Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiThe Gullible Dittoheads
Outrageous, isn't it? Argues for tort reform, right?
Not really. You see, it isn't true. Not the story, not the lawsuit, not the award.
Yet, even though it seems that those who might see such a thing in their inboxes might be a tad skeptical of its truthfulness (psst - some emails contain misleading information!), the story is swallowed whole by a certain class of people who might be said to be, um, gullible when it comes to the right-wing's talking points and their accompanying agenda. That's right: They are not aware that some things that their talk show hosts, politicians and various apologists say AREN'T TRUE!
The Winnebago story is just one example. It's circulated every so often as part of the "Stella" awards, named after the woman who sued McDonald's after burning herself with a McDonald's coffee. These urban legends are meant to justify the urgency for tort reform, because you know, everyone's getting rich by suing each other for no reason and the danged Democrat lawyers are getting all those legal fees!
By the way, the vilified Stella Liebeck, for whom the Stella awards were named, suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital and groin areas; her lawyers proved McDonald's had ignored other, sometimes serious complaints of blistering coffee, and it refused to settle with her before she sued.
But facts don't matter to those who want to believe what they want to believe. Walter Williams famously wrote a column about the outrageousness of the Winnebago story (he wrote this five years ago, people); the next week he half-heartedly apologized for lack of "due diligence to fact-checking." But Williams used the "sounds-like-it-could-be-true" defense, what with all the outrageous lawsuits there are going around. He then cited four examples, including that of Stella Liebeck, and in at least another one of those cases, the jury award was thrown out on appeal. Another was decided on the basis of percentage of fault, and the victim was found to be partially at fault. Kind of sounds like the system works, doesn't it?
But that's not the only urban legend that clogs the brains of the dittoheads. Some examples:
1. "Ronald Reagan cut taxes." Well, yes. But a year after his huge tax cut that mostly helped the wealthy and ballooned deficits, Reagan signed a huge tax increase that hit the middle class. He also hiked gasoline taxes. And, by the way, even after the current tax cuts for the wealthy expire, taxes on the richest will still be less than they were under Reagan.
2. "Obama's spending makes Bush look like a piker." Really? Obama's budget projections look so alarming because of the retirement of baby boomers and the growth in entitlement programs. Oh, and he doesn't lie about how much things cost the way George W. Bush did - i.e., taking the cost of an optional war and placing it off budget.
3. "Global warming is a fraud." Well, it's cold outside now, you know?
4. "Evolution is a religion." Have you heard that one? It's funny because some of these same people believe deeply in their religions, but think it's an insult to call evolution a religion.
5. "Death panels."
These beliefs just scratch the surface. "Obama is a secret Muslim and was born in Kenya." "Welfare queens are stealing our tax money!" "Liberals control the media." "Saddam Hussein was linked to 9-11." For a while now, Rush Limbaugh has been saying that Obama wants destroy the capitalistic system and replace it with socialism. This is the same guy who has Goldman Sachs rescuer Tim Geithner as his Treasury Secretary.
In his book "The Eliminationists: How Hate Talk Radicalized the American Right," David Neiwert argues that it is no accident that lies are believed by the extreme right wing. In fact, for them it doesn't really matter whether an assertion is true; any belief, whether it is based on fact or not, is legitimized as long as the left is demonized by it. That is because the goal, for many of the extremists, is to eliminate the left as political opponents. Neiwert says that in America, this impulse to exterminate the opposition is almost uniquely confined to the right.
Thus, lies become part of the narrative of the authoritarian thinker. One would think that those in the Republican Party would discourage lying by their talk-show and Fox News brethren. When their assertions are repeatedly exposed as false, one tends to disbelieve everything they say. That means that even good arguments and true assertions may be dismissed by casual listeners - not a good way to build a political base. Are you listening, Republican leaders?
In response to this habit of indiscriminately believing and spreading falsehoods, as long as they are aimed at liberals, I would propose the "Winnebago Awards" to catalogue the ridiculous distortions, frauds and whoppers perpetrated by the extreme right. Trouble is, someone would take that list of falsehoods, copy it into an email, and distribute them as truth. It's hard to counter those who just don't care about the truth.
75 Comments so far
Show AllCondescend all you want. Take a look at this story from today: http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/05/on-the-hill-protesters-chant-kill-the-bill/?hp
These are Christians. You can't lampoon them for not thinking and following orders. That's what they think is what God has commanded them to do. They think they are exercising the highest degree of morality -- they cannot be dissuaded from that, as they think it's essential to getting into heaven, which is a lot nicer than Earth, and lasts forever. In most cases they've been getting that pounded into their heads since before they could walk. They don't know that they are automatons. That they don't even know that their God commanded them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick means nothing to them -- by lifelong training they don't answer to their actual God, but to insipid but cute salaried employees like Michelle Bachmann, and Sarah Palin, and in another year or two to that ditzy Miss America runner-up, who in turn answer to forces of darkness that profit from all that ignorant, blind obedience and hatred peddled as God's will to people ill-equipped to challenge that notion or to even imagine that fulfillment could come any time before they're dead. They're American suicide bombers.
So we can assume that these people are both ignorant and obedient, and that they've been trained to respond quickly and irrationally when called upon. We also know that a lot of them are very heavily armed, since recent news stories have shown repeatedly that our bullet manufacturers are working 24 hours a day and the shelves are empty. Now that you know that, why are you wasting time snickering about how stupid they are? Does that give you anything less to fear, or move you closer to defeating them?
