That stands for Post white Male privilege Syndrome.
Seriously, you have got to be fucking kidding me. We have had two female Supreme Court justices, and still the defenders of white male privilege trot out the PMS argument. What should be no surprise is that it would come from a man who conspired against the Constitution.
Just as it was no surprise that Sonia Sotomayer would be Obama's pick to the Supreme Court, it is no surprise that racial jealousy would gain ground opposing her nomination. She's got a pretty terrific life story. But the morons don't want to hear it; they want to hear how picked on they are because no one cares about their life story. They are so jealous of acclaim that they will create people out of thin air, more worthy of our interest, to their way of thinking. And then they will demand that we hold Sotomayer to that standard of hardship. And then they will demand that we admit that she only got a nomination to the highest court because of her race. And all of it will be a stupid fucking lie, slathered in jealous spite. Some apparently think that that's the best of the American way.
Like my reader, and I'm sure a lot of other Americans, I get mighty
annoyed by the unspoken implication in a lot of commentary that anyone
not a member of a Protected Minority must have grown up in a
twelve-bedroom lakeside mansion and been chauffered off to prep school
with a silver spoon in his mouth.
John Derbyshire compares Apples and Oranges (himself with a federal court judge) and actually thinks we need to be sympathetic because he can't understand the stupidity behind his claim. I have a question: If Latinas are such a Protected Minority, then why has not one ever been nominated to the fucking Supreme Court before? Derbyshire's answer is that no Montana mother has been nominated either so life is unfair, and so is Obama. Derbyshire's answer is that no black meter maid from Compton has been nominated, so life is unfair, and so is Obama. Derbyshire's answer is a Straw Man fallacy concerning the people who actually look at the candidate instead of where she came from. Derbyshire is full of shit.
It's pretty obvious that the Republicants are pulling out all the stops to paint Sotomayer in every bad light possible. They are dry humping the racist trope that she is an affirmative action hire, and look to dismiss the hardships that she had to overcome because someone, anyone, else might have had to deal with hardship as well. But overcoming hardship for her was a given and for us whitey folk it was actual work. Is there even one 0f you out there who believe that bullshit? She has accomplished what she accomplished because of her effort and knowledge. To the stupid, she accomplished what she accomplished because a federal mandate wrote that a female project child of latin origin would be appointed to the Supreme Court. Since Derbyshire is obviously too stupid to even tie his own shoelaces, it's pretty clear that he won't be able to present in writing such a mandate. He had to create a commenter/emailer just to make his point that Sotomayer should be reviled because others had it tough as well and they didn't get their story told in the national press.
Yo, dipstick, they didn't get their story told in the national press because they weren't nominated for the fucking Supreme Court. If Derbyshit and his anonymous emailer are tired of hearing about Sotomayer's tough road, then maybe they ought to actually do something worthy of notice. Sotomayer's story is not being presented because she is of dusky skin, but because she got nominated for the Supreme Fucking Court. If you think you had it every bit as hard or harder, then do something worth noticing. She did. Or are we suddenly calling for affirmative action applied to fictional Montana white women and loser NRO authors ... ?
Let's skip to the amusing part. Mike Harris, who definately isn't and couldn't possibly be a racist (~wink~) swallows Derbyshire's load whole, with gulping and chin dribble, I've no doubt. He celebrates the fact that a woman who probably doesn't even exist except in Derbyshire's imagination would be the one to point out that white folk are so picked on. He claims that Derbyshire's fabrication is an "obviously accomplished Montana attorney". There is no evidence, none, not any, NOTTA, that the Derb didn't make this commenter up out of his own racist fantasy. But Mike? He's in, baby. Don't let them darkies have a story that appeals, if one can create another story that might appeal if it only had relevance.
Sotomayer's story is compelling. She didn't get where she is because of affirmative action, any more than Clarence Thomas did. These stupid fucking assholes like Harris and the Derb want rational people to be jealous that the darkies be stealing our power. Guess what folk? They are un-American. I wish they would follow through on their promises and leave the country because they are bad for America and Americans. I know that racist cowardly assholes never will. That is sad.
The citizens of this country can make a difference by helping to
challenge a failing system within our democracy. Now is the time for
the people to tell the federal government-Don’t Thread On Me or there will be consequences. Without us uniting on our principles we cannot stop the seeds of socialism being sowed.
First, Dude, Glen Beck is *not* 'national news'. He's more like 'national psycho'.
Um, second, you appear confused about that word 'Democracy'. You're trying to point out that socialism is opposed to democracy, at the same time you claim it's a growing/failing system with in our democracy. Which is it, kitten?
