Archives for posts with tag: wingnut

Wingnuts are in high gear of late, proclaiming their usual canard about there “being little or no difference between the parties”. Bull-f***ing-s***. Today’s debunking: women’s rights.

Huge differences abound: look at the current Teapubbie and Democratic platforms:

Number A: Repubs think women should allowed to die rather than allow them to have a life-saving abortion. Dems do NOT believe this.

Letter 2: Repubs think women should not be allowed to use birth control, or at least be deprived of insurance coverage if they need it. Oh, and that applies even if the pills are being used for other medical reasons than birth control. Dems do NOT believe this, either.

Thirdly: Repubs believe women should be made to work harder and be paid less. Once again: Democrats do NOT share this belief.

Ignore the lunatics of the fringe: the parties are VERY different. A vote for a Dem IS a vote against Repubs. Get on out and vote Dem.

Unless, of course, you hates you some women. If so, sit out the election or vote Republican. If not, get out and vote AGAINST the party that hates your mothers, sisters, and every woman on Earth. Any electoral action  OTHER  than a vote for a Dem is an attack on women. Period.

“No difference”, my Cranky A**. Tomorrow: Repubs’ love affair with terrorists.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Holy f***ing s***, this casual talk of Presidential assassination has gotten so prevalent, an article on how the Secret Service sucks ended like this:

Agents tell me it’s a miracle an assassination has not already occurred. Sadly, given Obama’s colossal lack of management judgment, that calamity may be the only catalyst that will reform the Secret Service.

Christ on a Glock, people. Blaming Obama in advance for his possible death? In what universe is that sort of seditious horses*** remotely acceptable?

Politico has always been a den of Raging Righties in their Tightie Whities who hate them some Black President. But this is way beyond the ordinary wingnuttery one finds amongst “Republicans” in this New American Century: it is a back-handed endorsement of violent, treasonous activity.

And the jackass who wrote it is OK with it, his bosses are OK with it, and indeed much of America’s infotainment industry is OK with it. Organizational change via murder. Really? No, seriously, really?

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Here is the latest in a flurry of non-reality-based memes on the subject:

IMG_1945.PNG
How wrong is it? Let us count the ways:
Number A: they are free to say grace over their meal. Nobody ever said they couldn’t. But the meme falsely implies that they are bravely taking a stand against some mythical oppressor who seeks to stop their prayer. There is, of course, no such oppressor, but that fact matters not at all to the Fundagelicals.
Letter 2: see anybody there pelting these hard-working public servants with atheistic tracts? Nope. Most Americans don’t much care who you pray to, when, how or why.
Thirdly: assuming that the promulgators of this meme consider themselves to be Christians, they should read Rebbe Yeshuah bar Joseph’s words in Matthew:6. You know, the words about not being phony and ostentatious in their prayer.

Odds are, the people depicted had nothing to do with the meme: just people saying grace before a meal. Good on them. It’s their right to do so.

The problem is with the yahoo prostletyzers who are using this ordinary picture to try and enforce their wingnut agendas on the rest of us. This writer wishes they’d spend more time reading their Constitutions and less trying to subvert it.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

The Freakout Machine is jacked all the way up for a flavored water commercial. And what these fools have to say is, as usual, a load of ignorant pig crap. No, now that I think about it, pig crap is at least good fertilizer, so the Right Wingnuts are even lower than swine poo. Here’s why:

Number A: America the Beautiful is NOT our national anthem. In fact, it is a poem that wasn’t even sung to its current melody until 1910, long after our nation’s Centennial. Oh, and it was written by a church-going lesbian college English teacher while she was on a vacation to Pikes Peak.

Letter 2: English isn’t really all that much of a muchness, so don’t get down on your knees worshipping it. The English language is a just a big, messy pile of words that were stolen from other, older languages. The two writers most responsible for its current form were an opium user (Chaucer) and a mystery man who remains unidentified to this day (Shakespeare). So don’t be getting all huffy if every human being doesn’t speak it 24/7/365.

Thirdly: switching to Pepsi because you don’t like multiculturalism or gay rights is beyond ignorant: PepsiCo is and has been a huge supporter of LGBT rights and marriage equality, and is run by a woman from India, assisted by a management team that includes men and women from all over the world, including Moslems. Yes, those swarthy “tarrist types” you love to hate. That’s who help bring us the Pepsi you were going to switch to: gay-friendly locals as well as foreigners who don’t all speak English as a first language.

Finally: If you’re really gonna boycott Coke, you can’t go to Chick-Fil-A, McDonald’s, Wendy’s, Cracker Barrel, Papa John’s and a whole raft of other popular eateries. Because unless they let you BYOB, you’re gonna be drinking… yep, you guessed ‘er, Chester, Coke products.

