Stewart on Libya

After Monday's interview, I was really surprised to see how strongly Jon Stewart came out against the bombing of Libya tonight. I have absolutely no problem with people being critical of this military action. We should be critical of every military action. I just don't understand why everyone is coming out so strongly against the action in Libya when we're still not seeing a peep about Afghanistan or Iraq. Did you know we're still fighting wars there? I know! Can we take some of this anger and confusion about Libya (much of which is certainly justified) and direct it to where it matters a little more? Where the hell is the outrage over the two wars we've been fighting for the last decade? Where is the demand to know what our missions are there? The American death toll in Iraq and Afghanistan combined is currently 7,141. And these people are worried about the cost of an air campaign, in which there has yet to be a single American casualty? I realize it's a little hard to think of the well-being of people who are not American, but doesn't anyone care that we saved 50,000 people from being slaughtered by doing this? And you can be damn well sure Obama would be yelled at if he hadn't gone in.

And a final thought, for god's sake, stop comparing this to Iraq. This is a revolution from the ground up. The Libyan people want this. They are cheering and waving American flags in the streets. And most importantly of all, we are not telling the freedom fighters what to do. It's their revolution. All we're doing is evening the playing field for them because Gaddafi has motherfucking tanks. The rebels have gained a lot of ground because of this. Just imagine if Gaddafi was toppled. With Tunisia and Egypt on either side, can you imagine the democratic footprint that would leave in Northern Africa? Holy shit. We should be supporting this. We wouldn't have won our own revolution if France hadn't sent over troops to fight alongside us. Thomas Paine sailed over to France to help with their revolution soon after we won our own. I don't see how this is all that different. This is what real Jeffersonian liberalism looks like. It's unrealistic expectations and goals in the hopes of a better future. It's the worldwide revolution Jefferson and Paine hoped for. "The world is my country," right? Sic semper tyrannis?

Anyway, I'll stop talking now. Here's the interview Stewart did last night with a political science chairman who was born in Libya. It's really good. I'll post the anti-intervention segment he did tonight once it pops up online.

351 anti-abortion bills proposed this year alone

Source

NARAL, an abortion-rights group, tries to track each piece of abortion-related legislation making its way through state legislatures. Last year they tracked 174 bills. This session's count is already up to 351.

...Those on the anti-abortion side have little to lose by throwing whatever bills they can at the wall and seeing what sticks. Even if their measures conflict with Roe v. Wade, a subsequent court battle provides opportunities to publicize their position. And there's always the next session to revise the language and have another go.

Obama. I get it. There's a lot going on around the world right now. There are a lot of pressing issues that need your attention. But the political climate at home is burning down. You need to step the fuck up and be the liberal we elected you to be. In 2007, you said

"If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I'm in the White House, I'll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself, I'll will walk on that picket line with you as President of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that somebody is standing in their corner."

But now, when workers' rights are being assaulted all across the country, and right when you're needed the most, you've chosen to remain silent. It feels like you're abandoning us.

In your book, I clearly remember you describing yourself as pro-choice, but also as a person who seeks a middle ground, in attempting to curb down the pregnancy rate so abortions wouldn't be as necessary. A quote of yours has stuck with me: "No one is pro-abortion." I don't think any rational person could disagree with that.

But Republicans are not seeking a middle ground. At the same time they're trying to make abortion illegal, they're also demanding that teenagers should not be educated about sex, which only serves to spike the pregnancy rate even more. They've come to their conclusions before the debate even takes place, and no amount of evidence will ever change their minds. They need to be stopped, and you're not doing it. You haven't said a thing about abortion rights. You're letting them gain ground and you don't seem to care. When I voted for a moderate in 2008, I assumed you were a moderate liberal. Imagine my disappointment when I found out you were actually a moderate conservative.

