Josh

Josh, that thing about Limbaugh is an interesting read, but the spectacle of the author bigging up Reagan (of all people) as morally superior and lumping the oaf in with Lincoln is a bit depressing.

Oh come on, it's fair. After, Lincoln "freed the slaves", and Reagan "freed the mental patients" -- by having them put out on the street. He seriously justified that with a civil liberties argument!

No, unfortunately, that's par for the course for Republicans. the GOP is "The Party of Lincoln" in regard to its formal history, but it really isn't actually anymore. The GOP is now centered in the South, which used to be Democrat country, and the Mountain States, with large numbers of neo-Confederates, including many Lincoln-haters I'm sure, in the South, and many mean-ass racists in the Mountain States.

But on second thought, Reagan IS similar to Lincoln. Both were anti-Black racists.

But dogpoet, if you really want to know what's depressing, at least for many Americans, it's all the media and Establishment worship of the man, and the many oft-repeated claims that he was one of our best presidents! This SERIOUSLY is a dominant meme here.

Ah yes, American unity. In the country where pro-Vietnam War people are still bitter, rabid and unrepentant and to this will justify their support for it (as in any number of folks in the Shrub administrations) and where many of the remainder of 40% of the population (at least if one can generalize from presidential election results) around during Reagan's presidential terms are still bitter and angry about Reagan's time in office, and have not, unless they've gone soft-headed in their old age, come around to the idea that he was some "Great Leader". If you know someone is liberal or leftward in this country, especially if they were old enough to be politically aware in the 80s, you can be perfectly sure that you're safe in ripping into Reagan in front of them. The mainstream media, which is owned or controlled by the wealthy, who did very, very well under Reagan, does not acknowledge our feelings or existence, but we're still here and not going anywhere. Ah yes, America, where nothing that splits the population is ever resolved, except by the generations involved dying off, and in some cases, not even then. And where whole large groups of citizens who disagree with Establishment line on many individual issues, often majorities of them, are almost completely silenced by the media and are virtually ignored by them and the big polling firms.

Maybe the repukes actually want somebody as oafish and cretinous as Michael Moore for their spokesman and Limbaughs the closest they could find?

Limbaugh was around first. And you know what they say: "Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the Left".

Really, I don't think Michael is overtly belligerent, obnoxious or contemptuous enough for the current Republican base. He actually comes across on the surface as a nice guy. Limbaugh is such an asshole that there's a 33% gender gap in his support. I know from just talking to people that many American women just hate him.

I didn't think there were any black panthers left standing, Christian.

It wasn't all that long ago, and many people were involved with it during its existence. I'd be surprised if none of them were left.

This is the man who is so powerfully loved by grassroots Republicans that anyone in the party who criticizes him is soon forced by popular pressure to apologize:

Top 10 Racist Limbaugh Quotes

By Casey Gane-McCalla October 20, 2008 9:45 pm

http://newsone.com/obama/top-10-racist-limbaugh-quotes/

Plus five relevant video clips.

I can only wonder what kind of vileness was included in the enraged communications to African-American Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele after his criticisms of Limbaugh, and how he squares that with continuing to belong to the Republican Party, let alone be the closest thing to a national leader that it has.

Also a good article, by a conservative, against Limbaugh and about many interesting things about our current situation:

COVER STORY: NATIONAL AFFAIRS

Why Rush is Wrong

 

The party of Buckley and Reagan is now bereft and dominated by the politics of Limbaugh. A conservative's lament.

 

By David Frum | NEWSWEEK

Published Mar 7, 2009

From the magazine issue dated Mar 16, 2009

http://www.newsweek.com/id/188279

That test is more about understanding the visual language the test author uses to interpret the music than to do with any musical ability of the tested.

Okay, that's kind of what I thought.

It was a seriously warm night in old San Fran. I carried around a longsleeved shirt all night and after staying to 2:30am I never used it. Nights like this are unusual, though we usually have at least one or two a year.