Get real. If you're not organizing, or if you confuse internet typing with organizing, you're part of why we're losing. Get your local program together.
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
Steve, who generally makes rational observations, reveals himself with the following: "they don't even know that their God commanded them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked...". Perhaps he can justify this observation with the following: "Catholic Charities USA is the country's top provider of social services", according to Charity Navigator's Holiday Giving Guide 2008. Along with its local affiliates Catholic Charities is second only to the U.S. Governemnt nationally, and the world's leading provider of social services! So much for Christian ignorance, though, it is difficult to condemn Steve his own ignorance, as this form of bigotry represents one of the leading "dittohead" reflexes of the secular left. Let's see what assumptions he makes next.
"These are Christians. "
Really? *All* of them? How do you know? The article states"many", which is of course quite vague.
"That they don't even know that their God commanded them to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and heal the sick "
Was God commanding governments to do these things or individuals? Thanks in advance.
"gullible dittoheads" is redundant.
It's true that right-wingers decide beforehand what they believe and then make up "evidence" to support their beliefs while ignoring counter-evidence. And it's also true that any strategy, including lying, is acceptable to them as long as their arbitrarily determined "enemies" ("the left") are the ones targeted; everything's just a strategy to them so ethics don't matter. But many of these people also don't really even believe in facts. They think everything is just a point of view, a belief, or an opinion, and they believe that "the other side" makes up things all the time, too. They're completely wrong, but that is what they think and what they do. And they are winning in this country, even though their war is one-sided. Those who consider themselves apolitical in the US - people who don't keep up with news or know much about current events - are far more strongly influenced these days by right-wing narratives and claims than those coming from anywhere else. Even Obama is pretty right-wing, really, along the lines of Clinton.
The rightwing division of the USan people are projecting their distrust in themselves onto others, in a desperate attempt to boost their strangled self-esteem, strangled by their involuntary subjugation of themselves to their authoritarian leaders. But many USans are discovering the alternative: Localism, self-sufficiency, self-determination, self-trust. No compromise with elite evil, no subjugation to dear leaders.
What GR has described is textbook "cult":
"A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader or leaders."
See, although demonizing 'liberals' (and anyone else who disagrees) is a part of it, the 'gullible dittoheads' are not to question either God or any other of their so-called 'leaders,' who never lie, because they are the 'leaders.'
Because to question is to not have 'faith.' And liberals ask a lot of questions, like, 'Why did your 'leaders' tell 1,000 lies in order to illegally invade Iraq and kill and maim millions of innocents and US/world military personnel and also lots of PMCs at a cost of over $3 trillion?'
"Um... TERRORIST LOVIN' 'MERCAN HATIN' EVIL BABY-KILLIN LIBERAL!"
Gullible dittoheads 'believe' because they have to - because the other choice is (metaphorically speaking) 'God is dead,' or, if U prefer, 'My Leaders aren't wearing any clothes.'
that is why we love the left. 1) never wrong 2) elite 3) better then most of us! Keep talking down to us rubes!
OKY DOKY theowww.
Hoot hoot,
how were things at the last "company" picnic? Did you compare notes with henry8?
By the way, your software sucks.
Yes, because rightists never act arrogant, infallible, or elitist. Ahem.
Glenn Beck has a book entitled "Arguing with Idiots" (liberals).
Rush Limbaugh has books entitled "The Way Things Ought to Be" and "See, I Told You So."
Nothing elitist or arrogant about that.
Bill O'Reilly and Lou Dobbs are notorious divas (youtube "bill o'reilly freakout" for great justice), and let's not start on being talked down to like rubes by the insufferably conceited Dennis Miller. Shall I go on?
Yes, that is why we love the right.
1. Sure the left can be wrong; they're only human.
2. How many rich Communists do you see on TV? How many rich capitalists? (Hint -- all of them.)
3. I was told a story by a current member of the GOP of how Jews in some American city (Cleveland? I can't remember) built themselves a country club. Then to set an example, they let anyone in their club -- so the WASPs came in and changed the by-laws to forbid further Jewish members, with a grandfather clause to prevent the appearance of outright hypocricy. The left tries to set an example, then the conservatives come in and trash the joint and say, "See? The public needs discipline." Worse than a rube is a proud rube.
An opinion shouldn't give a person the right to use 'facts' that are blatantly wrong. You cannot claim that in your opinion the earth is flat. That is simply a wrong statement.
The other problem is that people are willing to allow lies if it works to their advantage and supports their argument (while they abhor it when the other side does the same thing).
Honestly requires you to look at every fact, even those that contradict your position.
And I think that the democrats are lying more than the republicans, because democrats say that they are taking the higher road (at least that is what the leadership wants their supporters to think).
Don't support the status quo. Vote third party if the other parties don't have a candidate that you can support (as opposed to the lesser of two evils).
Single payer or single term.
I found this in a secret diary of a person who is now an independent.It spans decades. - "It's the republicans fault! Ok, then put the democrats in charge,that should fix the problem. Hmm,that didn't work, now it's the democrats fault. So, let's put the republicans back in charge. Well, that's strange that didn't work either.Im going to vote democratic next time, that will fix it. Now everything is ok for a little while but now something is wrong again.Oh, must be the democrats are doing something wrong. Hey, i have an idea let's reinstate the repubs. that should do it. That's really strange i was sure that this time they could fix everything. Well, i seem to be getting old and losing my memory, let's see, oh yeah it's those fuc#$%^ republicans again that messed things up. I better vote for the democrats next time and we finally won't have these problems. I'm kind of worn out, i think i'll take a short nap and when i wake up it will be better."