Really, people, calm the f*** down, OK? Coke is just bubbly water with a load of tasty chemicals dumped in it. America the Beautiful is a nice poem that a church organist put to music. And in our capitalist system, companies make advertisements to sell us stuff (like bubbly drinks, f’rinstance). And the Super Bowl is the zenith of such American advertising (confession: your humble correspondent liked this one the best). So lighten up, Buttercup, it’s just companies making money.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

PS: If you prefer a response that is a bit less cranky and more idealistic, click here for an excellent explanation from a gifted speaker.

John Lennon, as he so frequently did, nailed it to a tree in this lyric. And while he may not have agreed with this writer on political matters, this line effectively points out one underlying premise of Centrism: the renunciation of extremism, and the violence that extremism requires to achieve its ends.

People often demonize Centrism as “ill-defined” or “meaning nothing”. This is no more true of Centrism than  is of Liberalism or Conservatism. The plain and simple truth of all political “isms” is this: none of them are monolithic, and all of them have as many variants as they have adherents. Put another way, Dennis Kucinich and Abbie Hoffman have both been described as “extreme Left” or “Liberal”, but they aren’t going to agree on everything. Bush The Dumber and Dick Cheney didn’t agree on everything either. The Cranky One  almost never agrees with the DLC Dimbulbs with whom he is automatically associated when he describes himself as a Centrist.  Labels are useful tools, but like any tool need to be used properly: when misused or overused, they create more harm than good.

Your humble correspondent  describes his political philosophy as follows: antidisestablishmentarianism, maximum personal freedom, keeping his nose out of other people’s private lives, and contributing to the overall good of our society. Except for the first point, he figures most Americans are on board with those concepts to a certain degree. So let’s look at that first point (the one Mr. Lennon so perfectly captured).

Antidisestablishmentarianists, of course, come in various shapes, sizes and degrees: some are ossified individuals who reflexively cling to the status quo, regardless of whether or not it works. Others (like this cranky writer) see it as an incrementalist approach to change. One thing to remember: Martin Luther, often depicted as a revolutionary, was in fact an antidisestablishmentarianist: that is why he proposed a reformation, rather than a revolution. So it goes in politics.

Revolutions kill people. They destroy lives and the works created by those lives. They burn away the good along with the bad. And rebuilding from a revolution is far harder and  more costly (in all respects) than implementing a plan for gradual, consensus-driven change.

Yes, sometimes thick-headed jackasses make revolutions necessary: King George, for example. But had he pulled his head out of his extremist, orthodoxy-addicted, ideological, narrow-minded, blinkered arse, the revolution need not have happened at all.

And that, friends, is why your Radical Centrist, contrarian, curmudgeonly correspondent keeps braying away from his position on the Political Compass (bang on the center of the L/R axis, and far away from the Authoritarian pole on that axis. See the link below to chart yourself.). He brays, hollers, and throws bricks upside the heads of the extremist community at every opportunity, hoping to get his point across. (“Maybe being nice would be a better approach”, you might say, and that’s a fair point. But he’s tried it and failed, so he’s going the blunt route these days.)

Far too many extremists are willing to “break eggs to make an omelet”. Those “eggs” are human beings with lives and loved ones. The idea that anyone could see the inevitable destruction of the lives and loves of their fellow Americans simply as a “cost of doing business”  is truly vomit-inducing. Particularly coming from the political Left, who are allegedly devoted to the betterment of mankind.

Anyone who advocates revolution when their people and country  are not in imminent danger of being killed en masse is a sociopathic mother***er who views his fellow Americans as disposable resources to be destroyed in the pursuit of his or her ideological Utopia.

And people like that are worth fighting. This Radical Centrist stands firmly for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Revolutionaries do not. If they did, they would not advocate measures that would strip us of all three.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

http://www.politicalcompass.org/ 

This recent exchange started with this picture on Facebook:
Image
Mr. Blunt and Cranky re-posted it on his personal Facebook page, and the following exchange ensued:

(Name Removed) Since when has anyone ever asked for a background check to vote, buy a home, get a driver’s license, etc.? Is it too much to prove you are who you say you are to exercise your right to vote by showing a valid Photo ID? I don’t think so, and that’s a far cry from a background check.

To which the B & C response was: “Actually, when you register to vote, they do quite a bit of checking behind the scenes, to make sure you’re legally able to vote, aren’t voting in more than one place, and so on. Getting a  driver’s license in our state includes a check of your criminal record. And anyone who has ever bought a home knows that you have to give them a whole helluva lot more information to get a loan than you ever have to if you want to buy a gun. So I’d say these are not persuasive analogies.”

The reply? Silence.

And that’s a pretty representative example of what happens when wingnut talking points are countered immediately with facts. The wingnuts either shout you down, or shut up and go talk to somebody else. Another example:

(Name removed) As some have pointed out, when is the last time a criminal or those wanting to participate in a criminal act going to apply for a background check let alone a background mental health check?

(B & C) You’d be surprised –  the FBI intercepts quite a few. And making everyone get a background check restricts the overall gun supply for crooks and crazies, making it harder and more expensive for them to buy guns. Plus, the current system is unfair to licensed gun dealers: if you go to a gun show, they get undercut by the shadow sellers; because the legit dealers have to run background checks, and the shady characters and individuals don’t.