Third, if we actually have anything resembling "our principles" in this democracy, then socialism has already met it's end at the will of the people. Wait, wut? It hasn't? It's a "seed"? Cuopcake, maybe "our principles" aren't what you think they are.
Now, anybody who could write such a stupid paragraph either doesn't understand the words he's using, or he's too insane to see his own contradictions. In this case, I'm gonna have to go with the former, simply out of polite deference.\
The best part of the series was the appearance of Rep. Joel Boniek R-Livingston and Gary MarbutHB-246 (read about it here on the TSNROUNDUP blog ) and how it has become a key
issue in our state. The courts are now acting upon the issue through
it seems they always don’t listen to the thoughts of the people.
See, vodpod (a true activist's identity ... BEHOLD and FEAR ME; for I am VODPOD!), you can't even remain consistent within 3 short sentences. I read for certain that you wrote this was about making an issue for the Federal government. You haven't even shown that it's key within our own state, and now that makes it ... I can't tell ... a logical mess?
And, no. One thousand times plus one, no. It is not, nor has it ever been, nor hopefully will it ever be, the task of the judiciary to "listen to the thoughts" of the people. They are not fricking mind readers or psychics. They are legal professionals tasked with listening to the law. It's likely to remain that way until you either get Mistress Cleo elected or appointed to the bench, or you change that Constitutuion that so defies your will.
As more states take up a similar issue it will hopefully lead to all states calling for sovereignty from the federal government.
Montana is not now, nor has it ever been, a sovereign entity (leaving aside the claims of first nations folk.) We are as we were formed, as we have been since our inception, a state within a union of states. For us to declare sovereignty now might seem way wicked and killer kewl, but at heart, it's treason. Yes, we should have control of our gun rights, based on the Second amendment. But to base those on the Tenth is calling for anything but the "civilest" of wars. It's acall to arms against the government which has fostered and secured us. I don't expect a wingnut to understand that. All he will grasp is his erection at our enormous illusory power.
It doesn't matter how many we declare. We simply will never, we simply cannot, win a war against a noun.
The Obama administration's new drug czar says he wants to banish the
idea that the U.S. is fighting "a war on drugs," a move that would
underscore a shift favoring treatment over incarceration in trying to
reduce illicit drug use.
Don't get me wrong, I think the fighting is far from over. Over the last 30 years we have created a monolithic and imperious system of incarceration. Those who draw livelihood from locking up teenage pot smokers will be none too happy about seeing an end to the War which has kept them flush. Law enforcement won't appreciate having to prove their worth against violent offenders when it's just so much easier to nab coeds with a joint. No law agency will appreciate losing the taking of private property for their own financial gain. There will likely be those who claim we've lost this war against immorality. There will indeed be those who will claim that society will suffer the terror from the DUDE WITH MUNCHIES! So what. They will only be protecting their own indentured ass from what is rational.
People will do drugs. Tobacco, caffeine, alkeehol, marajawahna, whatever. If someone has a problem, we should help them. There is no reason to use others as a state means of generating revenue. There is no reason to enslave folk behind concrete just so that others have a job. We are an indulgent people, and it is simply immoral to task indulgence from some to pay for indulgence on the part of others. This war is lost.
It's not over. The 'justice system' hires adviocates and lobbyists. The politicians use 'crime' as a buzzword for election. Cops use 'drugs' as a substitute for real crime. None of them want to see the war they love so dearly come to an end. They'll fight, and they might win. I personally doubt it, but we'll see.
It never surprises me when someone else puts a argument far better than I could have. Thus, we have Gavin M. at Sadly, NO!
What conservatives must try to hide all the time, causing
spectacular screw-ups and flame-outs, and ensuring the doom of any
sincere effort to ‘reinvent the party,’ is that their core motivator,
once you cut through the bread-and-circuses issues like gay marriage,
immigration, and abortion, is the removal of governmental and societal
checks on the power of private interests, in order to funnel off the
wealth collected and held since World War II by a large and prosperous
Of course, if you went around saying it like that, the public would
chase you with sticks. So coming up with plausible cover stories,
inventing clever topsy-turvyisms and philosophical whack-a-mole
routines in order to sell policies specifically designed to disempower and impoverish the public
— well, there’s the trick, right there. Right there you have the basic
and irreducible project of ‘conservatism’: a philosophical and
practical movement that coalesced in the early 1950s largely as a
reaction against the New Deal (and largely funded from the beginning by
self-interested business figures), and with the intention of
dismantling those parts of government that were set up, then and
earlier, to protect citizens from powerful private interests, while
strengthening the parts of government that protect those powerful
interests from citizens.