PS i am no longer an independent, i have now decided to join the co dependent party. Really! Trust me.
LOL.
"i am no longer an independent, i have now decided to join the co dependent party. Really! Trust me."
I'll take that one to be tongue in cheek. ;)
people will believe EVERYTHING you tell them... until your start telling them the truth... mark twain (samuel clemens)
The general truth of this article is well recognized by all thoughtful observers; and was well stated by JFK who said, "Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought".
Unfortunately, the hypocrisy of the message is immediately at hand: "Neiwert says that in America, this impulse to exterminate the opposition is almost uniquely confined to the right." Only a cursory reading of some of the posters on this sight will expose the idiocy of this observation.
The truth is that the talking heads on both sides profess to seek the extermination of the extreme opposition; from limbaugh and beck to maddow and olbermann, and are willing decievers all. Any time these characters are quoted to me in any communication I immediately recognize the source as willing to be decieved, and unwilling to make the effort of self education; in othere words, they have likely revealed to me that their opinions are not their own, and certainly not well formed!
In the end we need to recognized what these talking heads are, and what their motivation is, for to succeed in the extermination of their opposition would be suicidal to their prime interest. They are, all of them, ENTERTAINERS! And their prime interest is viewership/listenership.
dpjr, you're wrong. You conflate "extermination" with "deception". Nobody on the left is running around threatening to kill right wingers. Even when GW Bush was in power, nobody on the left was threatening to kill him. Contrast that with all the menacing noises made by the right, some with huge audiences, against Obama, and liberals in general.
This is what Neiwert means when he talks about extermination.
And as far as them being "entertainers" - if only this were true of the right wing blowhards. They are demagogues, leading the less stable of their followers into committing acts of violence. Just ask the families of those cops who were killed in Pittsburgh last year, by a right wing nutcase.
dpjr sez: "The truth is that the talking heads on both sides profess to seek the extermination of the extreme opposition; from limbaugh and beck to maddow and olbermann, and are willing decievers all."
***
Maddow = Limbaugh??
Harsh, dude. All I know is that it's fairly easy to fact-check Maddow's claims, as she sources them. On the other hand, seeking the source of Limbaugh's "facts" will invariably lead you to his butt.
Happy truth-hunting, friend.
As a paid Limbaugh listener, I must correct you, Limbaugh does source many of his claims and "facts". They're just mostly from right-wing cesspits or conservative think tanks, are are just about inherently false and/or misleading.
"As a paid Limbaugh listener,"
Do you mind saying how much you are paid, who pays you, and what you do besides just listening?
"They're just mostly from right-wing cesspits or conservative think tanks, are are just about inherently false and/or misleading."
The above is a perfect example of the Ad Hominem Logical Fallacy, commited in a very broad way at that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The veracity of a fact is completely independent of who or what the source is. This a a very well established fact of logical discourse. As much as it may be difficult, you must ferret out the veracity of every given fact on a case by case basis. You could start by simply asking the question "why should I beleive this item given as fact to be true?" The source should then supply evidence to support the fact. You are then obligated to consider that evidence on it's own merits and forget completely the who or what aspects of the source.
I made $8.50 an hour as an intern at Media Matters, up until my promotion today to researcher (woohoo!!!), and aside from listening to Limbaugh, I transcribe whatever comments the writer of the Limbaugh Wire wants in the Wire. Take a look, I am one of the Zacharys: http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/11/04#0046
Rush Limbaugh's main sources are the WSJ, Heritage Foundation, American Thinker & Spectator, UK Telegraph, Fox Nation, etc. That's how I know he sources his claims, and that's how I know they're right-wing pieces of crap. I think that description of them is accurate, if a bit mean. I have seen too many examples of them outright lying and making stuff up to take anything these people say as fact. The boy who cried wolf x1000, if it were.
Great job zmann. I knew you could make it. Whichever Zachery you are, I admire both of your writings on that site. I don't know that I could ever match your calm and cool in dealing with those creeps. I wish you lots of luck in your new job as a researcher and look forward to sharing us your general findings to enlighten not only new members but some of us who overlooked something or other of them.
P.S.: When I go back and see what those guys say, I find myself surprised to sometimes here them say some of the same things as some of us here albeit for different reasons. That's another reason I have found myself trying to not get too angry lest I fall into their frame trap. have you read George Lakoff's works by the way? He talks a lot about the two world views in depth and might be enlightening.
Thanks :-)
And yes, you have to be careful when agreeing with what they say. No matter what they do say that may be true, they're utterly dishonest about why they're doing it. Nobody on the right wants the health care reform bill currently before Congress either. Why, though? Because they really think it's a "government takeover" of health care, "socialized medicine", "death panels", etc. Hell, sometimes they call that stupid 1900 page bill single-payer healthcare. Whatever they say, their motives are completely dishonest, and their premises are false. Would anyone on this site consider Obama a socialist, or a radical left-wing Marxist? We wish!
And no, I've found little time for good reading since starting this job. But now that I don't have to spend time looking for a new job, I'll get to Lakoff eventually :-) I'm currently reading Carbon-Free, Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. Some of it is way over my head, but much of it is presented very clearly and makes a hell of a lot of sense. Environmentalism/clean energy is my main passion right now, and I've gotten involved in DC chapters of environmental groups in my spare time up here lately.
