Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Twisted Logics & Manipulative Definitions

The arguments of the rightwing conservatives just dipping further into the area of loopier and meaner. As we get closer to legalizing pot it would appear that the rightwing has gone off their meds.

Same-Sex Unions and Child Sacrifice
A judeo christian organisation that makes the claim that allowing same sex couples to marry will facilitate a societal slide into child sacrifice and rampant paganism ( ...ooh,... do ya' think?)

Lately I've been getting emails from a conservative site called 'Human Events' which features numerous conservative luminaries such as Coulter, Gingrich and Chuck Norris.
Sorry to bore you with this ...but it is interesting watching them losing it in a very public fashion.
That they'd practically coronated Rush Limbaugh at last weekend's GOP just tells volumes of how far they've chosen to sink. Limbaugh at the convention reiterated his wish that President Obama would fail... seems to me I remember being often admonished to "support the President" no matter who he is because "we're in wartime" and "because he's the commander-in-chief"...and any less than that was condemned as 'unpatriotic' and even 'treasonous'.
...but, that's just for when they're in power.

Human Events couldn't sell this hate propaganda trash so now they're trying to give it away...
Mark Steyn: 'Why America will have to fight alone
in the battle for Western civilization'

And why, if we fail, mankind faces a new Dark Ages

Mark Steyn claims that the "anti-american" democracies of europe are allowing radical islam to spread and because of it "western european culture as we know it will disappear"... his suggestion is -' intolerance'.... "the Supreme Court decides sharia law doesn’t violate the "separation of church and state"
Human Events calls his book "humorous" and Steyn "witty"?

In europe the dilineations between political groupings and ideologies are quite numerous and unequivocally clear, -and the only ones making the claims Steyn is making and Human Events is promoting, -are far right nationalists (i.e., ...neo nazis)
Multiculturalism is not the failure he makes it out to be, nor is the socialism in the social safety nets necessarily dragging europe down and encouraging islam to spread.
I think he's jealous that europe doesn't have the same rampant hunger and homelessness and healthcare insurance deprived citizenry that America has.

Meanwhile Human Events posts other conservative concerns
Bernard Goldberg: 'A Slobbering Media Love Affaire with Barack Obama'

Exposed: How the liberal media actively worked to elect Barack Obama President

They were fine with the media when the media unquestioningly reposts verbatim whatever the Bush White House issued through its press office.... including when the White House and the GOP invented journalists and publications (re: Jeff Gannon and his Talon News site)

Meanwhile ...
Anne Coulter;

"Dear Fellow Conservative,

Do you know which special interest gave more money to the Obama campaign than any other?

If you guessed "trial lawyers" -- well, okay, that's too easy. But can you guess which special interest came in second?

Labor unions? Nope. The Green Lobby? Nope. AARP? Wrong, again. NEA? Nyet.

Give up? Okay, here's the answer: Wall Street.

That's right. According to CNNMoney.com, Wall Street securities and investment firms gave over $35 million to Democratic candidates this election cycle. And the amount they gave to the Obama campaign was nearly five times the amount they gave to McCain.

If you've been wondering why the financial industry is in meltdown -- and taking your 401(k) or investment portfolio down with it -- now you know.

Let's face it: The former frat boys who populate Wall Street today understand economics about as well as the pinko professors whose courses they snored through.

That's why betting their entire industry on "subprime" loans to people with no jobs and no collateral made sense to them -- and why betting the entire U.S. economy on the likes of Obama makes sense to them now.

These jokers don't even know what's in their own self-interest, much less yours. Trusting them with your money is like trusting Bill Clinton to babysit your underage niece.

But I know someone you can trust to manage your investments -- or rather, to help you do it yourself, without paying a nickel in commissions to some Wall Street frat boy.

His name is Dr. Mark Skousen -- that's "Dr." as in "Ph.D. in Economics and Monetary History," something you don't get by playing Beer Pong with your frat buddies.

I thought Anne liked fratboys? What's her beef? Aside from whining about the fact that Wall St firms knew there'd be fallout from the financial institutions' collapse so they've tried to cosy up to the other side..."pinko professors?" ...without much credibility left she resorts to stock conservative vitriol... kinda like using stock film footage of car crashes, plane wrecks and battle lizards dressed like dinosaurs.
She doesn't mind it when CEO's and criminal investors like Maddoff play with other people's money... when in a corner and left looking for someone to blame she targets those losing their homes because of the jobs that are disappearing at a rate of more than a half a million a month.
Anne Coulter is an endless well of hate and rancour... eventually, when it runs out of fashion ...she'll find herself out of a job.

And now for Goebbels' illegimate son;

Patrick Buchanan 'Pitchfork Time' :

"In his campaign and inaugural address, Barack Obama cast himself as a moderate man seeking common ground with conservatives.

Yet, his budget calls for the radical restructuring of the U.S. economy, a sweeping redistribution of power and wealth to government and Democratic constituencies. It is a declaration of war on the Right."

I will admit it... Buchanan stands out to this crew as being the most intelligent of the far right pundit lot... and even man enough to admit it when' capitalism has crumbled'. Yes, the far right crowed about the disintegration of the former U.S.S.R. and Buchanan has been one of the few to admit that it's been our turn. He has castigated the greed of neocons and neo-liberals alike as being the cause of this downfall. If he weren't such a blatant racist and totalitarian statist you'd think he'd turned marxist.
The far right are mourning the loss of their empire and pining away for the halycon days of both the Reagan era and even the early days of the Bush jr administration.
We are just now starting to get a glimpse as to how far the assumption of 'executive priviledge' went.

