Making Baltimore Into Bangkok

MeanMesa can see that the shabbily veiled ultimate profit line for miscreant losers such as Rush, Sean, Cheney and the "Boner" apparently rests squarely with the instigation of a civil war.  How else can our nation be cleansed of the liberal residue of  

A BLACK MAN IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!

and all the other liberal contamination which has crept into the country's politics?

Grumble, grumble.

Well, we enjoy a very literal, blood soaked example of exactly where  such an unexamined ambition might lead us.  The very questionable government of Thailand, already heavily soiled as the enduring product of a military coup, has finally opened fire on the protesters who have been demanding a real election.

At this writing there are around seventy of them known to be dead from rifle wounds inflicted by the Thai army.

However, this posting is not particularly about events in Thailand.  Instead, MeanMesa would like to present a few observations about the media fraud which seems intent on producing similar results here in the United States.  Still skeptical?  Take the test. 

Tune in for a few minutes of Rush's blathering about the "deadly, America wrecking liberals."  The $ size of his contract is determined by how much mistrust and division he succeeds in sowing among his regular listeners.  Further, if Rush "sticks in your throat," simply listen to what is presented as "news" on the corporate networks.

The Corporate Media Fraud in this case is one of innuendo.  The unexamined idea interposed in every single statement of what passes as network news implies that a civil war in the United States could be compared to similarities of what is transpiring in Thailand in the following way.

Who will be the insurgents?

Why, of course, the liberals would have to be the insurgents and the "ultra patriotic" neo-cons would be the forces of order -- you know, the ones with the rifles.  How else could it possibly be?  In Thailand, an alleged majority of Thai citizens are siding with the government, most likely because they are freaked out about their fellow Thais being gunned down in the streets.

But wait.  Who, precisely, is the national majority?

The Sunni Baathists in Iraq were conveniently convinced by the dictator that they comprised a majority of Iraqis, a ruse which somewhat validated their reactionary violence to keep the marauding "minority" Shi'ites at bay.  Actually, the Sunni represented only around a quarter of the Iraqi population while the Shi'ites represented a 60% majority.

Likewise, regardless of all their gaseous proclamations to the contrary, the neo-cons are a distinct minority in the current U.S. political climate.  Oh sure, Senator McChinless rails on endlessly about "Thu 'Merican people has spoke," but talk is one thing and votes are another.

MeanMesa thinks that the American population is strongly committed to progressive ideas -- everything from the public option to combating climate change.  We'll just take our chances on that assessment being right.  Everyone is totally tired of being painted as free market junkies by the media frauds.

Then, there is also the already deflating gas bag concerning "unleashin' thu Tea Baggers!"  Estimates on the total number of Tea Baggers who are still fit enough to vote without the aid of a walker is around 10,000.  Rush, Sean and Cheny -- if any of them had ever actually served in the military -- might conclude that these Social Security receiving, bitching chorus squawkers would probably be somewhat lacking as a "shock wave" strike force for their civil war wet dream.

Whose "ox has been gored?"

With super cunning neo-con banksters holding 60% of the nation's wealth while the remainder of the population staggers forth in survival mode, it might be a case of "heavy lifting" to paint the neo-cons as belabored, long suffering, disenfranchised second class citizens.

Oh sure, these throw backs control the Supreme Court and the corporate media machines, but, once the bullets start flying, those assets may be quickly forgotten.  The media fraud has gone to great lengths to imply that the military would blindly come to the aid of the neo-cons, but the unsettling fact is that six times as many of the active troops contributed to the Obama campaign compared to the war mongering geezer we have been convinced would be their anticipated  choice.

Finally, when considered on an individual basis, which side would enjoy the greatest energy and commitment should such strife actually begin?

If it is a matter of complaining, screaming and making semi-literate protest signs, the Tea Baggers might do well enough.  On the other hand, all those Sundays of long walks to knock on doors during the campaign suggest that maybe the progressives are in better shape.

The neo-cons rushed the gun shops, blathering about a "take over."  They emptied the shelves of ammunition, baked beans and battery powered lanterns.  The corporate media fraud intended to intimidate us with relentless "news" stories about how well armed and crazy the neo-con reactionaries were.

Yawn.

Bring 'em on.

