I think someone should make it a full time job to monitor the meds and alcohol that the fine people over at the Detroit News seem to be mixing.
Let me explain.
In an editorial today titled "Larger military needed to face growing threats" wherein, get this, they take to task the Bush Administration for not spending enough money in Defense spending and military troop strength. They bemoan that troop levels have fallen so much since the cold war, and that an increase in troop strength of up to 25% will be necessary "if America is to meet the long term threat from terrorists, extremists and rogue regimes. "
LMAOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!
Oh. My. Fucking. God.
Follow me on this little journey and watch how i come to completely different conclusions than the Detroit News.
Terrorists and extremists were responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center. A 25% increase in military troop strength would not have prevented that in any way shape for form. The only reason we would have to increase troop strength is because we are bogged down in Iraq. Kinda seems like troop strength wouldn't be such a critical issue if not for that disaster.
Now, I'm not associated with the military, I have no actual knowledge about the real world needs of our military and troop strength thereof. But I doubt the Detroit News does either. I would love to know where the 25% troop increase number came from. It's thrown out there as though it were fact, when they site no studies to that effect. Further they argue that funding for a much larger military will be a strain on the government but absolutely necessary.
I say bullshit. I say that what threatens our country, when it comes to actual physical harm, comes from "terrorists and extremists" so to speak. They are defeated with better intelligence, not bigger guns. I submit that had our military been triple it's current size on September 11th, 2001 that the results would have been the same. I submit to you that with better intelligence and allegedly more sharing of information among agencies, then and only then would you have had a shot to prevent the tragedy that got us stuck into this quagmire that we call Iraq.
Someone call a Proctologist, the Detroit News has their heads up their asses again.
Thursday, December 21, 2006
Thursday, November 30, 2006
MBT, Granholm and the Detroit News as the Republicans Judge Dredd
The Detroit News, the propaganda arm of the Michigan RWNM, printed an editorial yesterday entitled:
"Use tax plan to make state more competitive"
and subtitled:
"Governor seeks to maximize revenue rather than attract jobs"
The opening run on statement reads:
"W e'll withhold judgment on the business tax restructuring that Gov. Jennifer Granholm is set to unveil this morning until we see all of the details, but the method for crafting the plan was flawed, and that leaves us pessimistic that it will accomplish its mission."
Boy, they sure did withhold judgement, didn't they? They waited until the first comma. The rest of the editorial is spent re-hashing the talking points of the Republican party. They wanted a net tax CUT, because, you know, the state and the schools and the services are flush with cash. Who needs to pay for education when businesses can make bigger profits?
Anyhow, I'm greatly amused that a credible news organization would contradict itself within the first sentence. They've clearly passed judgement on it already. If they were withholding judgement they wouldn't have launched this attack before the plan was made public. What they withheld was the piece by piece assassination attempt of the tax bill before it hits the floor. But ya gotta give them credit for having the balls to contradict themselves within the very first sentence of the editorial.
Here's the link.
In today's editorial, they mildly praise Granholm's tax plan. The big issues they seem to have are 1. again, not a tax cut 2. it "doesn't make Michigan stand out against other states." and 3. they find the Governors definition of "assets" to be too broad.
I'm not a policy wonk, but follow me here for a second:
1. Does anyone really think that Michigan is in a position to cut taxes? This isn't the go-go 90's with the Ford Taurus as the number one vehicle in America or the tech boom. The state isn't flush with cash. When they say tax cut it sounds like they mean tax shift. It seems that if you cut taxes you have to cut spending. If you cut spending you cut services and probably education. If you cut education, the community will have to make it up. Same thing with services like police, fire, security. Am I right?
2. DOESN'T MAKE MICHIGAN STAND OUT???? That's what a business tax is supposed to do? Huh. I never knew.
3. I can't comment on the definition of "assets" as I have absolutely zero background in business ownership and tax responsibilities. But based on their other two beefs, i question the legitimacy of their complaint.
Here's the link.
Hope everyone had a great holiday.
"Use tax plan to make state more competitive"
and subtitled:
"Governor seeks to maximize revenue rather than attract jobs"
The opening run on statement reads:
"W e'll withhold judgment on the business tax restructuring that Gov. Jennifer Granholm is set to unveil this morning until we see all of the details, but the method for crafting the plan was flawed, and that leaves us pessimistic that it will accomplish its mission."
Boy, they sure did withhold judgement, didn't they? They waited until the first comma. The rest of the editorial is spent re-hashing the talking points of the Republican party. They wanted a net tax CUT, because, you know, the state and the schools and the services are flush with cash. Who needs to pay for education when businesses can make bigger profits?
Anyhow, I'm greatly amused that a credible news organization would contradict itself within the first sentence. They've clearly passed judgement on it already. If they were withholding judgement they wouldn't have launched this attack before the plan was made public. What they withheld was the piece by piece assassination attempt of the tax bill before it hits the floor. But ya gotta give them credit for having the balls to contradict themselves within the very first sentence of the editorial.
Here's the link.
In today's editorial, they mildly praise Granholm's tax plan. The big issues they seem to have are 1. again, not a tax cut 2. it "doesn't make Michigan stand out against other states." and 3. they find the Governors definition of "assets" to be too broad.
I'm not a policy wonk, but follow me here for a second:
1. Does anyone really think that Michigan is in a position to cut taxes? This isn't the go-go 90's with the Ford Taurus as the number one vehicle in America or the tech boom. The state isn't flush with cash. When they say tax cut it sounds like they mean tax shift. It seems that if you cut taxes you have to cut spending. If you cut spending you cut services and probably education. If you cut education, the community will have to make it up. Same thing with services like police, fire, security. Am I right?
2. DOESN'T MAKE MICHIGAN STAND OUT???? That's what a business tax is supposed to do? Huh. I never knew.
3. I can't comment on the definition of "assets" as I have absolutely zero background in business ownership and tax responsibilities. But based on their other two beefs, i question the legitimacy of their complaint.
Here's the link.
Hope everyone had a great holiday.
Wednesday, November 22, 2006
Hello, and welcome
I noticed a modest increase in traffic. And coincedently all of my posts have appeared on Lefty Blogs all at once.
I thank you for the attention and hope you enjoy or agree with the silly things i shout from atop my tiny soapbox. Typically I post once, sometimes twice a week. It's less breaking news oriented and more "I have something to say!" to steal a line from Jerri Blank.
Comments and suggestions are always appreciated, and you can email me at anytime at shipofgold@gmail.com
Again, thanks and welcome. Have a wonderful holiday and I hope to see you soon.
Enjoy this lovely video from the band Muse (who are phenomenal):
I thank you for the attention and hope you enjoy or agree with the silly things i shout from atop my tiny soapbox. Typically I post once, sometimes twice a week. It's less breaking news oriented and more "I have something to say!" to steal a line from Jerri Blank.
Comments and suggestions are always appreciated, and you can email me at anytime at shipofgold@gmail.com
Again, thanks and welcome. Have a wonderful holiday and I hope to see you soon.
Enjoy this lovely video from the band Muse (who are phenomenal):
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Robocalling Editorial
On Sunday in the Detroit Free Press there was an editorial regarding regulating the annoying practice of Robo-calling.
Although I agree whole heartedly that the practice needs to be regulated if not eliminated, the tone of the editorial misrepresented the true nature of the Robocalls as we have known them this year, and ignores entirely the mass coordinated plan on behalf of the RNC in another attempt at voter suppression.
