Fox & Friends punked by Obama supporter
This is a video of SEO marketer Fox & Friends getting "punked." Other headlines read "Gloriously Punked", "Pranked", "Owned", and "Pwned."
Right wing marionette Gretchen Carlson thought she was interviewing a former Obama supporter turned Romnomaniac, but no:
the man who pranked Fox News said he's always believed "Fox News is a fake news organization," and explained that he wanted to shame the conservative television channel for being "stupid" and looking for interview subjects as if they were "casting a part in a show.
Pwonage.
I.
The thing is, your brain has to be full of prions to think that this "Punked By Obama Supporter" video shows Fox being punked, either that or you're in first grade where the following exchange is considered an awesome practical joke: "I told you my name's Bill, but it's not, it's Will! All this time you thought it was Bill! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!" I'd warn that kid he's going to get himself beat up at recess if I wasn't helping collect the dirt bombs.
Imagine you are in the target demo for Fox & Friends (i.e. your ex-husband drives an F150 and your daughter's Nokia is bedazzled), would you feel punked? What would you see in the video? You'd see a wise ass, a self-aggrandizing cynic, a douchebag. So if he's pro-Obama, then the point is obvious: pro-Obama people are idiots. Thanks, Max, you helped the cause.
Imagine Gretchen Carlson doing what she should have done if she was smart: kept the interview going longer. "Oh, I'm sorry, Max, we must all be dummies here at Fox because when you told us you were pro-Romney we... just believed it. We do that with the Bible and pre-war intelligence, too, gosh golly. Well, you have a Columbia education and I'm giving you a national platform, why don't you tell us why we're all stupid here for supporting Romney? Why should we want Obama for a second term? Please, no soundbites you got from twitter." As the kid's head melts like he was staring into the Ark of the Covenant we'd see clearly that he isn't an Obama supporter at all. He may be voting for Obama, I have no idea, but he wasn't there for Obama, he was there for himself under the pretense antagonizing Fox, which is why his main argument was "s'up." Advice for aspiring comics like Max: if you get to go on TV, you should probably prepare some material.
Note, however, that the key antagonism here isn't between Romney's ideas and Obama's ideas, or even Romney and Obama, but Romney supporters and Obama supporters. This is textbook contemporary political debate: attack people you hate. The college kid doesn't like Obama, he just hates Romney supporters. And Gretchen Carlson doesn't like Romney, she hates Obama supporters. The debate isn't the point-- indeed, you are not supposed to see how similar they are-- the hate is the point. The candidates themselves are interchangeable.
We typically think of, say, Fox and MSNBC as opposites, as enemies, but everything else about them, from their paychecks to their zip code to their terrible, terrible, just plain awful hairstyles are identical. It's expedient to say Obama and Romney are opposites and color code them red and blue or black and white depending on whether you drink sugar water or rice beer, but those distinctions make it really hard to make sense of the world, here are 3 simple questions you will be unable to answer:
1. Who is more likely to oversee the end of war in Afghanistan?
2. Who is more likely to raise taxes on the rich?
3. Who is less likely to send covert paramilitary troops into Iran, and more likely to sell them weapons?
The answer to all of those is Reagan. History is confusing, and colors aren't going to help.
II.
It's easy to guess that the target demo for Fox & Friends is white women over 55 who have to get their teenage kids off to the methadone clinic and are perfectly content with a flip phone. "I don't need a touchscreen to fellowship with the Lord." Fair point. Gretchen Carlson is a standard example of what that demo calls a "well put together woman"-- heavy foundation, dresses that fit easily over Spanx and the hypercoiffed hairdo preferred by men who first ejaculated in the 1970s. I just got the shivers. Fun fact: Michele Bachmann was her babysitter back in the day. "Michele who?" Exactly. Remember how you were told she mattered, and you believed it? Kept you out of the game for 2 years 11 months, well done. Assange was right, the internet does make it easier for us to think for ourselves.
What's not easy to guess, yet importantly true, is that the other target demo for Fox & Friends is everyone who viscerally hates that first demo. Do you think it upsets Fox that their footage is making The Huffington Post a lot of money? All part of the plan. The battle isn't Red v. Blue, but Purple v. You. You lose.
She is thoroughly hated, not for legitimate reasons like having hair in the shape of a Death Squad Commander but for silly reasons like her regressive politics. I know, I know, she's a conservative ideologue wingnut that covertly serves the 1% by.... serving as an easy target for the left? Hmm.
As #50ShadesOnKindle as she appears to be, as sure as you are she is irredeemable, here's a thought experiment to show you how much you are being fooled: what would it take to get her to convert to Obamanism? Say Fox closed and MSNBC offered her a $500k/yr gig going pro-B.O. Could she do it?
Of course you could say, "everyone has a price, and $500k seems close," which is true but misses a very important nuance. In theory, she could put on a happy face and banter pleasantly with Rachel Maddow every morning ("we both went to Oxford and like lesbian haircuts!") then use her large paycheck to Gattaca scrub away the icky feeling under 45 minutes of scalding water. But that doesn't happen, that can't happen, not anymore-- there are no hypocrites, there are no shills; and cynicism only works looking out a window, never through a looking glass. No, she was born in 1966, which puts her firmly in the Dumbest Generation Of Narcissists In The History Of The World, the one that values authenticity over anything else, so she couldn't just lie for the money, she'd have to make herself believe it. And it would be easy for her to do. She'd start out with some "I'm a fiscal conservative, but socially liberal" stances, "gay marriage seems fine, I guess, of course civil and women's rights" an hour or so later she's figured out that social security may be a mess but she's not against the idea of a government backed social safety net..." Nine seconds after that she'd understand that taxing the super-rich is demonstrably ethical and, in retrospect, maybe we should not have gone into Iraq... After a month of reprogramming, all of her hate will be for the 22nd Amendment because it single handedly prevents Bill Clinton from being President a third time. "God," she'd lament, "if we could just have gotten that wonderful man a live-in concubine, we'd be in much better shape today."