MeanMesa suspects that there is, indeed, a "sleeping tiger" lurking among the voters.  However, MeanMesa also suspects that this "politician munching kitty" does not represent a tidal wave of neo-cons.  Only the Republicans continue to exhaust themselves trying frantically to believe that they still enjoy some sort of a majority among the electorate.

Part Two: "Chatting" It Up With Baggers

Although this post is directed specifically at domestic MeanMesa visitors, perhaps our international readers may also be interested.  Our national "mid-term" elections will  be rolling in on us this November, and that means it is very likely that MeanMesa visitors will be engaged in pre-election discourse with our fellow citizens from the uninformed "hill billy and bigot" crowd.

Now, MeanMesa relishes such brutal little tete-tetes.  Each encounter is yet another opportunity to confront these throw backs on their own ground.  Such "matches" add a wonderfully fulfilling, interpersonal "condiment" to the vital spark of life.

However, although these conversations can be considered "good ole' boy fun," there may be a few suggestions which can make your "bigot baiting" even more successful.  So -- this posting will cover a few possibilities which could help you make your point.

Family Photos of Tea Baggers in Action - Courtesy of Huffington Post

1.  The Bagger will want to avoid any argument which is based on facts.

The neo-cons, already starving from the drivel they are fed by the likes of FOX "News," Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are quite averse to ever discussing politics which has arisen from factual material.  We are not talking "secret conspiracy theories" or some kind of arcane, esoteric political philosophy here.

No, a referral to even the most pedestrian sort of information one might consider readily available to the "man on the street" will cause panic among the  Baggers.  Given this premise, you can expect absolutely no conversational bout the facts involved in any issue whatsoever.  Instead, your neo-con conversational partner can be expected to immediately dispute the source of the facts, never the facts themselves.

2.  Always present your own progressive position in the most immediate and personal basis possible.

Remember:  "Generalizations mean nothing to the Bagger."  The parents of the "bite and grab" crowd have taught their off spring that cash in the pocket "right now" means everything.  Possible future events  mean nothing.

The neo-cons have been listening to half-wits such as Sean Hannity trot out their famous "most people think..." or "it is widely accepted..." authentications for a relentless collection of  trailer park conversational gambits.  In fact, the sort of repartee you will encounter from this type will almost always include citing a specific case which is supposed to validate a much broader conclusion.

For example, "Mah neighbah gits them food stemps, and his kids gotta a damned cell phone."  Such an introduction will only be able to "grow legs" if it can be, somehow, associated with "Some people say..." or "Most Americans think..."

3.  Always ask the Bagger "reasonable" questions which are always based on your immediate personal positions and not facts. 

Any question which elicits an alternative to the Limbaugh/Hannity line instead of more bitching -- "Ah want mah liberty back!" -- will immediately confound the Bagger.

Here we can indulge in a few examples.

Bagger Premise:  I hate Obama.

Response:  "Who would you like to be President instead of Obama?"

Bagger Premise:  I hate Obama's policies.

Response:  "Exactly what policies do you think we should be following?"

Bagger Premise:  Obama's wrecking the economy with a giant deficit.

Response:  "I'm still walkin' bow legged after that butt ponding that last bunch of your friends gave me."

Response:  "George Bush borrowed every nickel anyone would loan us."

Response:  "George Bush borrowed money to make his cuts."

Response:  "George Bush borrowed money to pay for his Medicare Program."

Response:  "George Bush never included the expense of his wars on the budget.  Obama has."

Response:  "George Bush quadrupled the national debt in eight years.  The deficit was a $130 billion in the black at the end of the Clinton administration.  It was more than $4 trillion in the red after Bush Jr."

Bagger Premise:  I hate Obama's bank Bailouts.

Response:  "George W. Bush made the bailouts.  His Treasury Secretary used to be the CEO of Goldman Sachs."

Response:   "Goldman Sachs is being sued by the Security Exchange Commission for fraud."

Response:  "Goldman Sachs' biggest competitor, Lehman, was sent to bankruptcy -- no bailout.  One year after the bail out, Goldman Sachs is making record profit."

Bagger Premise:  Obama is raising taxes.

Response:  "You, and 95% of all other Americans have had a tax break by Obama.  Your 2009 taxes would have been much higher under the Bush tax policy."

Bagger Premise:  Obama's a socialist.

Response: "George Bush allowed his Wall Street cronies to privatize their profits while  socializing their losses.  That means, they got to keep their 'profits' and we had to pay back their 'losses.'  That is socialism."