Yes, Lakoff does take time and repeated thinking to figure out his philosophy since he's a really deep thinker but he can be used as sort of reference lookup when building thoughts on what you research. Relating his thoughts to your research could open the doors to more views. :)
P.S.: I saw the profiles of both Zachs and I think I came across your blog. You should see my post there where I replied on a topic if that's yours. :)
Yep, you found my very empty blog, and I replied to you on there. I devote so much of my spare time to reading the article and comments here that I haven't done anything of my own yet. I think I can change that over the holidays though.
The description of your job is interesting, thank you.
Do you understand the article on Ad Hominem? There are others, the Nizkor project one is good, and they all pretty much say the same thing.
If you don't go through the effort and rigor for each and every "fact" put forth, and you only dismiss them based on the source, you really aren't making an argument. That's what Ad Hominem means. It doesn't matter if it's Sean, Rush, Rachel, Keith, or *anyone* else. Just trying to help.
I didn't read the article, but I'm familiar with the meaning, and I know I engage in ad hominem attacks occasionally. I don't have the amount of time that I did in college to thoroughly rebut things on here like I occasionally used to...term papers or no, working 40 hours a week leaves a lot less spare time than what I had while in school.
And from what I understand we stopped doing that for the Limbaugh Wire because it was taking up too much time, and too many people, so for the past month or two it's been more of a summary than a thorough rebuttal.
OK, but I suggest that if you are going to get into an in depth discussion about some subject, that you stick to the convention or you could get in trouble. Doesn't matter left or right. Bye.
There is a certain percentage of people, regardless of age, race, creed, religion, or ancestral geography who will believe anything if it makes someone they've been trained to dislike look bad. Working class people of a right-wing or fundamentalist Christian standing have no monopoly on this.
Take, for example, how many people believe that Dick Cheney designed software that made missiles look like airplanes on all 9-11 videotapes, whether shot by networks, security cameras, or the French film crew making a documentary down the block. Some of them are reading this right now and preparing to send me all the links to "experts" who have proven it, and to tell me I'm a tool of mainstream media and corporate imperialism, and am unfit to play a role in peace organizing.
As if there weren't already sufficient reasons to despise Dick Cheney without deliberately setting upon a path to make it look like people who are trying to educate others about the evils of Dick Cheney are lunatics, a process that helps Dick Cheney keep his public respectability intact.
Like others who have already posted similar comments on this thread, I don't like this kind of article and wish CD didn't keep running them. I live on this planet for 48 years. I know how ignorant, prejudiced, and malleable most people are, and I know how Rush Limbaugh plays to that. But an article like this, which puts the tendency solely in the right-wing domain, is attempting to do for liberals what it is attacking Limbaugh for doing for conservatives. It's designed to validate our disgust for them without giving us useful information.
We can, and must, do better than this.
Steve
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
www.eisenhowerproject.org
No Steve, you come across as naive and a tad gullible.By her very nature a thinking person does not reside in the land of delusion you so colorfully illustrated in your post.Guess who does? A bigot is a bigot is a bigot.
I am not naive or gullible. I know bigotry, and I know what a "dittohead" is, and in what I wrote I clearly acknowledged that. My point was this, quoting myself: "Working class people of a right-wing or fundamentalist Christian standing have no monopoly on this." Which I then illustrated with a real-life example from the self-identified left.
It's also arrogant, and dangerous from an organizing point of view, to presume one's self to be not only a "thinking person" and activist, but an arbiter of what constitutes a "thinking person." Some would argue that anyone who actually believes in astrology is delusional, and that anyone who sells it is taking advantage of people, but there's at least one astrologer who posts here regularly, and she strikes me as a "thinking person." People at The Catholic Worker actually believe that a baby Messiah was born to an actual virgin who had been impregnated by God. I've met quite a few of them, and organized events with them, and they are very high-functioning "thinking people."
I advise, again, as an organizer, that we could build a lot more bridges if we stop declaring vast segments of the population as "delusional" or to not be "thinking people." It doesn't diminish the power of our enemies, and doesn't win us any new friends, and potentially will alienate existing friends from wanting to hang out with us. Yes, there are a lot of hard-core knee-jerk types on the right whom we will never reach. There are also many hard-core knee-jerks on the left with whom we should avoid attempting to form coalitions. But considering the huge size of the masses that lie in between those points, and the fact that most of them definitely are "thinking people" in at least some areas of their thinking if not all areas, we really should stick to the issues and stop wasting time, and reinforcing enmities, by ridiculing people, and just stick to the issues we're trying to inform them about. As Jesus said, some of the seeds we throw will fall on rock and not sprout, some will fall on the path and get trampled, some will fall in the weeds and be overwhelmed, and some will fall on fertile soil and grow. Given the undeniable success of the organizers who have been following his advice for the last 2000 years, it strikes me that it's pretty good organizing advice, even if you don't believe he was God born from a virgin.
Organize. Please start organizing. All the people to whom we're losing ground never stop doing it. We refuse to even start. So who really has the right to snicker -- us, or the dittoheads?
www.commonplans.blogspot.com
YES, there are those at both extremes that do not bother to 'think' for themselves, HOWEVER, it is 'el rusbo' that has his followers of "dittoheads" that repeat every word spoken on the EIB network.
