It's just like all those crazy Fundamentalist Evangelical Christianist Neo-conservative children's songs about Bush that you've seen all over the place the last 8 years as he's built his Fascist military state that we all suffer under now.
Click and enjoy. Or be afraid. Whatever.
Reminded me of this:
and this.
Hope and Change. Is this the kind of alternative learning Ayers and Obama had in mind during 1995-2001 through community organizing and the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Why, I think it is. Where can I sign my kids up?!
UPDATE: Looks like blue(shirt) is the new brown(shirt), and President and CEO of NBC Universal Jeff Zucker and other Hollywood liberal elites are behind it. Shocking.
UPDATE 2: And now the link above has mysteriously been scrubbed from the net faster than China could scrub Tibet protesters from the Olympics. If I can find a new link to the video I'll link it. Apparently this video has followed Obama's Pre-Presidential Seal down the history hole as well. For now, watch this and pretend the Brady kids are all wearing Change shirts and mindlessly singing Sunday school songs replacing Jesus' name with Obama's.
UPDATE 3: Fixed, for now.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
I Tawt I Taw a Paradigm Shift!
During my morning surfing I came across Victor Davis Hanson's "What was Feminism?" and Kathleen Parker's USA Today Op-Ed "Feminist Template Obliterated"
Both articles discuss a historically recent characterization of the Feminist Woman, a character we're all familiar with. For me, a guy in his mid-thirties, the word generates images of black and white photos from history books of leaders of the women's suffrage movement, of grainy 60's t.v. news footage of radicals burning bras, of grad school and aging butch or hippy professors, Gloria Steinem, and more recently even Madonna, Hillary, NOW, and Code Pink. From what (admittedly little) I know of the history of Feminism, these images correlate to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave definitions of the progression of Feminism. These waves and their stereotypical characterizations of the Feminist Woman have never been more than academic to me. I understand their intent, their goals, their successes, their positives (rights for equality in voting, in education, in the home and in the workplace) and negatives (single issue abortion rights obsessions and, ahem, Madonna). But none, except perhaps some of those old black and white women's suffrage photos, were ever personally recognizable to me as illustrations of the strong, independent women I know.
Then comes Sarah Palin. And I'm thinking about a lot of women I know personally. My late grandmothers. My aunts. My sister and sister-in-laws. My Mom and mother-in-law. My friends. And especially my wife. These women cover the spectrum of political ideology, career choice and family life, but they all have many things in common. They are educated, strong, and independent. They've made choices and worked hard to achieve successes in life. Some have obtained professional college degrees and careers, or taken leadership positions in their churches and with non-profit organizations, or served as staff or Board members of colleges and universities. Some have been published in magazines or professional journals or written books. None strike me as subservient...not to anyone. But all, to different extents, have faced great challenges. All have made sacrifices, too. Sacrifices for family and faith and career and charity. They have done it all, without riding any coattails, just like the men in my lifetime have done. In in all honesty, they've more than often done it better. These are the feminists of my life that I understand on a personal level, that are more than caricatures, more than academic.
The blogs and national media have been a whirlwind and a circus since McCain's announcement of Palin as V.P. 90% of the buzz has been political and entertainment media b.s. that blogs and media find good for ratings and politicians find useful as emotional red-meat offerings to party bases and identity sub-groups. It's been fascinating to watch McCain suddenly energized and unable to wipe a grin off his face, to see the sudden (and worrisome) cult of personality rising around Palin when weeks ago the cult of personality was all about Obama. To see the shock and stumble of Obama, the change in the way he is speaking and even carrying himself. But this will all be temporary, as Palin's newness wears off, and the debates begin, and we refocus again on the records and ideologies and policy proposals of the two candidates at the top of the tickets.
However, 10% of the buzz has the potential, I think, to grow into something beyond the 2008 election. IF McCain/Palin ends up winning in November, or even if they lose but Palin continues to grow in experience and stature in American politics, we may be witnessing an unexpected (as they usually are) paradigm shift in what images the word Feminist calls forth. Of a Feminist who is judged not by her ideology or defined by an issue, but is celebrated for her character, individuality and achievement. Of Feminists set free from litmus tests and rules and labels to be whatever the hell they wanted to be. That would be exciting for some, unacceptable to others. And as paradigm shifts always are, progress to some and a step backwards to others.
As for me? This surfer is hoping the Fourth Wave is a big one.