One is a conniving and deceitful wretch, frequently thwarted, promoting sins of lust, vanity and greed above any virtue, and runs a campaign to seduce the weak minded into worship of himself. The other, of course, is a mythological fallen angel.
A friend of John Avarosis put this phenomenon the best way possible:
Chris raises an excellent point about conservatives and free speech.
Their version of free speech means they get to talk and you don't. They
get their way, and you don't. They get to cram their beliefs down your
throat, and if you object, then you're intolerant. Thus, when Miss
California went on stage and was asked a question by a judge - knowing
full well that the way a beauty pageant works is you get asked a
question and then get judged on your answer - because she's a
conservative, we're not permitted to judge her on her answer, we're not
permitted to exercise our free speech (or even follow the simple rules
of judging a beauty pageant) lest we impinge upon her right to "free
That is precisely true, the way of things in modern America. IOKIYAAR.
I don't mind that the wingnutunderwear streaks want to hold Nancy Pelosi accountable for torture. What I do mind, is that that isn't what they're doing. What they're doing is claiming that they have proof that Nancy Pelosi knew about the use of torture and did nothing ... when there was nothing she could do, if she really even knew. And to them, it's the fault of the left that those who couldn't do anything didn't do anything. Blame with no crime, and the butt-butter Republicants think that makes sense. It's a shell game, and they actually think that Americans are dumb enough not only to play, but to bet against the meaningless shit they foist by agreeing that this meaningless shit has meaning. They can't prove dick about Pelosi, but they want focus on her instead of on the ones who really had the power. I admire their desire for accountability, as long as those who were really responsible aren't held accountable.
Is it really any wonder why I, or any rational person, hate these fucking shitstains? Maybe that's why, electorially speaking, we're done attempting bleach and just throwing them away with the other garbage.
In half a decade, conservatism has gone from a fearsome political
machine unified by cultural, social and economic issues to your
malcontent uncle who keeps trying to get you into rambling, asinine
arguments that’s he’s already lost a dozen times over.
I truly admire the fact that he writes openly about the sad relationship shared between advocates of conservativism and those of Objectivism. They simply don't have their heart in the fight, and it's easy to see why. The fight is how to control and induce destruction, without destroying what you use to control the destruction. That's custom made failure, right there.
At heart, the grand argument of conservatism is small government (notice that only rarely is there an argument made as to what that is supposed to mean.) Invariably, it comes down to a specific instance where the advocate wants what they want based on a ideal that they can't elaborate on, often for political reasons. Notice the similarity to Objectivist thought. If you have to elaborate on an ideal that most would disfavor, your 'ideal' will be seen as simply crazy, and will never be accepted in a representative republic.
'I should be allowed to put up a garish billboard on my property because property rights are absolute'. Uh, no. Not when those rights infringe on the rights of others. All such things are deemed good by sane people. This is reality, and often accepted even by conservatives. The grandious ideal is always subject to reality in the specific. But not in the case of conservatism or Objectivism. In Objectivism, the contradiction is obvious. Assert your will too much at the expense of others, and the lowly others will eat you. So much for the power to go Galt.
Conservatism is not quite so simple but just as contradictory. Before any read this, please accept that I do not draw an equality between conservatives and Conservatism. They are distinct entities, where one relies on the other for strength, and that is it's downfall. Conservatism holds that small government or no government is always better and preferable to large government or government involvement. Those who believe and advocate this tripe (from Goldwater to Reagan and beyond) always rely on conservatives to garner the power which they believe will instantiate this ideal. Are you starting to see the contradiction? Conservatism garners it's adherants in order to grant them power in government, such that they might kill the power of government. That's granting power to people one sincerly expects to kill themselves to kill the power they have. That is a contradiction, and it will never happen. But the insane continue to expect it. The majority of people in our Democracy aren't insane, and thus conservatism dies.
I have a certain respect for the 'tea party' movement. They are corrupt from the innards in that they mostly hate our President and will do all to stop him from success. But, every once in a while, they have a flash of intelligence. Those we have granted power are out of the control of those who gave them that power. This should be pursued and argued against. It is not surprising to me that the Democrats are engaging in this, to the point where the disgruntled gave BushCo the last hurrah of Conservatism. But most Republicants remain clueless about the very contradiction in their midst, the worship and support of power they will never have. They will continue with the same sad, tired, contradictory arguments they always have ... at least among those who haven't fled to the more comfortable pastures of "independant".