From the editorial:
"Maybe the most annoying aspect of the campaigns that just ended was the proliferation of "robo-calling" -- automated messages on behalf of political candidates or causes that kept phones ringing and answering machines filled throughout the fall."
and one paragraph later:
"The calls, often featuring celebrities or political leaders, are more annoying than effective, and, for elderly people who are most likely to have only land-line phones, they can be a physical imposition." (emphasis mine)
So, what we have here is failure to communicate. First of all there is no mention that this was almost entirely a Republican undertaking. Have been subjected to, or have had friends subjected to the mass robocall effort, the only Democratic "robocall" i ever received was recorded by Debbie Stabenow and it highlighted her success as a Senator. It was only one call and it was the middle of the afternoon on a Saturday.
The other nine individual messages that were left multiple times were entirely anti-Granholm. Some were vulgar, some stated who was paying for them (who are you "Michigan Working Familes"? I still want answers), some just left the smear where it lay. They were highly inaccurate to the point of, at times, outright lies. I never received one from a purported "celebrity" and the only politician who seemed to be directly involved was Debbie Stabenow who started her call with "Hello, this is Senator Debbie Stabenow.". The other phone calls I recieved were live people helping with the get out the vote effort (although that could use a little more coordination as well).
Not that my phone number is the alpha and the omega of robo-targets. I heard rumors of a James Dobson one on behalf of DeVos for the GOTV effort.
Although I support the idea that there should be an effort made to limit or end robo-calling, it would have been nice to have someone actually do some research and make a stronger case for it. Although their reasoning is valid it seems as though the skipped right over the obvious reason, to not allow political candidates or their surrogates smear and slander their opponents without their being any recourse, or without even having to acknowledge that they were behind these dirty tricks.
Although I agree whole heartedly that the practice needs to be regulated if not eliminated, the tone of the editorial misrepresented the true nature of the Robocalls as we have known them this year, and ignores entirely the mass coordinated plan on behalf of the RNC in another attempt at voter suppression.
From the editorial:
"Maybe the most annoying aspect of the campaigns that just ended was the proliferation of "robo-calling" -- automated messages on behalf of political candidates or causes that kept phones ringing and answering machines filled throughout the fall."
and one paragraph later:
"The calls, often featuring celebrities or political leaders, are more annoying than effective, and, for elderly people who are most likely to have only land-line phones, they can be a physical imposition." (emphasis mine)
So, what we have here is failure to communicate. First of all there is no mention that this was almost entirely a Republican undertaking. Have been subjected to, or have had friends subjected to the mass robocall effort, the only Democratic "robocall" i ever received was recorded by Debbie Stabenow and it highlighted her success as a Senator. It was only one call and it was the middle of the afternoon on a Saturday.
The other nine individual messages that were left multiple times were entirely anti-Granholm. Some were vulgar, some stated who was paying for them (who are you "Michigan Working Familes"? I still want answers), some just left the smear where it lay. They were highly inaccurate to the point of, at times, outright lies. I never received one from a purported "celebrity" and the only politician who seemed to be directly involved was Debbie Stabenow who started her call with "Hello, this is Senator Debbie Stabenow.". The other phone calls I recieved were live people helping with the get out the vote effort (although that could use a little more coordination as well).
Not that my phone number is the alpha and the omega of robo-targets. I heard rumors of a James Dobson one on behalf of DeVos for the GOTV effort.
Although I support the idea that there should be an effort made to limit or end robo-calling, it would have been nice to have someone actually do some research and make a stronger case for it. Although their reasoning is valid it seems as though the skipped right over the obvious reason, to not allow political candidates or their surrogates smear and slander their opponents without their being any recourse, or without even having to acknowledge that they were behind these dirty tricks.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
One last attempt to save us from ourselves...
Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality by Any Means Necessary have filed a lawsuit to overturn Proposal 2.
Good.
I'm glad people seem to think we live in a society where racism and sexism no longer exist and apparently think there's equality in the school system, enough to justify the overturning of affirmative action, but the practical reality is that we aren't there yet as a country and as a state. Especially in the business climate we find ourselves in in this state.
Lets work on moving forward instead of trying to drag this state into the past. I was SHOCKED at the margin in which prop 2 was passed. Truly. As my previous half assed post proves. But it's time to move forward.
In other election news, it looks as though Papageorge has narrowly defeated Andy Levin. Which, honestly isn't my race, and I shouldn't judge someone based on a last name, but I like Sander and Carl Levin a lot and had a lot of hope for Andy. It seemed like, in theory, he'd be a good candidate in six years to knock off Stabenows writ of habeus corpus hatin' ass.
Speaking of Stabenow. Glad she won cuz she's wearing our jersey. But. We will watch her closely. I think she betrayed our country by voting with the republicans on that. I will be, and hope others will be vigilant in their observation of Stabenow from here until 2012. The countdown isn't on yet, but her voting record, her speeches and her actions will be closely monitored. I have no patience for people who are so willing to throw our freedoms away for their own personal elections.
Good.
I'm glad people seem to think we live in a society where racism and sexism no longer exist and apparently think there's equality in the school system, enough to justify the overturning of affirmative action, but the practical reality is that we aren't there yet as a country and as a state. Especially in the business climate we find ourselves in in this state.
Lets work on moving forward instead of trying to drag this state into the past. I was SHOCKED at the margin in which prop 2 was passed. Truly. As my previous half assed post proves. But it's time to move forward.
In other election news, it looks as though Papageorge has narrowly defeated Andy Levin. Which, honestly isn't my race, and I shouldn't judge someone based on a last name, but I like Sander and Carl Levin a lot and had a lot of hope for Andy. It seemed like, in theory, he'd be a good candidate in six years to knock off Stabenows writ of habeus corpus hatin' ass.
Speaking of Stabenow. Glad she won cuz she's wearing our jersey. But. We will watch her closely. I think she betrayed our country by voting with the republicans on that. I will be, and hope others will be vigilant in their observation of Stabenow from here until 2012. The countdown isn't on yet, but her voting record, her speeches and her actions will be closely monitored. I have no patience for people who are so willing to throw our freedoms away for their own personal elections.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Granholm wins, minorities lose?
I'll revise this if I prove to be wrong, but with something like 53% of precincts reporting, it looks like we'll be ending Affirmitive Action as we know it.
Stupid.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Honestly, the one ballot initiative that was supported by the KKK, that we let go through.
I'm three shades of pissed.
I'm glad Granholm won and would have been devestated had she not. Same with Stabenow, but I'm voting against her in 2012.
But AFFRIMITIVE ACTION? Come ON.
More later.
Stupid.
Stupid stupid stupid.
Honestly, the one ballot initiative that was supported by the KKK, that we let go through.
I'm three shades of pissed.
I'm glad Granholm won and would have been devestated had she not. Same with Stabenow, but I'm voting against her in 2012.
But AFFRIMITIVE ACTION? Come ON.
More later.
VOTE!
This is absolutely essential. You must vote. I honestly don't care who you're backing. You can think DeVos is Jesus and David Blaine combined. All that I really care about is that the voice of Michigan is heard.
I voted this morning. If you have any doubts or fears about the voting process, I assure you its painless.
You do not need a valid ID.
You do not need a voter registration card.
All you need is to be registered in you district, and if a question arises, a bill with you name and address on it is helpful.
You can make a difference. Just one vote makes a difference. One vote multiplied by 1,000 like minded people can make a difference. You count as part of a movement bigger than yourself. It may seem impossible to you, but I promise you, THIS is what our soldiers are really meant to protect. Our ability to determine the course of our future. US. Your average citizen. We get to determine the fate of our country. This is how we keep a level head.
Vote. It counts, I promise.
I voted this morning. If you have any doubts or fears about the voting process, I assure you its painless.
You do not need a valid ID.
You do not need a voter registration card.
All you need is to be registered in you district, and if a question arises, a bill with you name and address on it is helpful.
You can make a difference. Just one vote makes a difference. One vote multiplied by 1,000 like minded people can make a difference. You count as part of a movement bigger than yourself. It may seem impossible to you, but I promise you, THIS is what our soldiers are really meant to protect. Our ability to determine the course of our future. US. Your average citizen. We get to determine the fate of our country. This is how we keep a level head.