Both articles discuss a historically recent characterization of the Feminist Woman, a character we're all familiar with. For me, a guy in his mid-thirties, the word generates images of black and white photos from history books of leaders of the women's suffrage movement, of grainy 60's t.v. news footage of radicals burning bras, of grad school and aging butch or hippy professors, Gloria Steinem, and more recently even Madonna, Hillary, NOW, and Code Pink. From what (admittedly little) I know of the history of Feminism, these images correlate to the 1st, 2nd and 3rd wave definitions of the progression of Feminism. These waves and their stereotypical characterizations of the Feminist Woman have never been more than academic to me. I understand their intent, their goals, their successes, their positives (rights for equality in voting, in education, in the home and in the workplace) and negatives (single issue abortion rights obsessions and, ahem, Madonna). But none, except perhaps some of those old black and white women's suffrage photos, were ever personally recognizable to me as illustrations of the strong, independent women I know.
Then comes Sarah Palin. And I'm thinking about a lot of women I know personally. My late grandmothers. My aunts. My sister and sister-in-laws. My Mom and mother-in-law. My friends. And especially my wife. These women cover the spectrum of political ideology, career choice and family life, but they all have many things in common. They are educated, strong, and independent. They've made choices and worked hard to achieve successes in life. Some have obtained professional college degrees and careers, or taken leadership positions in their churches and with non-profit organizations, or served as staff or Board members of colleges and universities. Some have been published in magazines or professional journals or written books. None strike me as subservient...not to anyone. But all, to different extents, have faced great challenges. All have made sacrifices, too. Sacrifices for family and faith and career and charity. They have done it all, without riding any coattails, just like the men in my lifetime have done. In in all honesty, they've more than often done it better. These are the feminists of my life that I understand on a personal level, that are more than caricatures, more than academic.
The blogs and national media have been a whirlwind and a circus since McCain's announcement of Palin as V.P. 90% of the buzz has been political and entertainment media b.s. that blogs and media find good for ratings and politicians find useful as emotional red-meat offerings to party bases and identity sub-groups. It's been fascinating to watch McCain suddenly energized and unable to wipe a grin off his face, to see the sudden (and worrisome) cult of personality rising around Palin when weeks ago the cult of personality was all about Obama. To see the shock and stumble of Obama, the change in the way he is speaking and even carrying himself. But this will all be temporary, as Palin's newness wears off, and the debates begin, and we refocus again on the records and ideologies and policy proposals of the two candidates at the top of the tickets.
However, 10% of the buzz has the potential, I think, to grow into something beyond the 2008 election. IF McCain/Palin ends up winning in November, or even if they lose but Palin continues to grow in experience and stature in American politics, we may be witnessing an unexpected (as they usually are) paradigm shift in what images the word Feminist calls forth. Of a Feminist who is judged not by her ideology or defined by an issue, but is celebrated for her character, individuality and achievement. Of Feminists set free from litmus tests and rules and labels to be whatever the hell they wanted to be. That would be exciting for some, unacceptable to others. And as paradigm shifts always are, progress to some and a step backwards to others.
As for me? This surfer is hoping the Fourth Wave is a big one.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
pwned!!!
Read and enjoy as this commenter "LPM" takes down commenter "FuzzyMath"
Fuzzy Math Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cannot figure out the average Repub. Earns less
> than 10 Grand a year. Has nothing, no education
> and come November goes out and votes for a
> candidate that does not even think he exists,
> remember Mccain's definiton of middle class i.e.
> one making less than 5 million. Now for the next
> four years this same idiot crys over how expensive
> it is to fill the beat up truck that guzzles gas
> like there is no tomorrow. It is impossible to
> reason with this type of moron and explain
> economics 101 to him/her
Posted by: LPM
Sep 07, 10:32 PM Report Abuse
Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Mr Fuzzy,
Try on these economics. Perhaps this is simple enough for you:
Sometimes politicians can exclaim; "It's just a tax cut for the rich!", and it is just accepted to be fact. But what does that really mean? Just in case you are not completely clear on this issue, I hope the following will help.
Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh $7.
The eighth $12.
The ninth $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So that's what they decided to do.
The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20."
So, now the dinner for the ten cost $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So, the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six, the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share"?
The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being "PAID" to eat their meal.
So, the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of$59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
"I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man "but he got $10!"
"Yeah that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than me!"
"That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I only got $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth (the richest) and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax deduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up to the table anymore.
There are lots of good restaurants in Europe and the Caribbean.
- David R. Kamerschen, Ph. D., Distinguished Professor of Economics, University of Georgia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