(Name Removed)  The FBI may intercept quite  few, however, the criminal then turns around and acquires them by another means. All the FBI did is delay the process and the crime. The outcome is still the same. Don’t you think? Thanks for the honest discourse.

(B & C) If we make it harder for crooks to buy guns, that’s a win. Most of the “other means” cost more and add risk. Right now, all a criminal or adjudicated individual has to do is walk into a gun show with cash. He or she walks out with a gun. That’s too easy. Making it harder to get the gun in the first place changes the outcome.

Again, silence ensued. Loverly.

The lesson for us all? Don’t just ignore wingnut talking points. Counter them, debate them, respond with facts. Whether or not they are persuaded, they will at least shut up. And that, friends, is a win in and of itself.

Mr. Blunt and Cranky

So it seems that Americans Elect has no one to elect and so is folding its tents, skulking off into that not-so-good night. The only thing that surprises this writer is that AE is surprised. But then, a bunch of beltway boys and elitist dweebs cannot be expected to truly understand what the majority wants; so Mr. Blunt and Cranky must admit, he was wrong in expecting them to have spent time on Planet American Reality in the first place.

Americans Elect operated under what they called a “premise”, and most of us would call “an un-researched assumption”: that what all we poor, unwashed Centrist Independents want is a budget-cutting demon who is socially moderate.  If you’re an out-of-touch member of the punditocracy or a frustrated party apparatchik who is looking for a less extreme candidate, you could be forgiven for thinking so – it is frequently heard inside of your echo chambers, after all. But maybe you should have stepped outside the bubble and asked some real Americans what we think, because it turns out we are not so simple and monolithic as you imagine.

Leaving aside the absurdly quixotic nature of what these fools say they are trying to do (change the way we elect our Prexies overnight via the Interwebbie thing); their understanding of their target audience is so far off the mark, it makes Dick Cheney’s marksmanship look good. Two things to explain: Centrists are not all alike; Independents are not all alike.

Centrists come in all flavors, and can pretty much include anyone who isn’t clinging to the extreme ends of the wings; hoping their nuts don’t loosen too much, lest they fall off completely. There’s center-left, center-right, and so on. If you’re not Lenin or Limbaugh, you might be able to attach a “C” to your identifier, at least for some audiences. So, there is a whole rainbow of Centrist possibilities to consider, and to apply a narrow definition as AE did is beyond pig-ignorance.

As to Independents, Mr. B & C can do no better than to quote Hermey and Rudolph: “Let’s go be independent together!”  Yup, the very idea of an “Independent Party” is so ludicrous, it was a punch line in a 60’s kiddie cartoon. Unified Independents? C’mon, pass around whatever it is you’re smoking, let us all have a hit.

This writer loves the idea of a Centrist President, and maybe he can vote for one before he croaks. But it won’t happen because a bunch of pissed-off policy wonks and partisans play at being Centrists. It will only happen when a plurality of Americans reject the partisan premise, and focus instead on that old-timey “we the people” idea.

Next Time: Legislators Gone Wild (Not porn. [Well, maybe it is.])

Mr. B & C

Mr. Blunt and Cranky loves hitting the buffet line for meals. He can pick what he likes and leave what he dislikes (cholesterol and sodium content taken into account, of course [in case his doctors read his blog]) to place upon his plate. Lots of green leafies, lean meats, spicy stuff; and cheese, oh yeah, gotta have the cheese. Yum.

Of course, what works for his belly does not work for everything. When it comes to the law, few of us would have much luck with the constabulary if we picked and chose which laws to violate and which to obey. But it is a favored pursuit among some wingnuts when the Constitution is on the menu.

Case in point, Number A: The Loony Lefties who want to ban guns in the United States, and conveniently downplay the Second Amendment. Sorry, Chuckles, the Constitution is an all-or nothing package deal. You don’t like it, buy yourselves an island and start your own country.

Case in point, Letter 2: the Raging Righties who want to discard most of the post-Civil-War amendments and go back to the old version of the Constitution that, well, helped to enable the Civil War. It might sound logical to the Uptightie Whities, but this writer would prefer that we not have another such conflict, especially in an era of nuclear and chemical weapons. See above note regarding islands.

The Founders were a bright bunch overall, and knew that their work might need updated in the future; thus the amendment process. Anybody who wants an amendment can work to get one through the process. It ain’t easy, but it has been done, more than a few times so far. They did not, however, provide an option for selective application of the Constitution. One more example of their smarts, one which also provides an example of how dumb a lot of extremists are these days.

We live in a nation of laws. This citizen would prefer some laws be removed from the books, but recognizes that the Constitution and laws that are derived therefrom cannot be ignored. Unlike the three-bean salad at the salad bar- that stuff is nasty, and this buffetphiliac gives it a wide berth.

Mr. B & C