Vote. It counts, I promise.
Monday, November 06, 2006
More on Tomorrow.
Here's a handy guide to the proposals on the ballot tomorrow courtesy of Media Mouse.
Proposal Guide
If you're voting for the first time or the first time in a long time, the state of Michigan provides you with all the information you need including where to go and if you're still registered. It also provides a map to your polling station, and you can print out a sample ballot.
Voter Information
kosposted.
Proposal Guide
If you're voting for the first time or the first time in a long time, the state of Michigan provides you with all the information you need including where to go and if you're still registered. It also provides a map to your polling station, and you can print out a sample ballot.
Voter Information
kosposted.
The storm before the calm.
We're in it.
This is where the desperate throw caution to the wind and make one final flayling pitch to the public in hopes that whatever is said now can somehow make up for ten months of utter ineptitude on the campaign trail.
I was bombarded with robocalls this weekend. I'm fed up with documenting them. "Here's what you may not know about Jennifer Granholm..." YAWN. If you haven't scored your knock-out blow yet Richy Dick, then you've got no knockout blow to get.
With polls showing Granholm with solid leads, I'm hopeful that tomorrow will be the beginning of the end.
And I don't mean just for this race. I mean for DeVos and all of the power that the christian fundamentalists have been able to purchase since 1994. The Republo-Jesus-can movement has been a cancerous growth in the bowels of our political system and it's making it septic. The rancid odor you've been smelling on politicians the last few cycles have eminated from the Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, RichardHelenDickBetsy DeVos, and the giant souless machine that they've built.
The only way to clean out that infection is with a good Democratic enema.
Democrats take note: Bill Maher guides the way. It's completely worth the effort, trust me.
I will be back, maybe today, definantly tomorrow, so stay tuned.
Here's a video from the band "Sound Team" called "Your Eyes Are Liars".
This is where the desperate throw caution to the wind and make one final flayling pitch to the public in hopes that whatever is said now can somehow make up for ten months of utter ineptitude on the campaign trail.
I was bombarded with robocalls this weekend. I'm fed up with documenting them. "Here's what you may not know about Jennifer Granholm..." YAWN. If you haven't scored your knock-out blow yet Richy Dick, then you've got no knockout blow to get.
With polls showing Granholm with solid leads, I'm hopeful that tomorrow will be the beginning of the end.
And I don't mean just for this race. I mean for DeVos and all of the power that the christian fundamentalists have been able to purchase since 1994. The Republo-Jesus-can movement has been a cancerous growth in the bowels of our political system and it's making it septic. The rancid odor you've been smelling on politicians the last few cycles have eminated from the Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson, RichardHelenDickBetsy DeVos, and the giant souless machine that they've built.
The only way to clean out that infection is with a good Democratic enema.
Democrats take note: Bill Maher guides the way. It's completely worth the effort, trust me.
I will be back, maybe today, definantly tomorrow, so stay tuned.
Here's a video from the band "Sound Team" called "Your Eyes Are Liars".
Thursday, November 02, 2006
More Lame Robocalls
More from the sleazy Dick Devos crew.
First on Welfare:
"Jennifer Granholm supports unlimited welfare checks for able bodied adults for life. Michigan is struggling, we all know that. But we need a Governor that is tough enough to put limits on welfare and say to able bodied adults times up. We all belive in compassion, but Jennifer Granholm is letting Michigan become the great handout state. Michigan can't afford the welfare giveaways of Jennifer Granholm. Vote for change on Tuesday November 7th."
Link
Second on "Gun Grabbin'":
"Here's a fact. Jennifer Granholm was given an "F" rating by the National Rifle Association in 2002. Now Granholm says you should trust her. Did you know Granholm's the one who put Proposal three on the ballot? She did and now our rights are being threatened. Jennifer Granholm cannot be trusted. Take the time to vote and remember when you vote November 7th Granholm is a gun grabber."
Link
Notice something that's missing from the last few? What happened to the "Michigan Working Families"?
I don't know how much they think this will help Limp Dick DeVos. It's an appeal to the base, sure, but with Prop 3 already on the ballot, and welfare being such a small portion of the overall political atmosphere right now I don't know how this helps. Nothing in these scream action. Nothing outrageous. Just this...flaccid message.
I guess I just expected more gay marriage, or stem cell, or tax and spend. You know, hatred, bigotry and fear, Republicans political Viagra. But, this? I guess it's good that it's so benign for our side, but man, it's barely worth commenting on. Hey, it's daddy's money and he can spend it anyway he likes, and I'm glad that this is how he's plowing into the final weekend on such a generically feeble message.
crossposted at Dailykos for mass consumption
First on Welfare:
"Jennifer Granholm supports unlimited welfare checks for able bodied adults for life. Michigan is struggling, we all know that. But we need a Governor that is tough enough to put limits on welfare and say to able bodied adults times up. We all belive in compassion, but Jennifer Granholm is letting Michigan become the great handout state. Michigan can't afford the welfare giveaways of Jennifer Granholm. Vote for change on Tuesday November 7th."
Link
Second on "Gun Grabbin'":
"Here's a fact. Jennifer Granholm was given an "F" rating by the National Rifle Association in 2002. Now Granholm says you should trust her. Did you know Granholm's the one who put Proposal three on the ballot? She did and now our rights are being threatened. Jennifer Granholm cannot be trusted. Take the time to vote and remember when you vote November 7th Granholm is a gun grabber."
Link
Notice something that's missing from the last few? What happened to the "Michigan Working Families"?
I don't know how much they think this will help Limp Dick DeVos. It's an appeal to the base, sure, but with Prop 3 already on the ballot, and welfare being such a small portion of the overall political atmosphere right now I don't know how this helps. Nothing in these scream action. Nothing outrageous. Just this...flaccid message.
I guess I just expected more gay marriage, or stem cell, or tax and spend. You know, hatred, bigotry and fear, Republicans political Viagra. But, this? I guess it's good that it's so benign for our side, but man, it's barely worth commenting on. Hey, it's daddy's money and he can spend it anyway he likes, and I'm glad that this is how he's plowing into the final weekend on such a generically feeble message.
crossposted at Dailykos for mass consumption
Monday, October 30, 2006
Dick DeVos has laser vision
I promised a post this past weekend, and I'm one day late. I'm running into a problem that conisists of saying the same thing over and over again in different and hopefully entertaining ways. I was pondering why it's been so difficult to explore at length the flaws with the Republicans and their vision of the future. As I meandered about the internet searching, honestly, to find something to raise a stink about that I hadn't either already blogged about or that hadn't been blogged better elsewhere (click links to the right), and I came across Wizardkittens brilliant post over at the Daily Kos. It's as if the Republican party has been left to pandering to whatever fears they think play best to their stregths, without any basis in reality. Some are to be expected, some are downright, well, lame.
For example, it's difficult to argue the case against Dick DeVos because people like this exist:
"I don’t know about the rest of the world, but the mere fact that Jennifer is considering solving the jobs problem by using the state to employ the out-of-work, makes me shake right down to my Buster Browns. It means three things. One, we’re going to have a lot more road construction, which, if the current road construction is any indication, will go on for the next thirty years until my children are wondering how hard it really is to dig a hole. Two, any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of being completely unable to fire them. And then there’s three. Who on Earth is going to pay for all of these public works programs? Apparently, me, at least until I move out of the state to follow the jobs. Taxpayers pay for state work. Right now, we don’t have a lot of money to pay for this kind of stuff, so it follows logically that taxes will go up, which, we were under the impression was the problem in the first place. Higher taxes, less business. Less business, less jobs. Less jobs mean more state programs trying to hire people who don’t have jobs. More state programs, higher taxes."