Bagger Premise:  Obama isn't doing enough to reverse unemployment.

Response:  "Job losses began seven months before the end of the Bush administration.  He did nothing.  Obama's policies are now showing the first job growth since then."

Bagger Premise:  The Obamacare entitlement will bankrupt the country.

Response:  "Not changing health care policy would have bankrupt the country in ten years.  When the Republicans were in charge, they did nothing."
Response:  "The entire cost of Obama's health care reform is on the budget.  It is deficit neutral.  He said that he would not sign a bill that increased the national debt.  He didn't."
Response:  "The word 'entitlement' is a neo-con talking point.  The Americans insured under the Obama policy will pay for their health care -- the same as now."


Bagger Premise:  Obama's health care policy is not free enterprise.

Response:  The existing health care is not free enterprise.  Americans wanted to buy what everyone else has.  It is not free enterprise when the government won't allow Americans to buy what they want."

Bagger Premise:  Obama is a Communist and a Fascist.  He is doing what Hitler did.

Response:  "According to the dictionary a Communist is the exact political opposite of a fascist.  Which one will you choose?"
Response:   "No one can be either a Communist or a Fascist just because someone said so.  What other reason do you have to think whatever you think?"

Bagger Premise:  Obama is spending our children's future.

Response:  "Obama has required the Congress to pay for all money they spend.  Your man Bush didn't.  Bush borrowed the money he spent and signed your name to the note.  Your children's future will be paying back Bush's loans."

Of course, MeanMesa urges all visitors to add their own gaseous, zany to the conversation.  Although the variety of topics available for chit-chats with these information starved citizens may seem limited at first blush, a bit of traditional American "stick-to-it-iveness" will, in time, fill out the "bouquet." 

Have fun, but be safe.  FOX "News" has made these Baggers unpredictable and violent.

The June 29th Coincidence

A short, wretched fiction: the tale of two neo-con radio hosts gasping in unison about the Supreme Court firefighters decision. 104

Scene 1: Kentucky. The electronic media lab which was contracted to tally the Ohio votes in the 2004 election grew still after the votes were “certified.” Once the election had been “won,” the White House blanketed the place with its usual cover. The “special magic” of the place had not been needed after Mr. Blackwell’s contract was, uh, “completed.”

However, with the GOP disaster in 2008, the place exploded into a new life and a new mission. It was now the official “Neo-Con Talking Points Factory." Our “visit” occurs on June 29, 2009, the day the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Connecticut fire fighters was announced. The shift supervisor rushes into the “war room,” grasping a crumpled email in his hands.

Supervisor: “We’ve got new marching orders from the top! We have to trash Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination! Get on it, Schmidt!”

Schmidt: “I’ve already been through about a thousand of her rulings. There’s nothing there -- there’s nothing even a little bit stinky.”

“The ‘activist judge’ thing was too complicated for our base. She’s only had rulings overturned a half a dozen times on appeal. The ‘rascist’ pitch connected with a few bigots down south, but they were already in our pocket before we started.”

“Have you got any more ideas?”

Supervisor: “Only one, Schmidt, only one. It’s a long shot, but we have to try something! We get paid to follow orders.”

“Go back through this thing again. It’s a damned perfect storm. Firefighters from Connecticut, not promoted because they were white. Our base on the street can understand something like this, sort of.”

“Roberts delivered the verdict they paid for, 5-4, but he’s already started asking how many more favors he’s got to produce to pay back for the GOP cover during his own nomination hearings. I mean, he appreciates not having to answer questions about that conflict of interest case with the insurance company, but now he’s bucking a little, you now, getting nervous, complaining.”

Schmidt: “Wait a minute. I'm getting it now! What if the Supreme Court decision was unanimous instead of 5-4? That paints a picture of Sotomayor’s ruling as radical -- outrageous, you know, out of the ball park! Something like that could get some traction in the base.”

Supervisor: “Yeah, it could, but the problem with that idea is that the ruling was 5-4, not 9 - zip. Throwing something like that might be a bigger trick than any of the stuff we usually do. Anyway, the Supreme Court ruling has already been all over the media.”

Schmidt: “That’s my point! The hill billies don’t understand anything about the Supreme Court anyway, but they love white men getting discriminated against. The ‘grudge’ crowd who think that Obama is out for their jobs and their guns will glue on to something like this like pigs at a wiener festival.”

