acts or statements. Dehumanization may be directed by an organization (such as a state) or may be the composite of individual sentiments and actions, as with some types of de facto racism.

Dehumanization is clearly alive and well in the wingnut e-mails, usually disguised as “humor”. A couple of days ago there were two from the same source.

Sort of Racist I guess.  Oh well.  Whatever!!!!!!


Party time at the White House!

PARTYING AT THE WHITE HOUSE....Need I say more????

fake party at white house

I responded with “The point?”

No point.  Just a little humor.  Oh sorry I forgot.  Anything goes as long as it is directed at White Republican Politicians but God forbid if there is any humor whether well founded or not directed toward Liberal-Black-Muslim Politicians!!!!!   

Maybe the wingnuts circulated dehumanizing stuff about George Bush as well? I wonder why they never sent it to me?



Category: wingnuttery | Politics | Morals

Oct 12 2009

Natural Capital -- living systems and ecosystems services - what we call resources

Kal @ 12:11

Capitalism that I can believe in. From: Worldchanging Interview: Paul Hawken, WorldChanging Team, 25 Sep 09

Three years before the book came out, I had written an article called "Natural Capitalism," and coined the term. And what I was writing about was Natural Capital, and that was (coined) by E. F. Schumacher. And what he was trying to say, as an economist, was (take a) look at this form of capital -- living systems and ecosystems services, what we call resources. We don't put this on the balance sheet of the world. We count it as zero, until we cut it down, extract it, mine it, kill it. And then it has value. But before we do that, it has zero value. That's crazy. It has more value before we touch it.

So, then it goes to Herman Daly, and what Herman Daly was saying is that the limiting factor to human prosperity to the world wasn't human productivity, but the productivity of our resources because we are in a resource restrained world caused by our industrial systems taking so much, so often and for so long. Therefore, when you have an economy and you see what the limiting factors are to development, then you work on maximizing what is limiting. And what is limiting to us isn't people, we have lots of people, too many some may say.

… Basically we are using less and less of what we have more of, and with natural capital, using more and more of what we have less of. And we are using more of it (natural capital) to make people more productive, to use less people. So this is upside down and backwards, we should be using more and more people to use less and less natural capital.


Category: Climate Change | Population | Steady-State Economics | Sustainability

Oct 12 2009

Death panel nuts are still pitching

Kal @ 11:09

This rather clever cartoon came in yet another wingnut e-mail today. The subject line was: “FW: Doesn't get any better than this!” There was nothing in there giving credit, but I found the original by Joel Pett. There was no commentary with the original, but some wag “improved” it.

euthanize cartoon Let me get this straight.
We're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose head says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it, signed by a president that also hasn't read it, and who smokes,
with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't  pay his taxes,
overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and
financed by a country that's nearly broke. 
What possibly could go wrong?

Apparently a President who smokes cigarettes can not think? And an overweight surgeon general can not give good advice? Legislation is always messy and humans are not perfect, so what? There are certainly problems with the proposed legislation, mostly due to too much attempted bipartisanship that has watered down the public option to the point where it may not save any money. But nothing about the proposed legislation has anything to do with euthanasia. It is a lie, pure and simple.


Category: wingnuttery | Politics

Oct 12 2009

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism

Kal @ 10:48

Rarely do you see so many wingnut fantasies all in one place. This bright and cheerful image arrived in my e-mail this morning. The e-mail subject was: “Fw: Get out of Guantanamo Bay free card”

Now this really took some thinking!

destroy capitalism

The object of the game is to destroy American capitalism…

by having the government take over everything!

Wanna play?  No???

Too bad, you're already playing....

Not a bad photo of Obama.

Almost all of the Monopoly style “properties” are US banks that were saved from bankruptcy by the Bush first bank bailout and the Obama second bailout. I guess this deep thinking game designer would have preferred to let them go under. That must be the hidden subtext. As for me, I think they should have been taken over by the FDIC and management replaced. It was Obama and Bernake’s failure to do this that was the real problem. But it is hard to make the case that they were trying to destroy capitalism when the big mistake was trying to save these capitalists.



Category: wingnuttery | Politics

Oct 11 2009

If they are not running things, then it is not America

Kal @ 14:28

Paul Rosenberg wrote another thoughtful piece: Three Perspectives on The (D)evolution of Rightwing Lies [emphasis in what follows is mine]

On Tuesday, I posted a Quick Hit about conservatives' newfound discovery that Bible is full of liberal bias, and therefore must be rewritten more along the lines of Atlas Shrugged.  Maybe I'm just imagining things, but I think I see a pattern here, a definite progression of the crazies. Just before that, you'll recall, there was the widespread outbreak of glee that America had lost the bid for the 2016 Olympics.  And since I began working on this diary mid-week, Obama won the Nobel Prize, leading to another round of conservative frenzy.  So, knee-jerk patriotism and Biblical literalism are suddenly out on the right.  That's got to be big news.

In short, the disconnect is particularly strikingly.  That is, until you take a step back, and see the underlying consistency: to the conservative America-haters: in their minds, they alone are America.  If they're not running things, then it's not America.  It's just that simple. Which is why it's fine to talk about secession as soon as they lose an election, and to make a hero out of a racist backbencher who disrespects the President during a joint session of Congress by screaming out a lie, accusing the President of being a liar.  If you are the real America and everyone else is not, well, then, you can do pretty much whatever you want--and do it all in the name of America.  You can destroy America--just like the South tried to do during the War of Southern Aggression--and if you can do that, then you damn sure can cheer your heart out when America loses in some international competition, even one that brings a lot of jobs with it during a recession.

The same logic applies in rewriting the Bible.  If you're the only real Christians then the Bible says what you say it says, period.  "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes?" becomes, "Who are you going to believe--me or your lying eyes when you read the Bible?"  They've been telling us to ignore the Gospels and think only of Leviticus, Deuteronomy and Revelations for decades on end now.  As with their America-bashing, this is merely the next logical step.

He goes on to talk about the ‘big lie’, and why it is so effective.

… What's more, I don't think it's quite the whole story to say that "the public will view spinned parsings as admissions of guilt, yet accept enraged refutations as ineluctably true."  While this certainly may be the result, I would argue that many people in the public are quite aware of what's going on, whether they'll say so openly or not.  There is a dimension of psychological collusion involved that's very important.  Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and their sort lie outrageously to their audiences, and many who listen raptly know at some level that they're being lied to-indeed, that is why they listen, to hear the lies they want others to validate for them.


Category: wingnuttery | Politics | Morals

Oct 10 2009

A conservative is someone who is so simple minded this seems profound

Kal @ 11:59

This is the second  one of these I got from two unrelated wingnuts, so I guess it is time to write something about it.

Here is the way it was explained to me:
The Difference:

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. 
If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.
If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. 
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants to ban all meat products for everyone.
If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat it.  A liberal  wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.
If a conservative is homosexual, he quietly enjoys his life.
If a liberal is homosexual, he loudly demands legislated respect.
If a black man or a Hispanic is conservative, he sees himself as independently successful. 
His liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.
If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. 
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. 
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. 
A liberal wants all churches to be silenced and God removed from public view.
If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or chooses a job that provides it. 
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.

As to the substance, there really is none, which makes it hard to respond substantively. So I did not. The first time I just sent a return e-mail:

“Are you trying to confuse me? I am definitely a liberal, but most of those conservative traits match better than the straw men supposedly applicable to liberals.

I cannot decide if I am a conservative liberal or a liberal conservative. Maybe it is the e-mail that is all screwed up?”

[slightly edited later on 10/10]


Category: Politics | wingnuttery