The point isn't that she doesn't have political beliefs, but that they are founded on an artificial premise supplied to you by the media, of which ironically she is both supplier and victim. If you look at Presidents without the filter of an LCD screen, they don't really play by the Red/Blue color scheme. (Congressmen do, which is why they are useless.) In fact if you really follow their actions, Presidents all appear to be.... doing the same things. Quoting Homer Simpson, as he presses the button for Romney: "I'm voting for the guy who invented Obamacare."
Their supporters, however, will stab you in the throat for driving the wrong bumper sticker. How do you generate that kind of rage without filming his wife blowing the neighbor? ("Woah!" Sorry, it's the porn book again.) In the age of authenticity and identity an easy way is for the media to "expose" people, e.g. show that what the candidate believes and what he says are different, i.e. that at best they "just say stuff to get elected" and at worst they are hypocritical ideologues, but this way of thinking is a media template, this is not how individual psychology works, not today. Do you think that when everyone in Congress voted to invade Iraq, they were saying to themselves, "I really think this is a bad idea, but the stupid rednecks in my zipcode all want it, and I want to get re-elected, but I feel a little guilty for doing it"? WRONG. Each of them created an explanation for why voting for war was right. NO GUILT. Some truly wanted it, sure; others... figured out how to want it. The important thing is to stay true to yourself.
Ours is a narcissistic society, i.e. each of us has never experienced hypocrisy because we are constantly amending our moral code so that we don't ever do something against our conscience, "this situation is different"; but since each of us has never committed the sin of hypocrisy, it must, therefore, be the worst of all sins. So on a societal scale, who will find and "punish" hypocrisy? The answer is the media. If you consider the media is, for all intents and purposes, society's "maternal superego"-- the one that makes you feel b/m/sad for not being as fulfilled as you're supposed to be-- then the media's job is to pretend to have uncovered the REAL motivations for things. Now you feel better.
This explains the furor over the "leaked" Romney speech in which he was cleverly but dangerously, secretly, recorded saying... what? Talking on his flip phone to the chairman of the Illuminati, telling them to open the moongate and let commence the demon invasion?
No, he was recorded saying the exact same thing he has always said, in the exact same words, not to a clandestine polycephalic conspirator but a room full of Viagra addicts. "I'm just going to say a few spontaneous, off the cuff remarks I've prepared on colored index cards, Ann, can you pass me my bifocals?" I'm not endorsing his message, only observing that he was stupendously on message. I want to meet the one person in America who was surprised by this speech so I can harvest his liver for a transplant. It's laughable for the Huffington Post to be appalled at Romney for saying that 47% of the population is dependent on the government and will vote for Obama no matter what. First of all, the correct dependency figure is 95%, and second, duh, that's why they're called swing states. Don't you have a map of this on your site?
So what made this video so astonishing and newsworthy isn't what he said but the very fact of its existence-- that it was a "leak". If he had said those exact same words to Gretchen Carlson at 7am standing on his mark it wouldn't have even made her own show: too boring, Mitt is droning again. But the video conveys the impression of the "real" feelings of Mitt Romney as opposed to "what he says just to get elected" even though those are the same thing.
If your personal politics are making it difficult to understand this, let's try it the other way. The Right's main criticism of Obama is that he is... secretly more liberal than he appears to be. Hence their obsession with his former weatherman or imam or whatever he was and alleged recordings of him saying he hates whitey. I'm no Obamaton, but so what? I've observed him daily for four years pretending to be George Bush. What is he waiting for? The last day of his last term so he can call Russia on his flip phone and tell them we surrender? "I use a Blackberry." Very progressive. So we learn today that what a person does is less important than what he says, and what he says is less important than what he truly believes, and this rule holds even if they're the same thing. I'm not one to throw stones, but I blame the parents.
III.
Remember Wikileaks? The hot video back in 2010 was the recording of the helicopter attack that killed civilians and/or Iraqis.
This is the kind of stuff Wikileaks thought would affect change in policy. Well, they did help get us a new President, but a change in policy? What was the debate this video inspired? The discussion went very quickly from being about what was in the video-- and forcing us to decide what we want to do with our helicopters-- to being about the video itself-- its existence, the leak. In this way, the exact same video was used to fuel your hate for the other side. Meanwhile... anyone else find it interesting/duh that if you whistleblow for the U.S. government you get $104M, but if you whistleblow against the government you get two years solitary confinement without trial, in both cases under Obama? "Suicide risk." You don't say.
IV.
Back to Fox & Friends, hey, what do you know, none of us watch Fox & Friends, yet here we are.
The standard media constructed bipolar political conflict is a cash cow for sure but it's not real, please stop yelling at each other, it is madness. The real battle is depicted perfectly in the above video, you just can't see it because the Lefty-Loosey title is, "Punked By Obama Supporter." If the Righty-Tighty title was used, it would say: "See This Unemployed Jerk? Why Does He Deserve Free Healthcare?" But the true, Bilderberg/Area 51 title cannot be spoken aloud: "Pick Whatever Side You Want, As Long As You Vote To Reduce Corporate Labor Costs."