Oh, and to WHAT "public respectability" are you refering? :-}
Yes, they gleefully declare themselves to be parrots, and tirelessly willing to follow orders without thought. But what we have to decide for ourselves as progressives is this: Do we want to make fun of that, or even just harp on it, or do we want to recognize that (along with the listernership numbers) the existence of massive numbers of genuine "dittoheads" for the right puts the left at a tremendous organizing disadvantage, and start developing tactics to overcome that?
They work on the "handful of chiefs, millions of loyal, unquestioning followers" model. We progressives don't generally announce ourselves, with pride, as blindly obedient, and for good reason. To whatever degree we recognize the existence of "leaders" on our side, we do so only to the degree that they never act like they consider anyone to be "followers." But it's a real problem. It takes a tiny handful of people only a few moments to make a decision, and that little time again to get millions of people to start carrying it out. We don't operate that way. Our decisions take a lot longer to make. The "followers" demand to be convinced of the objective and the likelihood of any chosen tactic to achieve it -- they're not obeying orders on anything. So moving from "decision" to mass action is interminable, and usually never happens, and even when it does happen, cannot happen consistently and persistently enough to be effective. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not suggesting that progressives need to develop a mass of its own "dittoheads" and a gang of commanders. What I am suggesting is we need to develop our own institutions that are superior in response capacity to the "dittohead" model, and we have not done that.
But we can. We have to develop an actual grassroots to defeat the astroturf. That means local organizing. So again, I will advise everyone to read www.commonplans.blogspot.com to explore the concepts and figure out ways to get yourselves started in your locale. How to stitch it together is something we don't even have to discuss until we start seeing evidence of there being solid threads we can start to stitch. Start spinning you're neighborhood's length of thread. Start a group and meet every week In Real Life.
Steve
Well said, Steve.
This seems like a good place for this George Carlin quote.
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, then realize half of them are even stupider than that!"
That's just beautiful. Thanks for that gem from George.
Reminds of something that happened several years ago between an ex-friend and myself. My ex-friend is a die-hard, believe Rash Limpdick Ditto-head. One of his favorite remarks was "Bill Clinton is a serial liar." Even after Bush was elected and led us to a war based on lies, my ex-friend kept it up. So, one day I asked him to name one lie Bill Clinton had ever told that did not concern smoking pot or getting a blowjob." (BTW, my ex-friend is also a pot smoker and used to brag about getting BJ's from someone not his wife). Anyway, he could not do it. I laughed in his face and repeated a few of Bush's lies. He has not spoken to me since, though I tried to laugh it off and apologize (just to be nice), but he refuses to speak to me anymore. I guess I learned not to challenge another person's belief in lies!
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Dizi: Good for you. I have family members who are the same way.
This article is condescending working class liberals as if they're not left out already. If the liberals would be economic populists and stick to getting those jobs out there, stop shouting down good Christians, and learn to balance the environment with the economy instead of all this cap-and-trade bs that helps Goldman Sachs and kills jobs, there wouldn't be as many dittoheads around and Ronald Reagan wouldn't be so damn popular. There's no point in criticizing Reagan and Bush Jr although I strongly oppose both of them if our current president Obama supports their ideology and polices. We need real populist Democrats or else !
The author should pay attention to yesterday's election results in VA and NJ. In both states, it wasn't even close and the party went down in flames. The PUBLIC LAVA is getting hotter and redder and we don't give as much a flying f**k about social issues such as guns, abortion, same sex, race, etc ... as we do about important issues such as the economy, health care, freedom, etc ... For example, if my wife is pregnant and about to give birth to a child, I don't wanna be stuck in traffic jams even outside of rush hour. I wanna know which candidate has a good plan to cut down those traffic woes and what it involves (e.g. proper funding for roads that need expansion where traffic congestion is the worst and causing problems elsewhere or better yet proper funding for expanding public transportation and getting it right). That's why Bob Mcdonnell and other Republicans in the state legislature races in Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia won big. Similarly in New Jersey, even the a sizable chuck of liberal Democratic voters were tired of putting up with that Goldman Sachs hack Jon Corzine and kicked him out at the voting booth. It sucks that both races went Republican but that's what we get when the Democratic Party refuses to be progressive populist but instead play "centrist" !
@ maxpayne November 4th, 2009 1:16 pm: well, you assessed the situation correctly in VA and NJ -- Creigh Deeds is a drab Blue Dog Dem who said he would cancel the public option if it came to Virginia. He refused Obama's help and advice until the last two weeks. Jon Corzine was, as you point out, a former Goldman Sachs exec who made piles of money and keeps spending it on vanity campaigns to, I guess, boost his overgrown ego. He has never shown any talent for governing once elected. Neither of them were progressives and didn't stir independents or liberal Dems to go out and vote for them.
However, let me make two predictions and a brief comment:
1. Bob McDonnell, the Republican who just won the governor's race in VA, is a graduate of Pat Robertson's Regent University and has been steeped in Christopublican politics his entire adult life. McDonnell campaigned on a slogan of "Bob's 4 Jobs!" -- when Virginians discover Bob's secret plan to create jobs is to pray twice a day, they'll be anxious to dump him in the next election. Either that or he'll get caught up in some lurid sex scandal, perhaps involving farm animals.