This is from "American Princess" who blogs over at Got Detroit? and Conservative Princess, and is probably the most coherent thing i've heard from any conservative in, well, weeks. And it still makes no sense.
She's shaking in her shoes because of road construction? Really? That's the boogie man now? Take a deep breath AP, in through the mouth out through the nose, and follow very carefully because I don't want to confuse you (based on this post you seem easily confused).
1. Take a road trip and then tell me our state infrastructure is in tip top shape. Tell me business leaders want their drive to work to be filled with potholes, and have an overwheleming sense that things are falling apart.
2. Maybe you should focus more on painting than writing, because you seem to be fantastic at the all encompassing broad strokes that are offensive and untrue. "any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of" being completely unable to fire them." Such a sweeping and ignorant statement. With a statement like that it would take only one (of many) examples to the contrary to refute. How about this. I used to work for the Michigan Department of Transportation. I was productive while I worked there. My personal ambition drove me into the post production field that i enjoy and find personal satisfaction in.
3. Who will pay for this? Roughly half will come from the federal government, and yes we will have to make up the rest. Which is why making up for ALL of the dreaded SBT revenue is essential, so that it doesn't fall directly on the average resident. I think you'd probably agree that a solid community with strong schools, solid infrastructure and a business friendly environment will help with business growth, which is what you're all about, right AP? That's worth something, isn't it?
Bottom line: seriously, if this is part of your case against Granholm, that part of her plan includes putting more people to work through building up our outdated and crumbling infrastructure, then your case is weak and illogical. I find it hard to believe that employing people to do construction is long overdue could in any way be considered a negative in any circumstance. If this is what has you shaking in your boots I recommend locking your door tomorrow night and turning off the lights, because all kinds of nasty creatures will be lurking about demanding some form of handout or another. Better safe than sorry, right AP?
For example, it's difficult to argue the case against Dick DeVos because people like this exist:
"I don’t know about the rest of the world, but the mere fact that Jennifer is considering solving the jobs problem by using the state to employ the out-of-work, makes me shake right down to my Buster Browns. It means three things. One, we’re going to have a lot more road construction, which, if the current road construction is any indication, will go on for the next thirty years until my children are wondering how hard it really is to dig a hole. Two, any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of being completely unable to fire them. And then there’s three. Who on Earth is going to pay for all of these public works programs? Apparently, me, at least until I move out of the state to follow the jobs. Taxpayers pay for state work. Right now, we don’t have a lot of money to pay for this kind of stuff, so it follows logically that taxes will go up, which, we were under the impression was the problem in the first place. Higher taxes, less business. Less business, less jobs. Less jobs mean more state programs trying to hire people who don’t have jobs. More state programs, higher taxes."
This is from "American Princess" who blogs over at Got Detroit? and Conservative Princess, and is probably the most coherent thing i've heard from any conservative in, well, weeks. And it still makes no sense.
She's shaking in her shoes because of road construction? Really? That's the boogie man now? Take a deep breath AP, in through the mouth out through the nose, and follow very carefully because I don't want to confuse you (based on this post you seem easily confused).
1. Take a road trip and then tell me our state infrastructure is in tip top shape. Tell me business leaders want their drive to work to be filled with potholes, and have an overwheleming sense that things are falling apart.
2. Maybe you should focus more on painting than writing, because you seem to be fantastic at the all encompassing broad strokes that are offensive and untrue. "any time anyone is employed by the government, their ambition to do anything else (and their productivity) takes an inverse relation to their pay, with the added bonus of" being completely unable to fire them." Such a sweeping and ignorant statement. With a statement like that it would take only one (of many) examples to the contrary to refute. How about this. I used to work for the Michigan Department of Transportation. I was productive while I worked there. My personal ambition drove me into the post production field that i enjoy and find personal satisfaction in.
3. Who will pay for this? Roughly half will come from the federal government, and yes we will have to make up the rest. Which is why making up for ALL of the dreaded SBT revenue is essential, so that it doesn't fall directly on the average resident. I think you'd probably agree that a solid community with strong schools, solid infrastructure and a business friendly environment will help with business growth, which is what you're all about, right AP? That's worth something, isn't it?
Bottom line: seriously, if this is part of your case against Granholm, that part of her plan includes putting more people to work through building up our outdated and crumbling infrastructure, then your case is weak and illogical. I find it hard to believe that employing people to do construction is long overdue could in any way be considered a negative in any circumstance. If this is what has you shaking in your boots I recommend locking your door tomorrow night and turning off the lights, because all kinds of nasty creatures will be lurking about demanding some form of handout or another. Better safe than sorry, right AP?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Briefly
Hey all,
real quick note here. Been slammed at work, so I haven't posted in awhile, and again i apologize.
Michigan Liberal contacted us regarding the robocalls we've been getting. I direct you to this link if you recieved these calls and still have them somewhere. The AFL-CIO is looking into a lawsuit and your help is needed.
Also, over at Leftyblogs and Michigan Liberal, polls are looking good for our side.
I recommend checking out the blogs and getting caught up, lord knows that's what i'm about to do. I'll post more this weekend. I pinky swear.
real quick note here. Been slammed at work, so I haven't posted in awhile, and again i apologize.
Michigan Liberal contacted us regarding the robocalls we've been getting. I direct you to this link if you recieved these calls and still have them somewhere. The AFL-CIO is looking into a lawsuit and your help is needed.
Also, over at Leftyblogs and Michigan Liberal, polls are looking good for our side.
I recommend checking out the blogs and getting caught up, lord knows that's what i'm about to do. I'll post more this weekend. I pinky swear.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
"Michigan Working Families" identify yourselves
Yesterday I posted a message from a group called "Michigan Working Families", well, friends of mine have recieved two more robocalls from them.
I still can't find any information on them and am very curious to know just who they are and who funds them.
Call 1:
"Another broken promise by Jennifer Granholm. She promised smaller class sizes, instead she cut funding for public education. Class sizes are now bigger under Jennifer Granholm. But breaking a promise isn't all. Granholm opposes proposal five, solutions that could move one billion dollars to the classroom. When you look at the record and beyond the hype, Jennifer Granholm is no friend to our public schools. This message has been brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
Link.
Proposal five would effectively force either a tax increase somewhere, or roughly $500 million in cuts from other departments or services. While we all agree that public education funding is a critical need for helping the state move forward, mandating funding levels without thought to need seems reckless. At least to me.
And by the way, that's rich coming from the family that wants the state to help fund christian education through the voucher system and effectively take money OUT of public schools.
Jackass.
The tone of the second one is downright crude.
"Wow. So first we find out that Granholm makes empty promises to autoworkers, and then today Jennifer Granholm's campaign says on WJR radio that they have no regrets for supporting NAFTA. Frankly I'm pissed at watching another politician lie to us and do nothing to help us. This November I'm voting for a change. I'm firing Granholm and voting for MY job. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
LINK.
Whew. Huh. I wasn't listening to WJR so I have no idea if this was said, what was said or what context it was in, but here's the thing, Governor Granholm has been consistently for enforcing our current treaties in order to make the playing field level for the auto industry.
I ask again: who are you "Michigan Working Families"? Who funds you? Where are you located? Where are you headquarters? Who is on your board? Who is writing your copy? Where are you recording at? Who are you using to robocall, because your number keeps popping up as "caller unknown"?
Someone with more resources than me needs to do some digging, because this smells rotten. I'll keep looking, but i'm just a guy. The more help the better.
I still can't find any information on them and am very curious to know just who they are and who funds them.
Call 1:
"Another broken promise by Jennifer Granholm. She promised smaller class sizes, instead she cut funding for public education. Class sizes are now bigger under Jennifer Granholm. But breaking a promise isn't all. Granholm opposes proposal five, solutions that could move one billion dollars to the classroom. When you look at the record and beyond the hype, Jennifer Granholm is no friend to our public schools. This message has been brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
Link.