Thank you, Mark.

Thank you all for your kind thoughts.

25% altogether, with the constituent scores grouping around that.

I have no idea what the fuck that was REALLY intended to measure. It had me completely baffled. If there was any pattern to it, I hadn't even started to figure it out by the end of the test.

It's as though I completely misread the instructions, but there didn't seem to be anything TO the instructions.

My father died today, after a period of diminishing health. He was 94.

I spent most of the night watching TV series videos. I just needed not to be doing anything "productive".

From Small Favors, right?

Right.

Ah.

I definitely liked that titled and have a bunch of them (perhaps including the issue from which that panel came). I don't remember what happened to it ultimately.

From Small Favors, right?

We'll certainly be there for a while if Pakistan starts having more serious problems than it's having now.

Or bought your neighbourhood and sold it for spare sparts!

Gates could. Jobs couldn't.

Here is some of that very same wrestling: http://www.examiner.com/x-13572-RNC-Examin...e-Marijuana-Now

 

I don't see this flying on the federal level, at least not yet. The southern core of the party would be the main problem (though cannabis may grow better there than anywhere else -- and there are plenty of good ole boys, including some of the most rednecked imaginable, who love getting high and see no contradiction between than and any of their other personal politics). But many western Repubs, including in the reactionary but libertarian-inclined Mountain time zone states states, might be amenable to calls for legalization at the state level, which would increase pressure on the federal government to cease enforcing its marijuana laws, at least in certain places under certain conditions.

Right-Wing Harassment Strategy Against Dems Detailed In Memo: ‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’

 

This morning, Politico reported that Democratic members of Congress are increasingly being harassed by “angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior” at local town halls. For example, in one incident, right-wing protesters surrounded Rep. Tim Bishop (D-NY) and forced police officers to have to escort him to his car for safety.

 

This growing phenomenon is often marked by violence and absurdity. Recently, right-wing demonstrators hung Rep. Frank Kratovil (D-MD) in effigy outside of his office. Missing from the reporting of these stories is the fact that much of these protests are coordinated by public relations firms and lobbyists who have a stake in opposing President Obama’s reforms.

 

The lobbyist-run groups Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks, which orchestrated the anti-Obama tea parties earlier this year, are now pursuing an aggressive strategy to create an image of mass public opposition to health care and clean energy reform. A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/recess-harassment-memo/

http://www.truthout.org/080109G?n

I strongly suggest reading the original article, which contains many worthwhile links, especially the one to the original memo and its following supporting documents.

There's a question as to what degree all the fuss at the town hall meetings is orchestrated versus the results of expected grass roots reaction to the political and economic ferment now. Many of the links address this.

Also look at the memo itself. Some of its suggestions are basic good grassroots politics and aren't by themselves objectionable. Decide for yourself where the departures into reprehensible behavior are.

Also note the news items added below the memo. They actually don't support the memo in some ways, especially in regard to the politicians' reaction to the activists. He wasn't freaked out or rocked back on his heels -- to the contrary, he appears to have handled himself very well, and may therefore have made the harassing claque look bad.

Altogether that's much of interest here.

I see health care reform as ASSISTED by the economic problems of the present.

 

Many people who have completely brought into the America story of "Work for what you want, get ahead under your own steam unlike those soft socialist Europeans" are having it forcibly brought to their attention that the US system is set up to assist business, not citizens. Lots more people are going to slip beneath the insurance umbrella in the next couple of years. Republicans OR Democrats, once the life of their loved one relies on "Socialism", the American story is going to appear more and more the collective fiction it has been all along.

That's exactly what's happening.

Socialism, good for what ails you.

It truly is funny and strange to hear so many Americans saying "socialism might not be so bad".

It has always seemed strange to me, that people brought so happily into a system that point blank, in its name, declares it isn't in their interest. "Ha, you weak Europeans with your Society set up to work FOR its people, WE proudly slave for CAPITAL around here!".