“We could fire up a lot phone calls to the Senate against her. You and I both know that facts don’t matter with our voters. We can rewrite the whole story! Make the Supreme Court ruling 9 - 0. That would mean that even the liberals voted to over turn her ruling.”

Supervisor: “God! That’s just crazy enough to work. So few of our base know what the Court actually did, we can put this out and just look stupid to a few of the smarter ones. Call Hannity and Limbaugh! Hit 'em hard, but make it look like a coincidence.”

The June 29th Coincidence

Rush Limbaugh Radio Show, June 29, 2009.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_062909/content/01125109.guest.html
Rush Limbaugh discussing the Supreme Court decision in the firefighters case.

"RUSH: Now, the Sotomayor case. I want you to hear the State-Run Media describe the bad news. There's no question Sotomayor was overturned. Her court decided in favor of the City of New Haven and the black firefighters that didn't score as well on tests. Summary judgment without a trial, and they have been upbraided for this by not only the majority in the Supreme Court today (it was Anthony Kennedy's opinion) but also by Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent. And this is why brilliant legal analysts are saying this decision when you get down to it is actually 9-zip, not 5-4 when you look at some of the things that Ginsburg wrote about the mistakes and not even hearing the case, not even taking the constitutional questions. And the reason for this is... I go back to what I said at the beginning, and I stand by this."

Sean Hannity Show, June 29, 2009, courtesy of RealClearPolitics.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/29/ricci_interview_hannity_transcript_97240.html
Sean Hannity interviewing Karen Torre, attorney for firefighters.

"HANNITY: Karen, I know this is a 5-4 decision, and by any objective measure, people would say well, this is a pretty close case, but in essence, when you look at it, really, it's almost 9-0 because even those in the minority found that the Second Circuit with Judge Sotomayor had really botched this case. Is that your reading of it?"

I guess we shouldn't really be that surprised when great journalists arrive at the same conclusion at the same time on the same day a week before the confirmations hearings start in the Senate.

What Could Be Better Than Slogans?

BLOGdoc 1 November 11, 2007 "Fight them over there, etc." Really?

I hear things, perhaps things on the radio, that seem, at the moment, utterly reasonable. That is, these things seem to be suspiciously easy to not only believe at the moment but also to effortlessly incorporate into my memory for use at all sorts of times when various opportunities arise in, say, otherwise innocent conversations.

In fact, this unfortunate process may well describe the transformation of a man into a knee-jerk reactionary, especially when the initial idea is presented by psychological pyromaniacs such as Limbaugh, O’Riley or their “little engine that could” Hannidy. This unwholesome group might as well include those in the Bush/Cheney Fear Inciting and Speech Writing Task Force.

Claims such as these are little more than cannon fodder on the inter net in the absence of examples. It is my sincere hope that the following might be employed constructively in the conversations at the shops, coffee shops, barber shops or mechanic shops.

“Fight them over there or fight them here.” Seasoned analysis of the violence in Iraq places Al Queada influence (by their frequency as perpetrators) well down on the list of perpetrators, that is, below sectarian violence, tribal violence, religious violence, out of country jihadist violence and simple crime. We might even add the violent effect of the tedium of life without security, water, sewer or schools for otherwise unaffiliated Iraqis. These represent ample motivation for violence stemming from frustration.

The Bush/Cheney Fear Inciting and Speech Writing Task Force publicity rules require that Iraqi violence be attributed to the Al Quaeda at least once in every three sentences of all publicity releases by American Generals and even those famous “on the street” interviews with lesser ranks or selected civilians. (The domestic form of this is the intense repetition of the term “911” by the President and Mr. Juliani.)

How many Iraqi Al Quaeda are there? One thousand? Five thousand? Next question, how many did it take to blow up the Trade Towers? The answer is roughly twenty Saudi Arabians.

Back to “Fight them over there or fight them here,” we have to ask “Which twenty are we after?” In the unlikely event that all Iraqi Al Quaeda are neutralized, will we not need to continue our concern over instances such as the Moroccans in Spain or the Libyans in Lockaby?

Aside from the obvious oil graft, the no-bid war profiteering and the psychotic dreams of Christian Crusades, what are we doing? Of course, we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here!