Declassified Memos Provide Look Into Bush Policies

I blogged about alot of this back then. There were hearings and interviews with Pentagon staff where we were forwarned of their 'Continuity of Gov't Plan' and the suspension of civil rights and imposition of martial law. Given the current info trickling out... lawyers like Roberto Gonzales and John Yoo were busy laying the legal groundwork for extra-legal actions like domestic covert actions like assassinations of what they called terrorists. But keep in mind that at the initial debate and passing of the Homeland Security Act , their definitions of what constituted a 'terrorist' was broadened to include not just terrorists in the conventional sense but even to those in the figurative as including those who advocate for enviromentalist causes such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, and those that support them by giving them money ...and, pro human rights groups like Amnesty Intl, and those that give them money.
In fact, it was anyone who protested against industries and corporations, or were critical of gov't policies.
The definitions of 'terrorist' and 'subversive' were quite vast in the post 9/11 mindset of the Bush admin, and its targets were on the long held hitlist of the GOP.

The maintainance of their control was almost absolute.

Diebold voting system sported 'delete' button: report


* Imagine having a glimpse of a completely different life to bask in for a week or two; -and then being returned to a life of misery.
It's possible that Slumdog Millionaire' Director Danny Boyle felt he was doing the right thing by bringing them along to enjoy their share of the limelight. He's tried to compensate them for by creating trust funds for them. But could he forsee the what the ignorance, greed and desparation of those around them is likely to do to endanger them?
Was he familiar with the fates of many child actors in coping with sudden fame and sudden anonymity?
Certainly in the areas of both drama and documentation certain areas of human existence need to be examined and brought to the greater public's consciousness, -and yet by examining it under a camera's lens they become changed.
This to me is a question that filmmakers need to ask themselves very similar to that of a Schroedinger's Cat-type conundrum.

I remember watching the Oscar awards and being struck by what seemed self serving justifications used by film makers on social subjects.
Like, forinstance the acceptance speech of Megan Mylan (resplendant in her designer dress for the occasion) winning an Oscar in the short subject documentary category for her film titled ' Smile Pinki' about an impoverished girl suffering from being a social outcast for her cleft lip in a small village in India.

"All I could think of is 'oh, lucky, lucky me!'"..."and this is for all the children suffering cleft lips"... I dunno, at the time it just struck me as being incredibly self serving... But I might be taking this a tad out of context given the subject matter and extraodinary circumstances.

March 5th
Listening to the Live California Prop 8 hearing right now...
Ken Starr arguing his view that constitutional rights garanteed to all are revocable through the initiative amendment process.
He wants a de facto retroactive anullment of all gay marriages under the aegis of Prop 8 ...according to him to 'protect the children'.
He's cited cases where the 'right of privacy' and against 'unreasonable search and seizures' can be abrogated and revised.
"'The people' have carved out an area of exception in regards to constitutional equal protection rights."
"We want to restore the definition of marriage to what it was when this state was founded"
He goes on to cite initiatives that cause revisions to laws regarding individual rights...forinstance, the death penalty...mainly as the locus of his argument.

The California AG has been quoted as wanting to strike down Prop 8 as a point of 'inalienable rights' has been raised... Ken Starr rejects this and refers to freedom to contract.... wants to "deny" "Only is to deny the validity and recognition of the full panopoly rights " in regards to pre Prop 8 marriages and civil unions.
" there was a swirl of uncertainty"
The analogy has been raised by the panel...what if a law were passed that raised the age of consentual marriage from 18 to 21 and subsequently invalidated all marriages?
"Context, ...170 years of California history"
"we rely on the exception buried in Article 1 section 7.5"...he's arguing about the original "architect's' intent in the writing of marriage statutes and the voters' intent of continuing the definition that was written 170 years ago.

The rebuttal begins... "popular sovereignty versus the history of institutional discrimination" against same sex couples. That same sex couples would be put into a class that would virtually exclude same sex couples from the rights contained within the constitution normally extended to ALL american citizens... and in a sense a revision meant to exclude a substantial minority from protected rights and to reduce them to 2nd class citizens.
Then she gets cut off by one of the justices.

Next to argue that definitions in language in California statute that revised issues focused on gender specific definitions.

Stewart argues that anti Prop 8 arguments are not about changing the structure of revision whereby the people's constitutionally guaranteed (electoral) sovereignty would be undermined but to recognize what the framers of the constitution who created built in limitations as protection to ourselves and the shifting electoral whims.

Court justice argues about inalienable right of the people to invoke changes in the constitution... the power of the people to limit the power of the executive... that the executive may not override a statute.

I couldn't really keep up with this but in essence it's an argument between the people's right to set limits and create revisions and amendments in deciding the language of definitions in regards to the stat constitution. The opposing view is that it was never intended for these rights to ever be subject to change or limitation by initiative of one part of the population concerning the rights of a minority population. That all are protected equally under the constitution.

However eloquent Ken Starr was... he's still a fetid bag o' pus!