Proposal five would effectively force either a tax increase somewhere, or roughly $500 million in cuts from other departments or services. While we all agree that public education funding is a critical need for helping the state move forward, mandating funding levels without thought to need seems reckless. At least to me.
And by the way, that's rich coming from the family that wants the state to help fund christian education through the voucher system and effectively take money OUT of public schools.
Jackass.
The tone of the second one is downright crude.
"Wow. So first we find out that Granholm makes empty promises to autoworkers, and then today Jennifer Granholm's campaign says on WJR radio that they have no regrets for supporting NAFTA. Frankly I'm pissed at watching another politician lie to us and do nothing to help us. This November I'm voting for a change. I'm firing Granholm and voting for MY job. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
LINK.
Whew. Huh. I wasn't listening to WJR so I have no idea if this was said, what was said or what context it was in, but here's the thing, Governor Granholm has been consistently for enforcing our current treaties in order to make the playing field level for the auto industry.
I ask again: who are you "Michigan Working Families"? Who funds you? Where are you located? Where are you headquarters? Who is on your board? Who is writing your copy? Where are you recording at? Who are you using to robocall, because your number keeps popping up as "caller unknown"?
Someone with more resources than me needs to do some digging, because this smells rotten. I'll keep looking, but i'm just a guy. The more help the better.
Saul Anuzis = Karl Rove
I honestly don't know how seriously to take this article in Newsweek Online.
Saul Anuzis is Dick Devos' campaign manager. In this article he claims that the Republicans are targeting "snowmobilers" as one of the micro targets for the election.
"“We have the largest population of snowmobilers in the country. We were able to get licenses, etc. and identify 400,000 registered snowmobilers and we added that to their voter file,” Anuzis said.
Uh huh. So, what, is this a red herring? We'll get Governor Granholm thinking we're insane enough to believe that with all the problems we've got going on in this state that we think snowmobiling will be a determining factor in the race?
I remember reports coming out of the 2004 presidential campaign talking about Karl Rove's genius, and how he had all of the voting records on all of the precincts with their GOTV efforts all on his PDA or blackberry. I remember that was the year of the "values voter" which is, of course, code for racist bigots who wrap their beliefs in the cloak of Jesus. But that was a "real" demographic. You could count on someone with those beliefs to be convinced that Democrats would ban the bible, mandate gay marriage and attack the christian nuclear family.
If you said the majority of people who shop at organic whole food stores were more likely to vote Democratic, yeah I could see that. But SNOWMOBILERS? I mean, that's like going after bicycle enthusiasts. I'm guessing their politics don't just skew heavily in one direction. It seems like a rather bizarre group to "micro-target".
What are your thoughts?
Update: now crossposted at the Daily Kos, for national enjoyment purposes.
Saul Anuzis is Dick Devos' campaign manager. In this article he claims that the Republicans are targeting "snowmobilers" as one of the micro targets for the election.
"“We have the largest population of snowmobilers in the country. We were able to get licenses, etc. and identify 400,000 registered snowmobilers and we added that to their voter file,” Anuzis said.
Last year Granholm vetoed a bill that was replacing a seven-mile stretch along a highway necessary to complete a 2,000-mile snowmobile trail."
Uh huh. So, what, is this a red herring? We'll get Governor Granholm thinking we're insane enough to believe that with all the problems we've got going on in this state that we think snowmobiling will be a determining factor in the race?
I remember reports coming out of the 2004 presidential campaign talking about Karl Rove's genius, and how he had all of the voting records on all of the precincts with their GOTV efforts all on his PDA or blackberry. I remember that was the year of the "values voter" which is, of course, code for racist bigots who wrap their beliefs in the cloak of Jesus. But that was a "real" demographic. You could count on someone with those beliefs to be convinced that Democrats would ban the bible, mandate gay marriage and attack the christian nuclear family.
If you said the majority of people who shop at organic whole food stores were more likely to vote Democratic, yeah I could see that. But SNOWMOBILERS? I mean, that's like going after bicycle enthusiasts. I'm guessing their politics don't just skew heavily in one direction. It seems like a rather bizarre group to "micro-target".
What are your thoughts?
Update: now crossposted at the Daily Kos, for national enjoyment purposes.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Did you just accuse Granholm of murder?
I recieved yet another robo-call against Granholm. This time it's from "Michigan Working Families", an deliberatly fuzzy name of a group I had difficulty finding any info on after a fifteen minute search on the googleweb (trademark pending). At first brush it sounds like the caller accused Granholm of being directly responsible for the death of 7 Year Old Ricky Hollands tragic death.
"Good news is the debates are over. Bad news, Granholm is still Governor. But Granholm has shown that she can't let go of her looney liberal policies. Granholm is even trying to cover up her mismanagement resulting in the death of Ricky Holland. And on top of that is her failure at jobs. Granholm doesn't support the jobs bank and keeps vetoing drug testing for welfare recipients. Jennifer Granholm has also made Michigan one of the only two states that has no time limit for welfare. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
LINK.
This time i wasn't able to get the number on caller ID. It came up as "Unkown Caller".
Several things jump out at me: first, like i said, at first brush it sounded as if Governor Granholm was directly responsible for the death of Ricky Holland. Even on his own site DeVos posts an editorial in which, in part, the author says that DeVos' claim is 'ludicrous'. Although, they claim fair in context of the political fight. (how?)
Second, in whiplash fashion it switches to an attack on the Michigan welfare system. The charges leveled on this front are, well, silly and petty, as though they needed something of minor substance to throw in along with this charge of allowing Ricky Holland to be murdered. The final thing I got from this was a real sense of curiosity as to who the "Michigan Working Families" are. If anyone's got any information on them, I'd love to see who it is and where the funding comes from.
crossposted at dailykos
"Good news is the debates are over. Bad news, Granholm is still Governor. But Granholm has shown that she can't let go of her looney liberal policies. Granholm is even trying to cover up her mismanagement resulting in the death of Ricky Holland. And on top of that is her failure at jobs. Granholm doesn't support the jobs bank and keeps vetoing drug testing for welfare recipients. Jennifer Granholm has also made Michigan one of the only two states that has no time limit for welfare. This message brought to you by Michigan Working Families."
LINK.
This time i wasn't able to get the number on caller ID. It came up as "Unkown Caller".
Several things jump out at me: first, like i said, at first brush it sounded as if Governor Granholm was directly responsible for the death of Ricky Holland. Even on his own site DeVos posts an editorial in which, in part, the author says that DeVos' claim is 'ludicrous'. Although, they claim fair in context of the political fight. (how?)
Second, in whiplash fashion it switches to an attack on the Michigan welfare system. The charges leveled on this front are, well, silly and petty, as though they needed something of minor substance to throw in along with this charge of allowing Ricky Holland to be murdered. The final thing I got from this was a real sense of curiosity as to who the "Michigan Working Families" are. If anyone's got any information on them, I'd love to see who it is and where the funding comes from.
crossposted at dailykos
Granholm/DeVos Debate 3 analysis
I'm a professional. Just not at politics. My medium of choice advertising. I've picked up a sixth sense when doing "animatics" as to whether an idea is well conveyed, coherent and most importantly clever.
Dick DeVos was none of that last night. I didn't blog the previous two debates, but I did watch them. And I watched last nights as well. Enough yip yap, let's analyze.
Dick DeVos: his opening statement was the only good part of his debate. He was on message and speaking coherently and clearly. I actually give him credit for donning the prop glasses, because subconsciously it is associated with intelligence, and as a visual cue it was a nice touch. Ideally he was looking to convey a confident, competent, aggressive CEO who has ideas and solutions for what ails Michigan. What came across was, I think bizarre. There was a lot of visibly false bravado, stumbling while remembering prepared responses to expected attacks, and he had an odd bob-and-weave thing going on while standing at the podium that was unnerving. He also came across as quick to anger in the way that he rapidly sped up his speaking when either defending himself or attacking Governor Granholm.