Digg | 
del.icio.us | 
StumbleUpon | 
Reddit | 
Yahoo! | 
My favourites
September 24, 2012 5:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Alone, can you recommend some reading material about looking at history from a labor cost perspective?
Score: 4 (28 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 5:59 PM | Posted by : | Reply
As my web-gig is a political commentator I'm, again, thrilled to find a TLP I can "intelligently" comment on! :: ENGAGE NARCISSISM :: (hey, I know what blog I'm reading):
YES: Romney's remarks were especially tasty because they were given that clandestine scent of hidden camera footage the same way the moron in the white van tries to sell you an over-priced sound system in the parking-lot hoping you will assume it is hot and you are therefore getting a good deal.
That IS true.
However, it is not the whole story. Candidates DO speak differently when they are speaking to donors than when they are speaking to different audiences. It's just the same way they will speak differently (and perfectly) during their "debate" (dueling press-releases: the topics have already been pre-released) than they do in front of a small-crowd campaign stop.
Romney's expansive Donor-speech release has made an impact because it was released into a non-donor environment. This doesn't mean it's "the real Romney" (there is no "real Romney" or, for that matter, much of a Real Obama although there might be marginally more Real Obama ... depending). This is a major fuck-up for Romney: he wasn't Off Message--he was Off Medium.
How do we know? We can see several measures (RAND American Life Panel, PredictWise Betting Market aggregators) showing immediate and significant impact. This is DIFFERENT than the non-impact for You-Didn't-Build-That and other gaffes ( http://politicalomnivore.blogspot.com/2012/09/a-tale-of-two-gaffes.html )
Score: 14 (46 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 6:17 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Everything in the media distracts us from the real issues. We're happy allowing that because railing against the stories the media serves up gives us a chance to affirm our identities--loyalty to one party, president, or weltanschauung--which is narcissistic. Narcissism is bad. In other words, we don't really care, we just want to feel something and shit on the other team.
Is that a fair summary of this post, and every post from the last year? Okay. Here's my question.
What is the alternative? How do we break out of this matrix?
That this question goes unanswered post after post makes me think you're trying deliberately to be another cog in the machine which distracts us.
Score: 22 (42 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 6:39 PM | Posted by : | Reply
There is an interesting passage in Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age where the characters look back from the 22nd century to the politics of the previous century (the Elizabethan age), commenting that denouncing someone as a hypocrite was the worst possible accusation, because those who had no moral code could not possibly be hypocrites and could use that to feel superior.
Of course, their society collapsed mid-century.
Score: 22 (26 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 8:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Never understood what you americans saw in Obama. He seems to me like a bright and colorful hot air balloon - I said that five years ago, when he was running for the nomination with Hillary, and his first term only confirmed my suspicions. Much propaganda for nothing special.
Score: 21 (51 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 8:39 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Your political insight shows you miss the point of politics.
Score: -11 (25 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 8:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
well, yeah, I see exactly the point TLP is trying to get at. The media is such a presence in American life that really, we don't ever know what's going on. Actually, in debating the issues, TLP is exactly right. Go to any political forum, don't post anything, just read the debates. In general people don't debate policy, they don't know about policy, they really don't care about policy. What happens is that people tend to type talking points back and forth -- insults as well, but mostly the points made will come almost directly from the media. That cannot happen unless the media is defining all of the debate. If people were getting any impressions beyond the media, they should be able to talk about the issue for a few minutes without having the whole debate turn into a talking points memo on both sides. But it never happens that way.
Score: 24 (24 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 9:07 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Well, of course I miss the point of politics--I'm blogging about it. Missing the point is a pre-req.
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 9:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Nah. Obama passed health care reform, student loan reform, equal pay act, repealed Don't Ask Don't Tell, wall street finance reform, etc etc. There was a large number of things Obama passed before everyone stayed home because young people forget to vote, and the Tea Party came in 2010 and made everything shitty again.
You're mad because of the fucked up future-dystopia war stuff. I am too. But Obama's made a tangible, bottom-line change in my life, and I like that change, and I think Romney's change would be for the worse, while not changing the fucked up 1984 war stuff. I think maybe the fucked up 1984 war stuff is a response to tightening oil reserves and a warming climate - just the economics of no longer having infinite slaves anymore. I don't like that. But Obama is spreading that wealth around and making it more stable, for me and my kids. Romney'll just fuck us even harder. And we'll still go down that Judge Dredd road.
If my choice is between Robocop-world-with-health-care-and-wall-street-reform and Robocop-world-with-totally-unregulated-corporate-interests, I'm picking Obama.
Score: -12 (90 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 9:42 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Part II by the Onion:
http://www.theonion.com/video/romney-still-in-hot-water-after-reading-gop-platfo,29626/
Score: 8 (12 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 9:51 PM | Posted by : | Reply
the longer version of this is Chomsky and Hermann's 'Manufacturing Consent'.
Score: 9 (17 votes cast)
September 24, 2012 10:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I love how both the FOX fembot and the dumb castrated male are drunk. Either that or pills, benzos. There is a very subtle slurring going on that I'm for sure is alcohol induced; I have spidey sense for detecting alcoholics since I grew up with a bunch of drunks.
Score: -8 (22 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 2:10 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Do you read Glenn Greenwald at all? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/30/election-2012-media-vast-rightwing-conspiracy-stupid
Score: -2 (10 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 5:23 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"nah" to your post and your face
Score: -8 (10 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 6:47 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"...and the Tea Party came in 2010 and made everything shitty again."