2. Chris Christie, the GOP candidate who swept Corzine from the NJ governor's mansion, was once a NJ federal prosecutor, appointed by Bush/Rove. In that job he had been repeatedly tied to corruption and malfeasance, including handing out no-bid contracts to friends, using his office to help his brother's shaky Wall Street firm, connections to a Genovese Family crime boss (Tino "The Greek" Fiumara). and he was censured for refusing to prosecute Bristol-Myers-Squibb for criminal fraud, instead letting them pay a $300K fine and donate $5 million to his alma mater, Seton Hall University School of Law. (Considering the billions B-M-S makes, the fine and donation were a slap on the wrist.) It's New Jersey, next to Texas the most corrupt state in the union, and this guy has been a major GOP player in the Bush mold -- it's only a matter of time before he sells some indulgence, takes a bribe, or springs some crook and then he's on his way out the door. The only thing you can say for Christie is that he was smart enough to refuse Palin's offer to campaign for him.
Meanwhile, the real action was in New York's 23rd Congressional District, the most reliably conservative and Republican in the state. Even after GOP bigwigs like Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Dick Armey, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck sang his praises, Conservative Party candidate Doug "The Bullet's in My Top Pocket" Hoffman was defeated by liberal Democrat and union-supporter Bill Owens. The Republican civil war has started in earnest and I think when the Christopublican-Teabagger wing of the GOP nominates Palin in 2012, that will be it -- many Republicans will pull out and vote Libertarian or nominate their own candidate, someone like Colin Powell. When Palin is beaten by the largest landslide in American history, bringing many other Republicans down with her, the GOP will be no more, just as the Whigs became extinct when Lincoln was elected in 1860. I don't know what will replace the GOP, but I'll bet it won't have 'Republican' in the name.
Okay, I'll put my crystal (not Kristol!) ball away now, but this is how things seem to be shaping up.
RSJ, I don't like either one of those Republicans and I wouldn't expect much out of them but to most swing voters, they don't look as bad at face value. If the Democrats are gonna keep playing "centrist" and selling their souls out to Wall Street, the dangerous background of those two Republicans are unlikely to register with the base itself which sat it all out. NY-23 will probably go back to GOP next year if the Owens gags and goes "centrist".
"The author should pay attention to yesterday's election results in VA and NJ. In both states, it wasn't even close and the party went down in flames."
here's the newest folk legend - "the party went down in flames."
60-70% of registered-and-likely-to-vote-virgina-voters said - obama and his policies - would have - NOTHING - to do with their vote for governor.
ny congressional district - WON BY A DEMOCRAT - has not had a democrat since 1852 - that's EIGHTEEN 52. palin, pawlenty and a gaggle of republican possible wannabe's threw their support to the "conservative" - remember - palin QUIT so she could "HAVE MORE EFFECT" from the outside...
ca congressional seat - WON BY A DEMOCRAT - outspoken on PUBLIC OPTION to be included in healthcare reform legislation. [see another CD story]
if that's "the party went down in flames" - we should be pouring on the gasoline.
2 MORE congressional HOUSE seats - i.e., a swing of +4 DEMOCRATS - (-2 R +2 D = net +4D).
"ny congressional district - WON BY A DEMOCRAT - has not had a democrat since 1852 - that's EIGHTEEN 52."
That information is probably from the Pelosi interview. there has been some serious gerrymanderng there and the correct date is, I believe. 1993. Check it out. Don't take my word for it.
I have heard that district will be eliminated by redistricting next year. So it's not a big deal, except that moron Hoffman lost.
Also a good number of dems did not turn out because the dem candidates in NJ and VA simply weren't worth voting for. The non-voters either gave up on the lesser evil strategy or have become so totally cynical because of the false electoral process that they have given the process up altogether.
Until the dems or other parties field real progressive/populist candidates with populist/progressive programs AND legitimate campaign organizations, you can't blame voters for opting out.
It should be noted that at least one of the winning dems cited above ran a strong progressive campaign and the other at least ran head-on against the reactionary "Conservative," who was the main opponent.
The lesson here is that dems win when we act like dems and not "dem" (as we say in chicagoese.)
One sided articles like this are laughfable. If you don't include Democrats and Radicals of both sides, its simply another "push poll" type article.
There better be a change in thinking fairly soon getting to more honest dialogue before the same explosion that blew Bush and his boy's happens a bit more locally.
You should certainly know about one sided articles.
You are an expert on one sided arguments.
Keep fighting those enemies of the corporations from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli in the air, on land and sea with the lies clear as can be.
All's fair in war, says the Marine corps!
Is there some subtle irony here that I am missing? A call for "honest dialogue" from someone flagged for trolling here nearly 80 times? I guess I don't get the joke.
Those who have read "The Republican Noise Machine" should know that "balance" is a false criteria for news reporting; the standard is professionalism and the integrity of facts. To invoke "one-sided" is to produce the "balanced" canard again -- which is at bottom precisely the substance of this article.
You got that right dude ! Yesterday's flaming election results from VA to ME must not have been enough for people like this author who still doesn't get it. Maybe 2010 and 2012 will fix people like him ! We voters might as well paint this country red if we can't get third parties to win or the Democrats to do anything right.
Neiwert says that in America, this impulse to exterminate the opposition is almost uniquely confined to the right.
The use of the word "exterminate" is accurate. The one lasting gift left behind by eight years of George Wanker Bush and Cheesedick Cheney is the mindset of extermination. Little by little, the majority Nazi-Communist-fascist segment of the Republicans rids the party of anyone a centimeter to their left. Their Great Political Wet Dream is to come to power, sweep aside the constitution and wipe out, murder, exterminate much of the USA population. Think that's hyperbole? The Republicans are brimming over with their own Stalins, Hitlers and heavily armed Emperor Nortons. And this is real life in which anything can and frequently does happen.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
I can almost hear Rahm and Barrack agreeing with each other to "stay the course" after yesterday's election results--leading to the full electoral bloodbath in 2010. They self-incentivize their real support for the corporatist fascism of their financiers and talk themselves out of creating jobs or doing anything substantive for the "little people." If only I could win the lottery and move to Denmark.