I've been telling myself that I'm going to vote for you again in 2012 simply out of my fear of the Republicans who are trying to destroy everything I love about this country. But I'm coming to the realization that it really wouldn't be much different if they had a president in the White House. We're still in Iraq and Afghanistan. We'll probably be there for at least another decade. When Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head, you didn't say a thing about how easy it is for maniacs to obtain guns, nor did you even make an attempt to put a stop to it. When BP raped an ecosystem, you went ahead and approved more drilling (remember when you wrote about getting into alternative sources of energy in your book? Hah.) A single person still has yet to be brought to justice for causing the economic meltdown. In fact, you seem to be rewarding them. The patriotism of our soldiers is being rewarded by subjecting them to torture. You are torturing our soldiers (who do you think they are, Muslims?) Unless you step up, then I'm not voting for you again. I think practical European democratic socialism has some good ideas. You, on the other hand, are a conservative. I realize not voting for you will practically be a vote for Republicans. I don't care. The last couple years since you've come into office has made me lose faith in the American system of government. This was the perfect opportunity to really improve things. We're probably not going to see another perfect storm like that for at least another couple decades, and you and the dems blew it. If my choice is between conservatism and fascism, then I'm not playing.

Sunday Youtube Post

On America's 'Liberal Media'

The people behind Fox News defend its scathing bias because they believe that the rest of the media is liberal. They're simply offering the 'other side.'

"When you first get in they tell you we’re a bit of a counterpart to the screaming left wing lib media. So automatically you have to buy into the idea that the other media is howling left-wing. Don’t even start arguing that or you won’t even last your first day."

America's media is not liberal. It is corporate, and it therefore leans right. We might never have invaded Iraq if we had a liberal media to question George Bush. If we had a liberal media, all the outright lies Republicans spread about the health care bill might actually be called out, instead of being treated like legitimate arguments. A liberal media may have covered the protests in Wisconsin with the same fervor it directed towards the tea party protests. If we had a liberal media, George Bush wouldn't have been elected twice.

Just look at how Obama is being treated in the media right now. If the media was so "liberal" then why is everything a Democratic president does questioned unconditionally? Of course, that's how it should be with every president, but things should still remain fair. I've seen coverage criticizing his recent trip to South America, simply because he shouldn't be outside of Washington when we're bombing another country. Here's what the president looked like for much of the time he was in South America.



"where da wite wemen at?" -brack obabamm

In all this anger and criticism, I never once saw someone ask why the president was there to begin with. Did anyone else? I'm seriously asking this, I want to know. I want to believe that the American media can do a little more than shout angry words and wade around proudly in its own incompetence. The president was there to secure economic deals. The South American economy is emerging as a potential powerhouse, and Obama saw an opportunity to secure exports and create American jobs. He explained it in his weekly address in less than four minutes. This isn't hard.

The coverage of Libya is equally embarrassing. Nobody seems to be looking at this situation on its own. It always has to go back to Iraq. It's like these incompetent fucks feel bad for ignoring the lead up to Iraq, so they have to overcompensate and bitch when there's nothing there. There are considerable reasons to oppose this air campaign, but it has a hundred times more legitimacy than Iraq ever had, and the ignorance embedded in the backlash is shameful. I really do think these people don't have the slightest fucking clue what they're talking about. It's just "LET'S OPPOSE BOMBS BECAUSE WAR BAD." (I support the decision to go in if you can't tell by now, here are my reasons, I won't get into them here.) John Boehner's letter to the president in response to this was hilarious. I can't believe these words were actually put into a sentence by the leader of the Republican Party.

It is my hope that you will provide the American people and Congress a clear and robust assessment of the scope, objective, and purpose of our mission in Libya and how it will be achieved.

Cool, how about you look at the two wars where this criticism is actually valid, you spineless fuck?

The media is not liberal. It's a mixture of pro-conflict and anti-Obama. The evidence against the existence of a 'liberal media' is so damning, that it's a wonder why the phrase even exists at all. If anything, American media is directed by Fox News. Fox is the most watched news channel in the country by an extremely wide margin. This whole concept of a 'liberal establishment' goes back to Richard Nixon. He's the one who first started blaming 'the media' for all of his own shit. Living up to the reputation of the modern Republican party, Nixon was quite the paranoid fuck. He thought everyone was out to get him. After Nixon lost the California election, he went and blamed the media ("You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore.") When Nixon resigned from the presidency in shame, he felt he was chased off by "the establishment" in Washington, and the liberal elements in, you guessed it, the media. It was never his own fault. "They" were always out to get him. That stuck. When a messenger reports all the shit you've been doing, just shoot the messenger.