But it wasn't in the U.S. for a long time. I think it was during the Depression that big business decided that it would be wise to stop calling the system capitalism but instead term it "the free enterprise system". That continued into I think the 80s or maybe the 90s when under the Reaganite reality of that time it was decided that "yes, this is capitalism, and we should celebrate that!" -- and people switched back to calling it capitalism.

Well if they couldn't intimidate the evil anti American liberal bastards into not voting, what else can they do now?

That's to be the question that that entire party is wrestling with now.

I think a major reason why some europeans overestimate how numerous the religious bigots in the USA are is the fat that mainstream political discourse in the US is suffused with religious terminology to a degree which feels alien to many of us. You guys (across the political spectrum, as you say) couch many arguments in language informed by religious metaphors. That leads many people to believe that religion and/or religious beliefs are at the core of US politics to a degree that it probably isn't.

I have no doubt that it's true that religious terms imbue our political discourse more than they do those of western European countries. However, what causes people from those countries and those who think similarly to overestimate religious bigotry here is the false assumption that most or all religious people here are bigots.

As I see it, this false belief springs from a number of sources:

1) The contempt for religion and religious people that is common in some places (most notably western Europe).

2) The smug and comforting belief in the barbarousness of the United States -- in comparison with one's own, "civilized" country -- that is common in some places (most notably western Europe).

3) A slack-minded tendency among news consumers, especially in some parts of the world, to be overly trusting of news media. Part of this system of non-thought is the false belief that objectivity is common and normal, instead of an ideal with is rarely if ever fully realized. Close to this is the belief that one's own preferred news outlet simply wouldn't ever intentionally skew or falsify the news for its own ends. As well as the surprisingly prevalent belief that one's favored news media "don't have a point of view" and therefore are incapable of handling the news in a prejudiced manner.

4) A tendency common to all news consumers to forget or to never learn that media heavily prefer certain types of stories, and to present news stories in certain types of ways, to increase consumer interest. The most important guide is the adage that "if it bleeds it leads": news media thrive on presenting strife, tragedy and tales that provoke anger. Stories that don't involve elements that can serve these ends aren't present or are given less time or less space or prominence. So if people are successfully eschewing conflict to achieve a goal, and that goal doesn't offend a news organization's consumers, those working toward that goal are unlikely to be highlighted in that news organization's coverage. So pro-peace religious activists, especially if they belong to religions that news consumers see as war-loving bigots, are unlikely to appear on the news casts or webpages of that news organization. News media show only very selective slices of reality, and by no means most or all of it -- they just don't have the time or space to do so.

5) A tendency common to all news consumers to forget or to never learn that news media frequently "get it wrong". This is due in part to the human capacity for error, magnified by the need to report quickly and excitingly, abetted by an unwillingness to admit past errors because that might make the correspondent or news outlet appear unreliable. American have an advantage here because we live in the world's most reported on country, so we have a better opportunity to see how often the media screw up and lie.

6) A recent (last few decades) tendency among some to think all Christians are religious rightists. This is relevant because the religious phraseology within U.S. political discourse is mostly Christian in origin.

I was getting drunk at a bar last night, stepped outside for air, and some people get me to go with them to pick up a friend and then go to a very loud drag bar where the predominant language was Spanish, which I mostly dont't understand. And one guy actually got me to get up and dance. Which due to extreme uptightness I have not done for between 20-30 years.

*Stares*

 

This thread is revealing.

 

Cheese omelette.

Cheese omelette is definately better than hardcore porn. I have to try some emmental with potatoes omelette.

Diana's ham and cheese quiche of last night. Good.

Speaking of potato chasers, she had dried bits of potato soup with ham along with it. Mmmm.....

So it doesn't apply to Apple at all so long as Steve Jobs is in charge....

I dislike that Steve Jobs moved into a neighborhood where I used to live. There goes the neighborhood!

Going bald.

 

Going bald is a cocksucking motherfucker.