No article on conservatives and frivolous law suits should omit the Mother of all frivolous law suits; Paula Jones vs. William Jefferson Clinton. A law suit that had no viable claim of damages, that was completely political and used to impeach a president for false testimony that was irrelevant and inadmissible to the aforementioned frivolous law suit.
To this day the gullible ditto heads think Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office yet the eight year crime spree otherwise known as the administration of George W. Bush is not seen as the greatest affront to the Constitution of the United States since the document was dratfted. Bill Clinton lied about a private relationship between consenting adults, W. lied about an illegal war of aggression, the highest crime currently known the mankind. (The intentional use of depleted uranium weapons may well become then highest crime known to mankind in the future.)
Once upon a time political conservatism was a reasonably rational, yet misguided, set of political theories. What is currently labeled conservatism in the United States requires its believers to become reality deniers due to the endless contradictions. Add in the eight years of Rovian double speak and another eight years of Bushisms to catapult the Kung Fu Panda and the Dittoheads have been reduced to mouth breathing, knuckle dragging, evolution denying pry-mates. (pry-mates; lever using beings made in the image of God)
@ Madhoosier November 4th, 2009 12:31 pm: While I agree that the Paula Jones 'sexual harrassment' lawsuit was egregious and frivolous, its impact was limited.
The mother of all frivolous lawsuits, IMO, was Bush v. Gore in 2000, the basis of which was that George W. Bush would be mighty unhappy if he lost the presidency and therefore the U.S. Supreme Court should step in and stop the recounting of votes in Florida, even though both Florida state law and the Florida Supreme Court had mandated the full recount, not the Gore campaign. In an unprecedented and stunningly unconstitutional decision, especially so since both Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas should have recused themselves for a glaring conflict of interest -- Scalia's sons and Thomas' wife worked for the Bush campaign -- the high court agreed in a 5-4 decision that Junior Bush's tender feelings should be protected at the expense of established Florida law and the Constitution. A subsequent full state recount by Reuters and other news organizations was done a year later and the results showed Gore would have won Florida's electoral votes and the White House. How lucky for the Bush Administration that the report was issued one month after 9/11 and few in the media paid attention. Obviously, this frivolous lawsuit had far more impact on our lives than Jones' suit.
The Felonious Five stated the decision in Bush vs. Gore did not set legal precedent. As such the Supreme Court did not make a judicial ruling; instead their ruling was a Bill of Attainder since it only applied to Al Gore.
Bills of Attainder are specifically forbidden by the Constitution. If the democratic controlled Congress had the balls of a half castrated mouse they’d impeach the remaining three members of the Court that signed onto the ruling in Bush vs. Gore.
If the Courts were bad in 2000 The Felonious Five stated the decision in Bush vs. Gore did not set legal precedent. As such the Supreme Court did not make a judicial ruling; instead their ruling was a Bill of Attainder since it only applied to Al Gore. Bills of Attainder are specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
If the democratic controlled Congress had the balls of a mouse they’d impeach the remaining three members of the Court that signed onto the ruling in Bush vs. Gore.
Imagine what eight years of Bush’s appointments have done to them.
Add in Monica Goodling’s hiring policies at the Department of Justice where staff positions that were to be filled on the basis on merit were instead filled by politically biased appointees and you’ve got a Justice system in name only.
@ Madhoosier November 4th, 2009 11:23 pm, you're correct and that's what I meant by this SC decision having such far-reaching effects, even if it is supposedly and, as you point out, illegally limited to only that particular Bush v. Gore suit. It is the essence of the Bush Republican sense of justice -- one set of rules for me, that can be broken or bent at my whim; and another set of draconian hard and fast laws for everyone else that usually results in jail time.
Imagine if Clinton, when testifying in the Paula Jones circus and the subsequent Monica Lewinsky diversion, has simply said he couldn't remember anything about Jones or Lewinsky? "Gee, I meet so many people, I just don't recall her." The "He's lying!" thunder from the media, spurred by Drudge and the right-wing noise machine, would have parted the skies yet when Dick Cheney, as Reagan before him in Iran/Contra, goes blank on who leaked Plame's name, there's no uproar in our 'liberal' media, there's barely a peep. It's appalling what's happened to our country, our news media and our justice system.
Welcome to the era of the "Triumph of the Swill," (track 8 off of the Dead Kennedys' "Bedtime for Democracy" LP).
It's curious that so-called "conservatives" are often highly critical of postmodern "relativists" who espouse the virtues of indeterminacy and pluralism. For many conservatives are the biggest relativists of all! The radical right are ready to denounce people who claim "that anything might be true, given certain circumstances." The right sees this stance as belittling Religious Truth and Moral Principle. (They typically aren't interested in defending scientific rationality). Of course, their complaint is usually lodged against a straw target. They rarely cite the words of an actual offending thinker, but rail against a total fiction called "the liberal intellectual" or "the postmodern academic."
But the readiness of so many on the Right to believe the most preposterous bullshit is proof that they are the true postmodernists and relativists who hold that "almost anything could be true." It doesn't matter that Obama's birth certificate gives his place of birth as Hawaii, he still must have been born in Africa. It doesn't matter that Reagan actually increased the size of the US government and that he ran up record deficits for the time, he was still a believer in efficient, small government!