I love it how the two party system is set up so both sides blame each other for everything. take any political sound bite, substitute "commie liberal" with "religious right," or vice versa, and presto, you have a new, yet always the same argument. it reminds of the school yard fights - "i know you are but what am I?" - when i was a kid.
man i'm glad i don't have to live with that shit, with nuts on both sides, getting farther and farther apart, blaming each other for everything when its their own damn fault. my country to used to live and die by the US economy, but thanks to US failings over the last several years and the Obama/Bernake money printing machine, we've been forced to move away from US influence.
Now you get short sighted fools like anon that think Obama is great because he passed student loan reform, yet the US dollar sucks donkey balls and is getting worse. The long-term negative effects are severe, but trying to explain that via intelligent conversation with either ravenous party member is fruitless.
oh well... should we get ready for the US peso?
Score: 15 (27 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 7:39 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Why and how is this about reducing corporate labor costs? What defines that as the significant thing?
Score: 3 (7 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 9:11 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
well, again, it's media, not anything else. If you look at how the parties actually vote, there isn't much real difference. If I stripped the party identification from most congressmen, you'd be hard pressed to know whether a given voting record belonged to a commie democrat or a religious right republican. It's the nation's reality show, and it's run like American Idol -- the massed choose between two candidates that have been neutered of actual opinion and thought beyond what they've been told to believe in. So why act like it's a shock that people are interested in cheering on favorites like American idol?
Score: 1 (11 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 10:12 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
One thing to do is search out your friendly neighborhood secession headquarters.
And TLP is right. It is about labor costs, but you can't confine your understanding of what that term means to employee compensation. Think on this post a little.
An interesting bit from the end that will sound familiar:
It is interesting that even in very unequal, high productivity societies, one rarely sees the very poor reverting to low-tech, low productivity craft production of goods the wealthy can manufacture efficiently. One way or another, the poor in these societies get the basic goods they need to survive, and they mostly don’t do it by spinning their own yarn or employing one another to sew shirts. One might imagine that once people have no money or claims to offer, they’d be as cut off from manufactures as subsistence farmers in a low productivity society. But that isn’t so. Perhaps this is simply a matter of the charity: rich people are human and manufactured goods are cheap and useful gifts. Perhaps it is just entropy: in a society that mass produces goods, it would take a lot of work to prevent some degree of diffusion to the poor.However, another way to think about it is that the poor collectively sell insurance against riot and revolution, which the rich are happy to pay for with modest quantities of efficiently produced goods. “Social insurance” is usually thought of as a safety net that protects the poor from risk. But in very polarized societies, transfer programs provide an insurance benefit to the rich, by ensuring poorer people’s dependence on production processes that only the rich know how to manage. This diminishes the probability the poor will agitate for change, via politics or other means. Inequality may be more stable in technologically advanced countries, where inexpensive goods substitute for the human capital that every third-world slum dweller acquires, the capacity and confidence to improvise and get by with next to nothing.
Score: 18 (18 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 11:40 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"What is the alternative? How do we break out of this matrix?
That this question goes unanswered post after post makes me think you're trying deliberately to be another cog in the machine which distracts us."
He's showing us the door and has been in post after post. Knowledge is the way! If you're reading this and nodding your head but still return into the world and forget all about it or refuse to *use* that knowledge (say, in water-cooler conversations or when watching the news), that's not Alone's fault. You know what the culture is doing, playing with your emotions to keep you somnambulant while the oligarchs continue their zombie-shuffle.
Here's some tips:
1.) Pay attention to yourself as you go about your day in order to observe how this dynamic works in your own mind, how it conditions your own life.
2.) Figure out what *your* interests are. For example, are you a labourer (blue collar or white collar?) or business owner (small-business entrepreneur or shareholder of major corporations), do you exercise power over others or are you a grunt, do you have financial security or live paycheque to paycheque, do you rent or own, are you male or female, gay or straight, religious or not, single or married (etc.)?
3.) Repeat (1) and (2) for everyone else whenever it is relevant.
4.) If we're talking politics, find out what candidates are actually planning on doing when elected (unfortunately, the news is not the place for this). Here, at best, you will be working with extremely partial information, so don't be afraid to reevaluate later (e.g. Obama said he'd close Gitmo, pull all the troops out, run a 'post-racial' government, etc.).
5.) Having done (1 - 4) act accordingly.
6.) Return to the cave to release the rest of the prisoners.
Score: 10 (20 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 11:46 AM | Posted by : | Reply
The 47% video reminds me of a similar incident from a few years ago in Canada. In a similar 'leaked video', Stephen Harper was speaking with a riding association somewhere and mentioned that he hoped in the future to win a majority government in order to implement his platform without impediment. I was actually surprised by the apoplexy that followed: "see, he *does* have a hidden agenda!" As though his wanting a majority government should come as a surprise to anyone at all.
Score: 17 (17 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 12:06 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I'm starting to agree with Heytor's comment that TLP may be a further distraction for those aware their is a distraction.
In a few posts where he directly mentions a "narcissism done right" he suggests picking an identity that helps others and come hell or high water, sticking to it.
But then he lampoons those like Assange and Manning (to name two) when it appears they are in fact (in their kierkegaardian existentialist ways) following the ethical path of an inner compass. I'm not making the case for their particular interests but that they represent the bloke who reads TLP and makes a change.
The open question to Manning ("Was it worth it?") is yes. That's at least what this narcissist is left with thinking. Yes, go and do likewise, for the good of others even if TLP ends up lampooning you in the end.
Score: 7 (21 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 2:38 PM | Posted by : | Reply
One way to note the moral of the story is this: you have to have values, or goals, or morals, or some intent in your life, then be vigilent for compromises sneaking into your life. If you end up deciding you gave up on a goal because counter-influences deterred you so easily, then you ought to go figure out what led you to pick such an easily abandoned goal (or value) anyway.