Lawrence O'Donnell strongly criticizes biblical literalism on primetime television

Damn. I couldn't believe this when I was watching it earlier. Usually whenever religion is brought up in media, it's either portrayed neutrally or positively. After Glenn Beck bashes O'Donnell for not "fearing God," O'Donnell points out his twelve years of religious education, mocks Beck for telling his audience that it's the end of the world, and says flatout that the Book of Revelations is utter nonsense. It's not necessarily religion-bashing, as much as he's simply pointing out that there's nothing wrong with modern Christianity ignoring the things that make no sense. This guy also proudly proclaimed himself to be a socialist a few months back, so good on him for proclaiming his controversial opinions without fear.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Monday Youtube Post

Pretty sure I forgot about last week, so here's two.

Ron Paul gave an amazing speech on Afghanistan today

Anthony Weiner mocks GOP for going after NPR

Matt Stone and Trey Parker on The Daily Show talking about their new musical, "The Book of Mormon"

I WANT TO SEE THIS SO BAD.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Trey Parker & Matt Stone
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

This is what democracy looks like.

"We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike."

-Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933

100,000+. Largest protest since Vietnam. Media ignores it.

My aunt in Madison asked me over facebook almost nonchalantly to come up and see this today. I decided to do it entirely on a whim. I'm sure she was just as surprised as I was. This issue itself does not directly affect me as an Illinoisan, and that fact carried over while I was there. I didn't chant or pump my fist to a drum beat, or hold any signs, or really do anything an actual protester would typically do. I was just there. I felt like I was an observer. And it was amazing. I really feel like this is bigger than unions. This was the beginning of the liberal pushback against the Tea Party and the corporate psuedo-fascists who control them. And I'm extremely grateful to have been a part of it. Here are the photos I took. And here's a couple videos I found. In the first video, if you pause at about 12 seconds in, we were somewhere on the right side of the screen.

Michael Moore delivers passionate response to the corporate interests behind the Wisconsin budget bill

I'm not much of a fan of Moore's movies because his editing can be a bit childish, but dammit, the man can speak. This got me fired up. He comes on at about 1:20 in.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Edit: You know, I'd like to add one final thought on this before I go to bed. I really don't think this is going to be as bad as it seems. We are going to win this fight in the end. Republicans have shot themselves in the foot. Think about it. The way this was passed was blatantly illegal, so it's probably going to get overturned anyway. Additionally, by doing this and pissing everyone off, Republicans have all but secured Democratic rule over Wisconsin at least for the next few decades. They could not be more hated right now.

Lastly, and most importantly, think of the national impact of this. Liberals have been apathetic for the past three years. Look at what's happening. We're seeing the largest protests since Vietnam. Liberals are finally becoming agitated and mobilized, and they're starting to realize that they don't have to take this shit. I mean, just look at me. I just yell funny swear words on the internet. That's what I do. I've never been to a protest in my life. Why would I need to go? I've largely held onto the belief that most modern protests don't accomplish anything at all, but Michael Moore is absolutely right in this video - this is one of the few times in my life where I can say it's going to matter. I have family in Madison who have been protesting the shit out of this. Not long after the news of tonight's events came out, I received messages on facebook, almost simultaneously, from my aunt and my uncle asking me to drive up this weekend for a massive demonstration that's being held (100,000+ expected). And you know what? I'm probably going. This is a national issue. It's not just Wisconsin. Republican governors all across the United States proposed anti-union bills at the exact same time. That is not a coincidence. Republicans are trying to destroy the last organized democratic base, because that's the only way they can beat Obama in 2012. That's what's happening. One of them even admitted it. They are doing their damndest to get into power again at the expense of civil rights, and we can't let the fucking bastards get away with it.

Wisconsin Republicans found a way to kill unions without the 14 Democrats present

After Scott Walker said he was going to negotiate, the Republicans abused a loophole tonight with no warning, allowing part of their "budget" bill to be passed without any of the Democrats present. In order to do this, they had to split the bill into two parts. They were able to vote on the section that banned union collective bargaining rights, because it was not a fiscal issue. By doing this, they blatantly admitted that this has nothing to do with the budget, and it's always been about killing unions.

To pass spending measures, 20 senators must be present, but Republicans hold just 19 seats. But Republicans would not need any Democrats to be present to pass the collective bargaining changes as a standalone bill because it is not fiscal in nature.They raised concerns that Republicans would take out all the spending in the bill and leave only the changes to collective bargaining.