"Conservatives" who will believe any lie, no matter how egregious (eg. government "death panels") have stepped outside the Enlightenment tradition of critical reason and the considered search for truth. They act as though all politics is merely "will to power," truth be damned. And in this regard they are truly regressive people. It's fair to say that they are captive to superstition, prejudice, and ignorance. In short, they are political irrationalists of the first order--all too often a dangerous group of people!
Relativism does not equal double standards, much less amorality; it only holds that these things should be considered in a circumstance-appropriate manner.
By your own definition, there is at LEAST a double standard; or rather, considering that each circumstance is absolutely different from every other circumstance, there is NO standard, or their is a unique standard for each circumstance. Can you not see the circle jerk you've created?
Come on, now. Death panels do exist -- inside every single "health care" insurance company. This one is not an urban legend. Of course Ms. Palin would have one believe otherwise...
Very good point.
I would recommened to get all the facts about the
McDonalds story.
I, for example find a statement from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald's_Restaurants
to be kinda common sense.
Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote a unanimous 7th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming dismissal of a similar lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic. The opinion noted that hot coffee (179 °F (82 °C) in this case) is not “unreasonably dangerous.”
The smell (and therefore the taste) of coffee depends heavily on the oils containing aromatic compounds that are dissolved out of the beans during the brewing process. Brewing temperature should be close to 200 °F [93 °C] to dissolve them effectively, but without causing the premature breakdown of these delicate molecules. Coffee smells and tastes best when these aromatic compounds evaporate from the surface of the coffee as it is being drunk. Compounds vital to flavor have boiling points in the range of 150–160 °F [66–71 °C], and the beverage therefore tastes best when it is this hot and the aromatics vaporize as it is being drunk. For coffee to be 150 °F when imbibed, it must be hotter in the pot. Pouring a liquid increases its surface area and cools it; more heat is lost by contact with the cooler container; if the consumer adds cream and sugar (plus a metal spoon to stir them) the liquid's temperature falls again. If the consumer carries the container out for later consumption, the beverage cools still further.[26]
You're obviously quite the barista-- but whatever the "common sense" contained in this excerpted outline for creating The Perfect Cup of Coffee, it doesn't address, much less justify, knowingly scalding customers by selling a hazardous product with insufficient safeguards.
All that this proves is that Judge Easterbrook and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals were unanimously dying to toss the case and take a nice, long coffee break. Mmmm... coffee.
Now I understand why McDonald's corporation counsel believed if they even got ONE "dumbo" on the jury, they'd be home free.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Seems to me you are actually supporting that Stella lady in her stupidity.
"knowingly scalding customers by selling a hazardous product with insufficient safeguards"
How many saefguards do some people need to just to go on with their pathetic meaningless lives? If someone can't have a cup of coffee without spilling it on themselves and then blaming it on someone else they should have been euthanized at birth so as not to pollute the human race with their defective DNA.
Seems to me you are actually supporting that Stella lady in her stupidity.
________________________________
I'm not convinced "that Stella lady" WAS stupid-- unfortunate, certainly.
On the other hand, I'm actually NOT supporting your manifest and incontrovertible stupidity.
· Yr Obd't Servant
Unfortunate yes, when spilling the coffee.
Idiotic due to her actions after that.
Reread the article. The issue was not the coffee but the burns:
"Stella Liebeck ... suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, buttocks, and genital and groin areas; her lawyers proved McDonald's had ignored other, sometimes serious complaints of blistering coffee, and it refused to settle with her before she sued."
As human institutions, companies and markets should be subject to law and they should be subject to penalties when they fail to meet standards for fair practices and public safety. The clear problem, as our current banking debacle shows, is that there is too little regulation, not too much. Companies have a nasty habit of recidivism, thinking that they need only rename their unethical and illegal behaviors to force the burden of proof onto the injured parties.
Your call for euthenasia seems to plainly place you in the Nazi camp.
Article makes good points about the sheep mentality and gullability (not even sure that's a word) of people.
I still stand by my point of view tho. Not sure exactly how may laws and safeguards do some people need to be able to live in this world. I mean, come on, you spill coffee on yourself and then sue someone else cuz you burned yourself? Let's get a grip here. This lady should have been locked up in a padded room and fed intravenously while sedated twice a day. Stella Liebeck is an idiot and whoever decided on that verdict is not much better.
"Gullability" (gull ability?) is not a word. Gullibility is a word.
Everyone needs legal recourse sometimes, but most of the time the incident is too trivial to pursue in courts, so those who sell substandard products, for instance, get away with it millions of times at a cost of $10 each to the deceived. No individual would bother with a lawsuit, yet the sociopaths make their millions anyway.
"It's hard to counter those who just don't care about the truth. "
Tell me about it. Every day I have to transcribe Limbaugh's lies, and roll my eyes at Beck's latest scoop: someone else in the administration once quoted Mao or Marx, OH MY GOD THEY'RE ALL COMMIES!
Yes, people who call themselves "republican" nowadays are pathetic and repulsive.
The bigger problem however - one lightly touched on in this article- is the number of people who think that if someone says they are a "democrat" then they are not the same as a republican.
Look at their actions. Do not ever trust their words.
The only thing relieble about this Ass Soul Nation of Utter Stupidity IS the LIE it tells itself.