We got ourselves out of consumer debt the old-fashioned way: by deciding we had different values, and by working to pay off and cancel credit cards and car loans, then manage money to avoid using these again.
My daughter supposedly gained the same value. But then, soon after opening her own savings acct, the bank called and enticed her into getting a credit card.
I asked her, "why?" she gave some weak answer about how they said she would "build up credit."
I pointed out how she had said this stuff abt never wanting credit cards, then as soon as one person called to sell her one, she abandoned her value and goal. [of course I explained: the salesperson doesn't care abt you, but did make a $20 commission for getting you to agree- feel like a chump yet?]
Then I read her a story, a piece of ancient wisdom from the east.
"the woman said to the serpent, 'we may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said 'you shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die., ' But the serpent said to the woman, 'you will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.' So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
In three sentences, Eve turns her back on her values simply because a snake said, 'no, go ahead, try it,' and gave her a pre-fabricated rebuttal to the value already in place in her value system.
So, the serpent knew she could be sold to do something as long as he could provide her a way to not have any recognition of hypocrisy.
The moral of the story is that if you decide to have morals, the threats to them will be sneaky little things, so you need to be on guard for sneaky little things.
I spent my uncomfortable time -years of my life- acting a certain way and doing certain things, and throwing up a little in my mouth, just so I could make it through yet another class or training experience with strong endorsement and the door wide open to ask for a letter of recommendation in the future.
Now, all I have to do is keep my license paid up.
Score: 16 (22 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 2:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The debate isn't the point-- indeed, you are not supposed to see how similar they are--the hate is the point. The candidates themselves are interchangeable.
Is TLP channeling the Judge from Blood Meridian?
A man falling dead in a duel is not thought thereby to be proven in error as to his views. His very involvement in such a trial gives evidence of a new and broader view. The willingness of the principals to forgo further argument as the triviality which it in fact is and to petition directly the chambers of the historical absolute clearly indicates of how little moment are the opinions and of what great moment the divergences thereof. For the argument is indeed trivial, but not so the separate wills thereby made manifest.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 3:06 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"So why act like it's a shock that people are interested in cheering on favorites like American idol?"
I see your point and have also taken one step closer to complete loss of faith in humanity.
Score: 1 (7 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 3:36 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Das Kapital is a good start.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 4:29 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Yeah, right. We're still paying for Carter's Iran mistake. We should be paying a long time for Obama's Egypt mistake. Bush was bad, so it's good we elected his clone. Glad you're happy and doing well though. See you in 10 years when it all catches up on you. You'll blame someone else, I'm sure.
Score: 1 (9 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 5:47 PM | Posted by : | Reply
What does he mean by corporate labor costs?
Score: -1 (3 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 7:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
except that sometimes an unflagging commitment to a certain moral precept can be limiting. especially something as trivial as a commitment to not owning a credit card. credit is handy, and isn't necessarily going to lead to debt. in fact, thinking this way is sort of self-defeating, really -- thinking that one won't be able to handle that responsibility properly is not exactly confidence-building. nor does it help one grow.
Score: 9 (11 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 8:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
@Or: There was a rather big kerfuffle about labor costs around 1862, if memory serves. Nowadays, the deal is that politicians need money, so they have to serve the people who have lots of money, who are keen to reduce labor costs, tax costs, and basically want to increase their wealth.
@hayter: This is the United States Government we're talking about, and it takes its power seriously. The alternatives are lifelong imprisonment at Gitmo or a tragic small aircraft accident.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 8:30 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I see your point and have also taken one step closer to complete loss of faith in humanity.
"For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow" - Ecclesiastes 1:18, written during God's goth phase.
Score: 13 (13 votes cast)
September 25, 2012 11:31 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Actually for the credit industry, those people who stick to a rigid no-credit rule for personal expenditures are factored into the system. They overwhelmingly tend to have positive bank accounts that draw very low rates of interest... and therefore the interest spreads cover the costs of defaulting customers. The obscene profits are made on those paying the monthly minimums but the industry has created a profit center position for each person.
Watch carefully and you can easily tell which income group you fall into (whether you recognize you are in one or not) by how you get solicited for credit and by who.
Everyone one posting here who sees the Payday loan ads on TV thinks "Loser"/ Why would anyone do that? What we fail to realize is that there is an entire class above us looking at the ads for Discover Points or Cashback bonuses and thinking the exact same thing.
We are all factored into our places.
Score: 12 (12 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 12:01 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
that's nice, but has nothing to do with what I said.
Score: 1 (3 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 3:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Seriously guys, you're missing the entire fucking point of this: What the fuck is the deal with corporate labor costs?
That's the starting point. None of the shit you're talking about connects to that, and is therefore irrelevant to what TLP is trying to tell you. Conclusion is this: It's not about Red v. Blue, what they care about is keeping corporate labor costs down.
That none of you are pursuing the data on that subject is a testament to your stupidity.
Score: 0 (20 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 4:12 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
here's a simple statistic: real wages in the US (that is, accounting for inflation) have stagnated or declined since the 1970s.
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 5:36 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Any discussion of declining real wages must mention the Federal Reserve and the massive devaluation of the dollar that has taken place since it was founded.
Find a graph of how the value of the dollar adjusted for inflation since 1913. Print it out. Flip it over. Then, imagine that you're a worker who is trying to move up and get raises. In order for you to get ahead, your raises have to climb faster than that rapidly rising bar does, and unless you have a professional certification or a naked picture of your boss, it isn't going to happen.