They just threw fifty years of progress in workers' rights out the window. But I'm still hopeful. Unless he's looking at a presidential run, Scott Walker has effectively just committed political suicide. Wisconsin polls are overwhelmingly against this, and efforts for a recall of state senators have already reached a full quarter of the required signatures. But look on the bright side, Walker! If you, Sarah Palin, and Donald Trump run for president (yes, Donald Trump has been whispering about it), the Republican primaries will consist of two reality TV stars, and a teabagger who never graduated college!



There are questions about the legality of what has just happened, and you can bet your ass it's going to be challenged. Democrats have contacted Wisconsin's Attorney General. If these efforts fail, and this becomes the new status quo, then the last real counterweight of a corporate takeover of the United States has been cut off at the knees, and everything else is up for grabs. All I'm going to say is that the Corporations Republican Party has a headquarters in Madison. Hey guys, check out what Londoners did to the HQ of their conservative party. Not advocating anything. Just letting you know about it, it has nothing to do with anything ever.

James O'Keefe, the infamous political activist who made up the ACORN controversy, is now turning his attention to NPR

Source

I don't know whether to call this xenophobia or racism (probably both?) but in a staggering leap of logic, O'Keefe tries to tie NPR to... the Muslim Brotherhood. Really. He thinks National Public Radio is a front for a conservative religious party in Egypt.

This guy has already been proven an embarrassment to actual journalism, and also possibly a rapist. Last year, when a CNN reporter asked to interview him, he bought a bunch of sex toys, set up hidden cameras aboard a floating "palace of pleasure," and planned to seduce her. An associate of O'Keefe tipped the reporter off. He was going to 'punk' her. Because if she's not on Fox then she's a liberal, and liberals deserve to be raped.

As much as I would like to jump on the "Ignore this guy and he'll go away" bandwagon, the far right conservatives pay attention to him whether we like it or not, and we have to be aware of what's going on in their little media bubble. They're brainwashed and they're going to take this seriously.

New Hampshire Republicans trying to prevent college-aged Americans from voting

Source

New Hampshire's new Republican state House speaker is pretty clear about what he thinks of college kids and how they vote. They're "foolish," Speaker William O'Brien said in a recent speech to a tea party group. "Voting as a liberal. That's what kids do," he added, his comments taped by a state Democratic Party staffer and posted on YouTube. Students lack "life experience," and "they just vote their feelings."

New Hampshire House Republicans are pushing for new laws that would prohibit many college students from voting in the state - and effectively keep some from voting at all.

One bill would permit students to vote in their college towns only if they or their parents had previously established permanent residency there - requiring all others to vote in the states or other New Hampshire towns they come from. Another bill would end Election Day registration, which O'Brien said unleashes swarms of students on polling places, creating opportunities for fraud.

The measures in New Hampshire are among dozens of voting-related bills being pushed by newly empowered Republican state lawmakers across the country - prompting partisan clashes akin to those already roiling in some states over GOP moves to curb union power.

[...]

Hey, look. I can make sweeping generalizations about a group I don't associate with too. Old white people who vote for Republicans are stupid racist fucks whose paranoia and ignorance of the world around them is driving the nation off a cliff. Whether or not that's true, I don't want to limit anyone's right to vote because I'm not a god damn fascist.

Sunday Youtube Post

The 80s in four minutes

Why I refuse to drink

Another crosspost from that 30 day thing I'm doing on tumblr, in case you don't follow that. Don't blame you.

-------------------------------------------------------

I’m not sure if I’ve ever explained this to anyone in great detail.

Whenever I go to parties and bars with friends, I almost feel like it’s a chore. I tell them I’m having a good time of course, but I’m usually lying. I don’t drink and I’m not looking to get laid, so there’s really no point. Lets go see a show guyz. It’s not like I don’t enjoy meeting new people, it’s just that I’d rather do it when half the room isn’t drunk. I’d rather talk to people when they act how they normally act. And often the first thing people ask me at parties is why I don’t have any alcohol in my hand. And then there’s the look. I usually get a look.