Take B6 and see if that helps. I think it might be helping my incipient bare spot, anyway.

How well does Ubuntu run Windows apps. as well as Adobe? How well does it run on a hypothetical laptop which I may buy in the distant future?

 

I've not considered a Mac yet.

Akhira, if you're not already doing so, I suggest strongly that you websearch Ubuntu together with the model number of any laptop you're thinking of buying.

Also, there is at least one Linux hardware compatibility site where people talk about their experiences with different makes and models of laptops and different distributions of Linux.

http://www.linux-laptop.net/

If you want a Windows app to run on Ubuntu or any other Linux or Unix, you'll need to either use a version of the app that's been ported to Linux/Unix (as with any Mozilla application); you'll need to run the native Windows version via virtualization (VMWare or VirtualBox or a virtualizing kernel), an emulator (Win4Lin or something open source), or an implementation of Windows under Linux (Wine); or you'll have to compile the application from its source files (a task all Linuxes have the tools to accomplish). Other than ported versions, running Windows apps under Linux/Unix might not be easy. I suggest you research each app against Ubuntu to see if others have been able to get them to work together.

If Ubuntu looks obstreperous with any particular hardware or software, consider other popular Linux distributions as well. Sometimes one distro will be a pain on a particular laptop while another distro will work like a dream.

Starting out comfortably ahead of time and arrive as nearly late as ever.

What I've been reading is that the Republicans are going to oppose Obama's health care reform initiatives, whatever they are. Their hope is that if they stop him on health care, they will have crushed him and the Democrats, as set the stage for Republican victories in the 2010 midterm congressional election.

Most recently I read that they are contradicting themselves on their own stance on health care reform. Recently one GOP politico said they weren't going to put together a health care program of their own, but then another GOPer contradicted that to say there actually is one -- in the works. (Their problem, I'll wager, is that what they want for health care is so grossly unpopular that they can't come out with it publicly.)

During Clinton's first year, Republican Party line was that there is no health care crisis. In Obama's first year, they are saying nothing about the status quo at all. They're just going to stymie Obama's initiatives.

It's been repeated a great deal that the Republicans are out of ideas, and that they are seen popularly as only being against things (the party of no). And while it's said less often by U.S. "news" media, the Republican are seen by many as the party of wealthy special interests. And some have been saying that the GOP is basically of Limbaugh's mindset, hoping Obama will "fail" - and that greater economic hardship will fall on the average American - for the Republicans' own narrow, selfish ends.

The GOP's 2009 health care strategy lives down to each of these negative assertions emphatically.

What strikes me is the parallels to Clinton's first year - at least in the Republicans' way of thinking. Some (many?) of them believe that if they just oppose Obama at the right times, they can cripple him and win back their 2006 and 2008 electoral losses. But 2009 isn't 1993.

For one thing, they're handicapped in being able to attack Obama, and they are painfully aware of that. They can't attack Obama as a "draft dodger" because he was too young for Vietnam, and they can't hassle him about his pot smoking because nobody cares anymore. And they can't hassle him about his infamous sexual liaisons because there aren't any. But mostly, they know they need to be damn careful -- Pat Buchanan notwithstanding -- in attacking a black president. They know they are already seen as prone to bigotry, and the Republican elephant is far from nimble-footed around matters of race.

I've seen the Republicans pull disgustingly stupid, obvious stuff and win time and again, and Americans' capacity for reactionary response to political events is hard to overestimate, so I don't want to go out on a limb with any fancy predictions. But I can't see them taking over congress like they did in 1994, or even making any real inroads against Democratic congressional dominance. If the main and only issue remains the economy, as is predicted by Republicans in some states (Michigan), I can't see the GOP gaining big from the Democrats' problems. The only strongly pro-Republican scenario I can imagine would be some foreign policy crisis, especially in Iraq or Afghanistan - or Pakistan (collapse, civil war). But given the economy, I'm not sure that that would even be enough to really help the GOP. We'll see.