Only Ron Paul ever talked about this, but he was a nut, remember?
Score: 9 (17 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 6:18 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I stand by saying that American elections are basicly American Idol for grown ups. It's simply how our system is set up. To get to the big time, meaning Federal Offices, you pretty much have to have sucked up to party bosses and raised lots of money for the last 10-15 years. There's no mechanism by which a person without deep connections to the party leadership and their party's donors is going to be in a position to get nominated. What this does is form what for all intents and purposes is an oligarchy. The party bosses do the same thing that the producers of AI do -- make sure that no "offensive" candidates become serious contenders, as well as putting a few well chosen "losers" in the primary so as people feel grateful that gatekeepers have prevented a disaster of some screamer idiot being in the running for Congress or President. But at the end of the day, no one gets by without the OK of their party bosses.
Doesn't that explain why no matter which party we choose, we get the exact same thing? The idea is to SAY partisan things, not to do them. For the most part, the status quo remains in effect -- government gets bigger, abortion goes nowhere (a good smokescreen), immigration stays the same, and the corporate interests get mostly what they want. It's not changing because our 2 party system is not really competing, and third parties are for all intents and purposes excluded. So our choices are D or R, both of which have really been groomed to serve the party and the donors. Yeah, I'm cynical, but honestly, I think it's because I watch it.
Score: 11 (13 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 7:33 PM | Posted by : | Reply
". . . if you whistleblow against the government you get two years solitary confinement without trial, in both cases under Obama"
Is this an exaggeration or a reference to something that actually happened?
Score: 1 (1 votes cast)
September 26, 2012 9:12 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Sure, everyone probably has rationalized some. But I don't think that means that literally every decision that anyone makes is a rationalization. Shouldn't the point be to rationalize less and try to be more consistent? If everything is a rationalization, then change truly does become impossible.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 7:28 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
As a psychiatrist I absolutely agree with you!
Score: -1 (7 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 9:43 AM | Posted by : | Reply
Is anyone here really willing to argue Roberts/Alito are the same as Kagan/Sotomayor, or that the SCOTUS doesn't matter and cares only for corporations?
If so, congratulations, you are "in the middle" and mean nothing politically according to John Adams.
Maybe try castrating yourself to decrease your testicle-bias next, in your search for The One True Truth.
Score: 4 (6 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 12:01 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
I just finished reading The Fine Print, which suggests, in part, that the game is no longer about keeping corporate labor costs down, but about increasing the share of tax revenue that corporations either keep or are given.
Score: 1 (5 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 12:23 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Genesis is allegorical; how you interpret it reflects back on you. It's entirely possible that Eve was just so polite and innocent that she was just being gracious or scared in accepting the snake's offer; it's possible the snake is a projection of some part of Eve that she is clueless about (or she wouldn't project); or something spiritual (if you are as you say into the East, maybe you should consider that the snake is a symbol of spirit and a very positive one at that; I don't know why one minute you mention the East and the next interpret Genesis in such a status quo, Western way); it is entirely possible Eve was surprised to hear a snake talk and responded primarily to that, or reacted; it is entirely likely that whatever road was taken by Adam and Eve, they both did wind up wiser and more Godlike. So, the snake was right.
Godlike= not a sin, before you react. Remember- it says made in God's image, right there in the very same book.
At least in theory, there are as many interpretations of Genesis as there are people, or, since this is allegorical, there are as many experiences of Genesis as there are people. And I'm not the only one who says so: check out Judaism, mystical religions including certain aspects of Judaism and Christianity, kabbalah, qabalah, etc. and see how much has been done with Genesis.
I hope the morality play you've arrived at is not a reflection of just too much damn guilt, overassumption of responsibility, or shame.
Also (I could riff on Genesis forever) it is entirely possible that God 'punished' them both with THINGS THAT WERE GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY, a sort of tiny fake spank. Eve was probably going to have pain in childbirth (duh!); someone was going to have to til the land. I could go on about why this would be, but I won't.
Well...one more thing. Sometimes people need some kind of punishment/idea of punishment or undoing--- in order to let go of something and move forward clean and free and not bound to the past, or their conception of the past. It's one possibility.
Maybe someone else can pick it up and do something with it; that's be nice.
Score: 3 (15 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 3:57 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Carter's Mistake" I disagree. We're paying for Eisenhower's ( Really I suppose Kermit Roosevelt's) mistake in overthrowing Mossadegh and installing the Shah on behalf of BP.
Score: 5 (7 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 4:48 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What does he mean by corporate labor costs?
Slaves.
He's talking about human slaves; of the pyramid-building, American Idol-contestant cheering, divisive bickering, petty squabbling, colour-indentifying, tribal paradoxial rhetoric-spouting, smirking, snivelling, snickering, screaming, self-defeating variety.
When someone starts talking about corporations and labour costs; they are talking about mindless automatrons which means they are talking about slaves.
Score: -3 (15 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 5:24 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Genesis is allegorical; how you interpret it reflects back on you. It's entirely possible that Eve was just so polite and innocent that she was just being gracious or scared in accepting the snake's offer; it's possible the snake is a projection of some part of Eve that she is clueless about (or she wouldn't project); or something spiritual (if you are as you say into the East, maybe you should consider that the snake is a symbol of spirit and a very positive one at that; I don't know why one minute you mention the East and the next interpret Genesis in such a status quo, Western way); it is entirely possible Eve was surprised to hear a snake talk and responded primarily to that, or reacted; it is entirely likely that whatever road was taken by Adam and Eve, they both did wind up wiser and more Godlike. So, the snake was right.