And it’s not even a big deal to me that others drink. I don’t care if others enjoy themselves the way they want to. I’m an atheist so I don’t do this for religious reasons, and I’m not on some moral crusade. I do this for myself. There are two reasons I choose not to drink: 1) Alcohol is poisonous. Your liver is the only thing preventing it from killing you outright. If you drink enough of it, then it’s going to make you vomit, and feel like shit, and possibly even kill you. If other people can drink it responsibly and not be bothered by this, then it’s no skin off my back. It bothers me though. A lot. If something can kill me, then I’m not putting it in my mouth. Simple as that. If you think that’s strange, then fuck off. And 2) I care about my mind. The thought of drinking something that fucks with my head and alters the way I behave scares me a lot. My one brain is imperfect enough, and I’m not chipping away at it any more than I need to. I’m sure as shit not going to give up any amount of control over my thoughts and actions to a human being, so why the fuck would I give it up for an inanimate substance? That’s even worse. It’s not a strange thing to wish to be in control of myself to the highest degree possible. Here’s a quote from James Randi, he explains it much better than I could:

“Why people are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me. I want to be if I can, as sure of the real world around me as is possible. Now, you can only attain that to a certain degree but I want the greatest degree of control. I’ve never involved myself in narcotics of any kind, I don’t smoke, I don’t drink because that can easily just fuzz the edges of my rationality, fuzz the edges of my reasoning powers and I want to be as aware as I possibly can. That means giving up a lot of fantasies that might be comforting in some ways but I’m willing to give that up in order to live in an actually real world, or as close as I can get to it.”

This isn’t unreasonable. I don’t see myself as the weirdo here. This is common sense, and there’s absolutely no reason why it needs to be such a big thing to a lot of people. I actually don’t mind at all when I’m asked simple questions about it (really), because I know it’s uncommon, but if you act entirely dumbfounded like you can’t even comprehend the words I’m saying, then I’m going to lose a ton of respect for you. That says a lot more about you than it does about me. Why doesn’t anyone act bewildered when I say I don’t smoke pot? Why is alcohol use expected of me by default, in spite of the fact that it’s even more dangerous? Doesn’t anyone notice this?

And let me stress: I do not lose respect for people who drink responsibly. As long as you don’t hurt yourself or those around you, then have at it. Live your life the way you want to, I don’t give a shit. And please don’t worry about me going through life ‘missing out’ or ‘not having fun.’ It’s okay. I have fun in my own way. Alcohol makes me feel weird. I don’t like it when my mind isn’t clear and I can’t think. I don’t know why others think that’s fun, but I’m sure most of them don’t understand why I don’t, so. To each his own.

And I’m sure most alcohol enthusiasts don’t care about this either, and I’m likely preaching to an understanding, but politely disagreeable choir. But you people still confuse the hell out of me sometimes, and you’re not always nice. To those who are, I know we’re not always easy to deal with, so thank you.

The gentlewoman is correct in shutting the fuck up

Anthony Weiner, please run in 2012 against Barack Obama

Propaganda in America is alive and well

If you think Fox News is fair or balanced, then you are brainwashed and I'm not going to respect your opinions. A couple years ago, I wouldn't have agreed with that. I used to tolerate it as just a conservative wing of the media. But they are literally making shit up now, and if you still think there's a shred of actual journalism left with these propagandists, then there is nothing I can say or show you that can change your mind. Please leave. To those of you who still have power over your own opinions, here's a couple examples of Fox's fair and balanced coverage of Wisconsin.

Here's Bill O'Reilly portraying the Wisconsin protests as violent by airing footage of protesters who are not in Wisconsin. Fifteen seconds in, you will see palm trees.



Whoopsie daisy! Honest mistake! Just like when they aired the wrong rally footage to make Michelle Bachman look good! Or when they made it look like Ron Paul was booed at CPAC when he was never actually booed! Or when they took out laughter and applause at Obama's State of the Union address to replace it with silence and cricket sound effects! Or that one time when they showed the Gallup poll that said 61% of Americans opposed taking away collective bargaining rights for unions, and then reversed the results for no god damn reason.





Who woulda thunkit that all these mistakes just happened to help the Republican party!? What a funny coincidence! They should really have a talk with the guy who keeps messing this up, he's such a silly klutz!

But now they're going beyond simply editing footage. Now they've moved on to blatant lying. I can't find any footage of this, but a week or so ago, I saw someone on Hannity say that Scott Walker's budget bill would not eliminate collective bargaining rights for unions. That is a lie. But it gets worse. In their endless quest to portray the "violent" protesters in Wisconsin as something they're not, they made up a story about one of their reporters being “attacked,” “punched,” “hit,” and “battered" in the middle of a crowd. On live television. This should be a huge story! Why isn't the footage being blasted all across the air waves? What? He received a friendly pat on the shoulder? But... but... violent libruls... nazis... socialists... hitler...