In Conclusion: he came across as an ill-tempered, mean, uncomfortable bully/brat. He doesn't seem like the type of person who would give one prescription pill about how YOU are doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just watch the debates and tell me this is who you want representing us to the Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress. His body language alone reads petulant child.
And the substance of his debate? When he wasn't dodging or ignoring a specific attack of Governor Granholms, he was levelling blame of the ills of the auto industry at her feet. Truly boring and asinine shit.
Governor Granholm: She was good through most of it. She connects better, whether its asking specific questions of audience members to get a better idea of who they are or that brilliant 2 minute closing statement, she came across well. I wouldn't call the debate flawless, in that a few of her responses were either vague or off topic, but on the whole she read as confident, competent, well intentioned caring and above all engaged. She seemed to have a clear grasp of what is going on in our state and what she planned to do to correct it.
I don't know how anyone can say DeVos did anything but shoot himself in the foot with these three debates. Both the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have declared that it was DeVos' best performance to date, and truly it was, but that's like giving the kid a lollipop for using the potty correctly. Your supposed to be better as you go along, and it serves to reason that the last one would be his best. But his best was nowhere near competent. Granholm buried him like he was Jimmy Hoffa. Period. There should be no debate about that. Anyone who takes their partisan glasses off has to see that.
Stay tuned, this is going to get exciting.
Dick DeVos was none of that last night. I didn't blog the previous two debates, but I did watch them. And I watched last nights as well. Enough yip yap, let's analyze.
Dick DeVos: his opening statement was the only good part of his debate. He was on message and speaking coherently and clearly. I actually give him credit for donning the prop glasses, because subconsciously it is associated with intelligence, and as a visual cue it was a nice touch. Ideally he was looking to convey a confident, competent, aggressive CEO who has ideas and solutions for what ails Michigan. What came across was, I think bizarre. There was a lot of visibly false bravado, stumbling while remembering prepared responses to expected attacks, and he had an odd bob-and-weave thing going on while standing at the podium that was unnerving. He also came across as quick to anger in the way that he rapidly sped up his speaking when either defending himself or attacking Governor Granholm.
In Conclusion: he came across as an ill-tempered, mean, uncomfortable bully/brat. He doesn't seem like the type of person who would give one prescription pill about how YOU are doing.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: just watch the debates and tell me this is who you want representing us to the Democratic Majority in both houses of Congress. His body language alone reads petulant child.
And the substance of his debate? When he wasn't dodging or ignoring a specific attack of Governor Granholms, he was levelling blame of the ills of the auto industry at her feet. Truly boring and asinine shit.
Governor Granholm: She was good through most of it. She connects better, whether its asking specific questions of audience members to get a better idea of who they are or that brilliant 2 minute closing statement, she came across well. I wouldn't call the debate flawless, in that a few of her responses were either vague or off topic, but on the whole she read as confident, competent, well intentioned caring and above all engaged. She seemed to have a clear grasp of what is going on in our state and what she planned to do to correct it.
I don't know how anyone can say DeVos did anything but shoot himself in the foot with these three debates. Both the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News have declared that it was DeVos' best performance to date, and truly it was, but that's like giving the kid a lollipop for using the potty correctly. Your supposed to be better as you go along, and it serves to reason that the last one would be his best. But his best was nowhere near competent. Granholm buried him like he was Jimmy Hoffa. Period. There should be no debate about that. Anyone who takes their partisan glasses off has to see that.
Stay tuned, this is going to get exciting.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
It's been awhile, I apologize
Things got crazy at work, and kinda crazy at home too, so, I took a time out. A long one. A lot has happened since then, so, lets take a look, shall we?
Polls are showing Granholm momentum going up, and heading towards 50% here and here.
Debbie Stabenow voted to repeal Habeas Corpus, turning the Magna Carta on it's head. I still prefer her to Bouchard, but I'm not forgetting this in six years, I promise.
Dick DeVos seemed clueless and confused during his second debate, which makes me happy, but also makes me wonder why Granholm isn't beating him like he's a detainee in Guantanamo.
So, let's see what we've learned about Dick DeVos so far:
1. I've tried to come up with a clever nickname for him but his first name suits his demeanor so suitably that I have nothing.
2. He wants to teach public school kids (and probably believes) in Intelligent Design.
3. He was in favor of eliminating the Single Business Tax (SBT) without offering any sort of replacement (known fact), but also wants to have EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR BUSINESSES. Because if they don't pay their taxes, you will. Seems fair, right?
4. The best way to provide everyone with healthcare is for them to go out and find a job. Because last i checked there's hundreds of thousands of jobs all across Michigan with great wages and benefits just WAITING for someone to apply. So, you know, hop to it, right?
5. Dick DeVos hates women.
Bottom line for me is this... Dick DeVos has no real plan to lead. I'd mention his school voucher baloney, but seriously, I don't think that's a big issue this year. At the end of all the rhetoric and posturing, Dick DeVos is the candidate that's out to screw the average Michigander. In business and in his and Betsy's (and Richard and Helen's) financial support of whackjob initiatives, he has proven over and over again that the only people he cares about are his wealthy friends. And if that doesn't appeal to your sense of civic duty not to elect Dick DeVos, how about this: go and re-watch his debates, and tell me that he is who you want representing you and your interests in Washington, D.C. and abroad. He's flustered, angry, and speaks poorly, like it's some sort of junior high debate team practice.
One more thing; everything he stands FIRMLY behind, everything, is about keeping the priviliged wealthy and goes against the beliefs of your average Michigander. I submit to you this: whether or not you're better off now than you were four years ago, unless you're already independently wealthy, you will NOT be better off four years from now than you are today. And condsidering where we're at as a state, that's a scary proposition.
Sorry for the long post. It's good to be back.
Polls are showing Granholm momentum going up, and heading towards 50% here and here.
Debbie Stabenow voted to repeal Habeas Corpus, turning the Magna Carta on it's head. I still prefer her to Bouchard, but I'm not forgetting this in six years, I promise.
Dick DeVos seemed clueless and confused during his second debate, which makes me happy, but also makes me wonder why Granholm isn't beating him like he's a detainee in Guantanamo.
So, let's see what we've learned about Dick DeVos so far:
1. I've tried to come up with a clever nickname for him but his first name suits his demeanor so suitably that I have nothing.
2. He wants to teach public school kids (and probably believes) in Intelligent Design.
3. He was in favor of eliminating the Single Business Tax (SBT) without offering any sort of replacement (known fact), but also wants to have EVEN MORE TAX CUTS FOR BUSINESSES. Because if they don't pay their taxes, you will. Seems fair, right?
4. The best way to provide everyone with healthcare is for them to go out and find a job. Because last i checked there's hundreds of thousands of jobs all across Michigan with great wages and benefits just WAITING for someone to apply. So, you know, hop to it, right?
5. Dick DeVos hates women.
Bottom line for me is this... Dick DeVos has no real plan to lead. I'd mention his school voucher baloney, but seriously, I don't think that's a big issue this year. At the end of all the rhetoric and posturing, Dick DeVos is the candidate that's out to screw the average Michigander. In business and in his and Betsy's (and Richard and Helen's) financial support of whackjob initiatives, he has proven over and over again that the only people he cares about are his wealthy friends. And if that doesn't appeal to your sense of civic duty not to elect Dick DeVos, how about this: go and re-watch his debates, and tell me that he is who you want representing you and your interests in Washington, D.C. and abroad. He's flustered, angry, and speaks poorly, like it's some sort of junior high debate team practice.