Godlike= not a sin, before you react. Remember- it says made in God's image, right there in the very same book.
That's one way to overthink the propaganda written for the 'benefit' of those who would find use in a teaching manual which should be relabelled Imprinting, for Dummies.
A lying God tells his creations (the 'benefactors' of the Patron System; or if you prefer, his children) to remain Stupid, to blindly Love & Obey their Patron, to Trust & have Faith and not to give in to the temptation of Knowledge. The Serpent (that villainous creature!) tells them Truth, instructs them to think for themselves & encourages them to embrace Knowing.
The farcical mystical story was written for the 'benefit' of the sons of Power; the manuscripts amounted to a 101 guide showing how to enslave humans. They were written for the 'benefit' of those who were to do the enslaving.
Something incomprehensible happened; humans learned how to read.
Something predictable occurred; billions of humans saw the manual for what it was and for the same reasons the sons of Power didn't realise they'd already been corrupted with the self-defeating emotional desire to exploit, the shrewd readers of the Bible didn't realise they weren't being crafty in using the manual to gain an 'advantage' over their (patronised) victims.
And here we are, thousands of years later; billions of emotionally-corrupted slaves literally too stupid to be patronised because we already know everything so we don't need to listen to anyone who doesn't first insult us by making us feel good (or bad).
Score: -7 (13 votes cast)
September 27, 2012 7:54 PM | Posted by : | Reply
I don't understand the difference between Obama and Romney, never really have.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/09/24/neither-candidate/
But I like your columns. The point about hypocracy is especially interesting, I've never thought about that particular wiggly internal moral code thing in those terms.
Score: 0 (4 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 2:40 AM | Posted by : | Reply
"And here we are, thousands of years later; billions of emotionally-corrupted slaves literally too stupid to be patronised because we already know everything so we don't need to listen to anyone who doesn't first insult us by making us feel good (or bad)."
but you're the exception to that, right?
otherwise, why should we listen to anything you have to say?
oh, and don't forget: mothers are all evil.
i lol'd
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 5:05 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
when they talk about gaining wisdom and knowledge in the Bible generally it is not about informational or even biblical knowledge; knowledge has a mystical, emotional, experiencial connotation. Actually, when reading the Bible, one would do well to consider connotation and denotation as well as learning some of what the words as they were written originally meant.
the worst way to take it is probably the way the fundamentalist christians do, or literally. The belief that the Bible is the literal word of God is not a common one, recognized by most denominations, not even the Catholics believe in that (this always surprises everyone)...it's a Christian fundamentalist thing and they are weird. If people only focus on them I can understand why they have a Christianity problem.
Score: 4 (10 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 5:21 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
otherwise, why should we listen to anything you have to say?
Well in a sane world, you likely would not be. I'd be listening to you help me.
You understand how it could work? Of course you wouldn't. You’re too busy laughing at how you already know everything, except how to distinguish things worth listening to from insane babbling Toddler noise.
CLUE: One of the two is in your Selfish best interests. Think about it, facepaint-wearer.
Score: 2 (6 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 5:24 PM | Posted by : | Reply
1. Who is more likely to oversee the end of war in Afghanistan?
2. Who is more likely to raise taxes on the rich?
3. Who is less likely to send covert paramilitary troops into Iran, and more likely to sell them weapons?
The answer to all of those is Reagan. History is confusing, and colors aren't going to help.
Regan only raised taxes on the rich after introducing massive tax cuts for them and a huge REGRESSIVE tax in Social Security. This destroyed the budget, and Spend It Like No Tomorrow Regan was forced to roll back some of his increases.
Now, of course, the Republicans think their Presidents are "fiscally responsible" when they almost always cause the budget deficit to skyrocket in their terms, so your point isn't wrong, but the example isn't right.
Oh, and Obama ordered Drone assassinations of American Citizens. Without trial. So I guess that does it for the Democrat side.
Score: 2 (10 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 5:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Weeks between posts and this is the horse shit you come up with?
"...if you whistleblow for the U.S. government you get $104M, but if you whistleblow against the government you get two years solitary confinement without trial, in both cases under Obama?"
You don't even bother to do any research beyond superficial notion-confirming headline skimming, do you?
The banker who blew the whistle on UBS also spent almost three years in prison for his own complicity in the bank's criminal actions which he blew the whistle on. Your whole false dichotomy just fell apart.
At some point, perhaps you'll learn that snarky panache doesn't make up for your sloppy omissions and distortions of fact.
Bradley Manning almost certainly broke US laws as well as military law (which he willingly agreed to abide by) and was subsequently charged. Becoming a whistleblower doesn't mean one is automatically absolved of his own crimes, but it can factor into sentencing.
Manning's treatment in prison while awaiting trial is another, separate issue which you're trying to use to distract from the fact that he has almost certainly committed crimes related to national security. That those crimes were charitably in the service of exposing potential war crimes doesn't ipso facto absolve Manning of guilt or prevent his prosecution.
Manning stupidly didn't even attempt to act within the provisions of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act available to him, which would have minimally established that he was acting in good faith by first working within the system he was a part of. He didn't bother.
Knowing the risks he was taking involved a potential death sentence, Manning then went and idiotically sought out an unscrupulous hacker to confess his crimes, foolishly using his first name and birth year in IM handle as well as disclosing unique identifiers about himself.
On top of THAT stupidity, Manning ALSO indicated to this stranger that he was breaching security out of a vague sense of retaliation for an unrelated dispute with his commanding officers regarding his gender identity and a general dislike for his deployment environment.