One more thing; everything he stands FIRMLY behind, everything, is about keeping the priviliged wealthy and goes against the beliefs of your average Michigander. I submit to you this: whether or not you're better off now than you were four years ago, unless you're already independently wealthy, you will NOT be better off four years from now than you are today. And condsidering where we're at as a state, that's a scary proposition.
Sorry for the long post. It's good to be back.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
George W. Bush !! Torture !!!! '24'??
In the online edition of Newsweek, Evan Thomas writes about the effectiveness of torture and cites the TV show '24' as a touchstone of what American's assume torture is.
"It’s probably not too farfetched to say that what most Americans know about torture comes from watching the TV show “24.” (There is even a Web site called The Jack Bauer Torture Report.) Jack and his comrades and enemies have at various moments on the Fox television program used electrical wires, heart defibrillators, old-fashioned bone breaking and chemical injections to wrest information from their captives. In one episode, Agent Bauer forced a terrorist to watch streaming video—staged—of his child’s execution. The terrorist talked."
Uh huh. In fairness, Evan goes on to write about how wildly inaccurate '24' is and how torture, by and large, does not work. But with a lead in like that how do you take the rest of the article seriously? If you're going to start like this, go full force. Here's my revised and upgraded opening paragraph for Evan Thomas:
"It's probably not too far fetched to say that what most Americans know about torture comes from watching the movie "Lethal Weapon". Gary Busey as Mr. Joshua, with a lot of help from his hentchman Endo, hook a car battery up to Mel Gibson. (There is even a website dedicated to Endo. Did you know he played Ghengis Kahn in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?) Mel Gibson sure got his in that movie, huh?"
Just trying to help Mr. Thomas. But the question that's not asked is, is this really how average Americans get their information regarding U. S. policies? Really? Am I just being optomistic when i assume that your average, everyday regular Joe and Jane can watch a TV show or a movie and think "wow, what horrible dialogue, plot and acting? why am i wasting my time on this piece of shit ENTERTAINMENT?". Are we really at a point where we assume that what we see on TV, no matter what it is, or how obviously fake it is, that it is actually fact?
That might actually explain a lot. That's probably why people keep voting Republican, right? Because Jimmy Smits won the election, and Alan Alda lost, so we need to balance out the the branches of power. Makes total sense.
My point: I think Evan Thomas is vastly underestimating the intelligence of the average person. I think your average person knows that '24' is as real as 'The A Team' or 'Snakes on a Plane'. I don't think anyone draws any sort of conclusion about torture based on a TV Show. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe people really are that stupid. What do I know?
"It’s probably not too farfetched to say that what most Americans know about torture comes from watching the TV show “24.” (There is even a Web site called The Jack Bauer Torture Report.) Jack and his comrades and enemies have at various moments on the Fox television program used electrical wires, heart defibrillators, old-fashioned bone breaking and chemical injections to wrest information from their captives. In one episode, Agent Bauer forced a terrorist to watch streaming video—staged—of his child’s execution. The terrorist talked."
Uh huh. In fairness, Evan goes on to write about how wildly inaccurate '24' is and how torture, by and large, does not work. But with a lead in like that how do you take the rest of the article seriously? If you're going to start like this, go full force. Here's my revised and upgraded opening paragraph for Evan Thomas:
"It's probably not too far fetched to say that what most Americans know about torture comes from watching the movie "Lethal Weapon". Gary Busey as Mr. Joshua, with a lot of help from his hentchman Endo, hook a car battery up to Mel Gibson. (There is even a website dedicated to Endo. Did you know he played Ghengis Kahn in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure?) Mel Gibson sure got his in that movie, huh?"
Just trying to help Mr. Thomas. But the question that's not asked is, is this really how average Americans get their information regarding U. S. policies? Really? Am I just being optomistic when i assume that your average, everyday regular Joe and Jane can watch a TV show or a movie and think "wow, what horrible dialogue, plot and acting? why am i wasting my time on this piece of shit ENTERTAINMENT?". Are we really at a point where we assume that what we see on TV, no matter what it is, or how obviously fake it is, that it is actually fact?
That might actually explain a lot. That's probably why people keep voting Republican, right? Because Jimmy Smits won the election, and Alan Alda lost, so we need to balance out the the branches of power. Makes total sense.
My point: I think Evan Thomas is vastly underestimating the intelligence of the average person. I think your average person knows that '24' is as real as 'The A Team' or 'Snakes on a Plane'. I don't think anyone draws any sort of conclusion about torture based on a TV Show. But hey, maybe I'm wrong, maybe people really are that stupid. What do I know?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
DeVos + Intelligent Design taught in Classroom = Hilarity!
I wish I was joking! I really do. I'm amused, for now. Less so if we're actually dumb enough to elect senor douche bag. Anyhow, here's the story:
LOLOLOLOMGOMGOMG!!!!11!!
It's on the AP, it's legit, it's for real. And boy, howdy, does it say a lot about Dick "dick" DeVos.
I think he just unintentionally handed Granholm a gift. Run with it Jennifer, run!
LOLOLOLOMGOMGOMG!!!!11!!
It's on the AP, it's legit, it's for real. And boy, howdy, does it say a lot about Dick "dick" DeVos.
I think he just unintentionally handed Granholm a gift. Run with it Jennifer, run!
Friday, September 15, 2006
MI GOV - 06
Some new and fun stuff regarding your best friend Dick DeVos.
First- here's the latest ad by the Michigan Democratic Party. I like this message. Hit Dick square in the balls and keep hitting until he goes down.
Second- new Jennifer Granholm ad. Similar message, more Granholm based. Love it. Keep swinging.
On a national front, W. keeps insiting that violating the Constitution is perfectly legal, cuz he is the law, and that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell
is confused when it comes to his opposition to torture. Which makes
sense. What would a General, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff know
about that kind of thing.
First- here's the latest ad by the Michigan Democratic Party. I like this message. Hit Dick square in the balls and keep hitting until he goes down.
Second- new Jennifer Granholm ad. Similar message, more Granholm based. Love it. Keep swinging.
On a national front, W. keeps insiting that violating the Constitution is perfectly legal, cuz he is the law, and that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell
is confused when it comes to his opposition to torture. Which makes
sense. What would a General, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff know
about that kind of thing.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Don't get 'Dick'ed
Funny.
My friends got the following voice messages regarding Jennifer Granholm.
This one is about her environmental record.
This accuses Governor Granolm of "race baiting".
You're all class Dick. Notice how the messages don't tell you who funded the call. The phone number associated with the phone calls goes to a voicemail message that tells you they have nothing to do with the content of the messages sent from the numbers they lease.
The number: 1-702-308-7831
If you have some free time, I'd appreciate it if someone could do further research.
My friends got the following voice messages regarding Jennifer Granholm.
This one is about her environmental record.
This accuses Governor Granolm of "race baiting".
You're all class Dick. Notice how the messages don't tell you who funded the call. The phone number associated with the phone calls goes to a voicemail message that tells you they have nothing to do with the content of the messages sent from the numbers they lease.
The number: 1-702-308-7831
If you have some free time, I'd appreciate it if someone could do further research.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
More later
Hey, one person who's been checking this site. I'll be back up this weekend. Currently averaging 14-19 hour work days.
Give me money to do this and i just might quit my job.
Lots of stuff happening. dKos and Mydd have the info. Clicky le links (2-3-4).
Give me money to do this and i just might quit my job.
Lots of stuff happening. dKos and Mydd have the info. Clicky le links (2-3-4).
Thursday, August 31, 2006
The Keith Olbermann smack down of Donald Rumsfeld
Here's the Quicktime courtesy of Crooks and Liars
Here's the blog of the text. Please read. It is critical.
The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.
Here's the blog of the text. Please read. It is critical.
Feeling morally, intellectually confused?
 |
Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.
Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.
For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.
Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.
It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.
In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.
That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.
That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.
It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.
It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.
It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.
The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.
Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.
That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.
Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.
History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.
Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.
Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.
His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.
It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.
But back to today’s Omniscient ones.
That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.
And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.
Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.
But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.
Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.
And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?
In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?
The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.
But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.
The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.
And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”
As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.
This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.
Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.
But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.”
Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:
“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.
“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”
And so good night, and good luck.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
It's simple, but it's a start
Over at the Daily Kos, bonddad posted a simple idea for a commercial. I thought it was interesting, and, again, simple, so I created and loaded it up to YouTube.
Enjoy the simplicity.
Enjoy the simplicity.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
MI GOV- 06: Republican Businessmen for Granholm
John Truscott can't be happy with this:
(updated link from mLIVE)
“As an automotive supplier, no one needs to tell me that Michigan has taken some hard hits in its manufacturing economy,” said Ziegler, who owns Alken-Ziegler, a privately held metal forming and machining company with offices in Kalkaska and Livonia, where Ziegler also has a home."
Even if this isn't a trend, it's good news and makes a good headline. I'd like to see more hits like this. I'm just waiting for the avalanche of bad news for DeVos.
(updated link from mLIVE)
Businessman gathers Republican support for Granholm
"Gil Ziegler, 68, said he wants to see Republicans keep control of the state House and Senate and win other statewide offices. But when it comes to a choice between GOP gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos and Granholm, he’s voting Democratic.“As an automotive supplier, no one needs to tell me that Michigan has taken some hard hits in its manufacturing economy,” said Ziegler, who owns Alken-Ziegler, a privately held metal forming and machining company with offices in Kalkaska and Livonia, where Ziegler also has a home."
Even if this isn't a trend, it's good news and makes a good headline. I'd like to see more hits like this. I'm just waiting for the avalanche of bad news for DeVos.
"I'm going to disappoint some people in the Republican Party. But those are the extremists in our party who want to block stem cell research and who turned out of office a good man like U.S. Rep. Joe Schwarz," Ziegler said. He was referring to the 7th District incumbent who lost the GOP primary earlier this month to Tim Walberg, who said Schwarz was too liberal."If you've read the brilliant "What's the matter with Kansas" you know that using social wedge issues to move the middle of the political spectrum to the far right is a common Republican tactic. Labeling their own moderates as "too liberal" in an attempt to move the so called "center". I'm glad someone's not sitting passively by while whacko's (DeVos most of all) try to further hijack the Republican party. I know, this diary is kind of half baked, and I wish I could have spent more time on it, but I'm still at work. So, I probably shouldn't have even done this much. Apologies.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
This is very amusing to me.
Check out this amusing script for the new DeVos ad! I'm thoroughly amused. Michigan Liberal does it again.
More later, I promise.
More later, I promise.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
The Detroit News Slimes President Clinton
Here's what the Detroit News had to say Saturday about Bill Clinton's visit to Michigan:
Clinton ignored the terror war
Former President Bill Clinton stopped by Metro Detroit last week to rally Democrats to the reelection bids of Gov. Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Clinton accused Republicans of trying to scare Americans with overblown terrorism fears. Clinton will go down in history as the Neville Chamberlain of the war on terror for failing to confront Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups while they were in their formative stages. (Emphasis Mine)
Let's take a look at what they're saying, shall we?
1. President Bill Clinton failed to confront Al Qaeda and other terrorists in their formative stages.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but after terrorists bombed US Embassies abroad in 1998 I seem to recall President Bill Clinton launched missle strikes into Africa and Afaghnistan at sites that were training ground for terrorists?
That would be, what, his Munich Agreement? Except instead of a peace accord, Bill Clinton launched MISSLES. Other than that, yeah, exactly the same.
2. President Clinton's failure to stop Al Qaeda then led to the tragedy on September 11th 2001.
It's not stated but implied. It's the logical conclusion of the written statement. Clinton attacks the current administration using fear of terrorism as a tool, and in the next sentence the paper implies that we wouldn't have a terror problem if he had done more about the terorrists. Because it was President Clinton who recieved a PDB titled "bin Ladin determined to strike the US" and continued to stay on vacation, right?
3. Neville Chamberlain... what? Failed to confront Germany?
The correlation being implied is logically false. President Clinton's handling of terrorists and Neville Chamberlain pursuing a peace agreement with Germany are entirely dissimilar. Who would President Clinton have struck a peace accord with? And let's take a look at Neville Chamberlain as well.
Germany (by assisnation and threat of force) annexed Austria, and was pursuing a part of Czechoslovakia that had a large German minority. The Munich Agreement came about to appease Hitler, and hopefully stop him from pursuing, essentially war. And keep in mind France helped draft the Munich Agreement, and I don't have the research but would wager that America at the time would find the arrangement acceptable. The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
No one knew, at the time that Hitler was HITLER. He was the dictictorial head of Germany, and seemingly power hungry, but no one guessed insanity. When Germany invaded Poland NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.
And finally, from Wikipedia:
"Many of his (Neville Chamberlain's) contemporaries viewed him as stubborn and unwilling to accept criticism, an opinion backed up by his dismissal of cabinet ministers who disagreed with him on foreign policy"
Now, who does THAT remind you of?
Clinton ignored the terror war
Former President Bill Clinton stopped by Metro Detroit last week to rally Democrats to the reelection bids of Gov. Jennifer Granholm and U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow. Clinton accused Republicans of trying to scare Americans with overblown terrorism fears. Clinton will go down in history as the Neville Chamberlain of the war on terror for failing to confront Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups while they were in their formative stages. (Emphasis Mine)
Let's take a look at what they're saying, shall we?
1. President Bill Clinton failed to confront Al Qaeda and other terrorists in their formative stages.
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but after terrorists bombed US Embassies abroad in 1998 I seem to recall President Bill Clinton launched missle strikes into Africa and Afaghnistan at sites that were training ground for terrorists?
That would be, what, his Munich Agreement? Except instead of a peace accord, Bill Clinton launched MISSLES. Other than that, yeah, exactly the same.
2. President Clinton's failure to stop Al Qaeda then led to the tragedy on September 11th 2001.
It's not stated but implied. It's the logical conclusion of the written statement. Clinton attacks the current administration using fear of terrorism as a tool, and in the next sentence the paper implies that we wouldn't have a terror problem if he had done more about the terorrists. Because it was President Clinton who recieved a PDB titled "bin Ladin determined to strike the US" and continued to stay on vacation, right?
3. Neville Chamberlain... what? Failed to confront Germany?
The correlation being implied is logically false. President Clinton's handling of terrorists and Neville Chamberlain pursuing a peace agreement with Germany are entirely dissimilar. Who would President Clinton have struck a peace accord with? And let's take a look at Neville Chamberlain as well.
Germany (by assisnation and threat of force) annexed Austria, and was pursuing a part of Czechoslovakia that had a large German minority. The Munich Agreement came about to appease Hitler, and hopefully stop him from pursuing, essentially war. And keep in mind France helped draft the Munich Agreement, and I don't have the research but would wager that America at the time would find the arrangement acceptable. The Munich Agreement allowed Germany to annex part of Czechoslovakia.
No one knew, at the time that Hitler was HITLER. He was the dictictorial head of Germany, and seemingly power hungry, but no one guessed insanity. When Germany invaded Poland NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN DECLARED WAR ON GERMANY.
And finally, from Wikipedia:
"Many of his (Neville Chamberlain's) contemporaries viewed him as stubborn and unwilling to accept criticism, an opinion backed up by his dismissal of cabinet ministers who disagreed with him on foreign policy"
Now, who does THAT remind you of?
Saturday, August 19, 2006
Mission Statement
Through thorough research I hope to shine a blinding spotlight on the Republican Party and expose it for the pro-business at any cost party of the elite that it is.
Also, I hope this will lead to people sometimes buying me a beer.
Also, I hope this will lead to people sometimes buying me a beer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