The "in both cases under Obama" stinger betrays your too-witty-by-half shitshow act. What, the president and his administration enforce financial and national security law? CRAZY! Take THAT idiot liberals, your OWN guy is doing his job!
TLP, you're a flatuating mess of a writer, and an even worse thinker.
Score: -4 (16 votes cast)
September 28, 2012 9:48 PM | Posted by : | Reply
These guys already know everything.
They know what tribes they belong to. When those tribes need Self-less folk to die in conflict with another tribe, these guys will volunteer...their children for The Noble Cause.
They just don't understand how to read. Too busy Feeling to Think.
The battle isn't Red v Blue, but Purple v You. You lose.
The battle isn't US v Humanity, but Power v You. You lose. But thanks dipshits for getting everything confused. gg
Score: -2 (6 votes cast)
September 29, 2012 12:22 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
The answer Heytor, as it's been with every post TLP makes is to think...
To come up with your own answer, every time, as independently of pre-programmed social/emotional responses. In other words, independent rational thought.
For every TLP post, tbis has been the goal. To get you, I and everyone, to simply question. And then perhaps, self-directed action.
Score: 11 (11 votes cast)
September 30, 2012 12:45 PM | Posted by : | Reply
"A resolution may go out of a man's mind either with his will or against his will; with his will when he gets rid of a falsehood and learns better, against his will whenever he is deprived of a truth. ...I only mean that some men are changd by persuasion and that others forget; argument steals away the hearts of one class and time the other; and this I call theft. Now do you understand me?" - a famous dead greek guy (or so translated).
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
September 30, 2012 2:57 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Americans can be perfectly rational, pleasant, delightful people who turn into raving maniac zombies whenever the voting season rolls around. Then they go back to being their wonderful selves. I hope that happens soon.
Score: -3 (5 votes cast)
October 1, 2012 12:24 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Did you read the post above you that you think you're responding to?
President Obama did nothing. He passed a health care law Democrats would have vowed to over turn and run against had it been passed by Republicans. Financial reform? If you're referencing Dodd-Frank and think it was reform, we're done here.
You, and many of the commentators here, aren't thinking. Literally you're repeating the same lines that one could find a hundred other places on the internet. You're full of slogans and other people's ideas and you genuinely appear to believe in them - and perhaps even that they are original to you and that you created them. Stop writing what you've read and start looking at the world and thinking. If you're parroting Ad Busters, you're still not thinking.
Kudos Alone. You got it right and the comments in a rather impressive display of poor reading prove it perfectly. Without needing to watch the linked video, it's already clear that it's not about disagreeing with Fox news but rather about him. It's this fantasy held by partisans that everyone else will someday wake up and realize the illusions, lies, and insanity of what they've previously believed and immediately fully agree with the partisan. Partisanship always needs affirmation, most centrally the delusion that your belief is the only correct one.
Alone, the American political system is perfectly designed. It allows people the right mix of helplessness (corporate interests control everything or some other fantasy) while still holding some power in franchise. Enough to convince the vast majority to believe in it while expecting little - to - nothing in way of action or reality. Which is a fairly impressive balance when you consider it.
Score: 3 (13 votes cast)
October 1, 2012 12:31 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Hytor, you're using the line "the real issues". That's a construct that's thrown around constantly by politicians, media, well everyone. "Why can't we focus on the real issues?". Of course the implied I in this statement is smarter than everyone else - I (alone) focus on the real issues, you are inferior and distracted by the fake and superficial. And this is really the I telling myself I am smarter, more informed than everyone else - i.e. my delusions of grandeur.
Score: 4 (4 votes cast)
October 1, 2012 3:03 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Jenny Wild wrote:"I don't understand the difference between Obama and Romney, never really have."
The difference, my dear, is that you don't have to worry about Romney expanding Section 8 housing in your neighborhood.
Score: -1 (17 votes cast)
October 2, 2012 3:37 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
Setting aside the fact that not giving that to the poor will mean their insanity will fuck up your neighborhood as well as their own, and that whoever you pick this expansion WILL happen, you missed the point of the article entirely. The problem is not Obama, the problem is You. Your attitude is what is ruining your life.
Score: 0 (8 votes cast)
October 3, 2012 4:56 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Look TLP is very insightful indeed, but about "Labor Costs" i really think no one should go into this kind of things without a clear definition and some data.
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fredgraph.png?g=blr
This is someplace to start. But if anyone is willing go and study this things, you really really should go and see the definitions of things, and specially be sure you actually understand the definition.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
October 3, 2012 4:59 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/ULCNFB
I put the series in natural log in the graph above and linked only the graph. Just posting the link to access the data also, and the raw data.
There are a lot of easily accessible and user friendly data in this site also.
Score: 3 (3 votes cast)
October 20, 2012 7:04 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Unfortunately we don't get objective news (I doubt it is possible) none of us can see the world outside of our worldviews and presuppositions. You will get the conservative views from FOX and the liberal views from CNN, MSNBC and basically the entire press. So as a word of caution, listen to both views or arguments and see if the truth lies somewhere in the middle (not to make a false juxtaposition) but maybe if we truly are open to all the networks we can at least see the varying views across the nation and pick and choose those that we agree with and discard the others. Again, any news organization that claims to report the facts of the "news" is not being honest with themselves.
Score: -4 (4 votes cast)
April 24, 2013 6:50 PM | Posted by : | Reply
wonderful points altogether, you just gained a new reader. What would you recommend in regards to your post that you simply made some days ago? Any certain?
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
April 27, 2013 5:53 PM | Posted by : | Reply
The whole point of these free dating sites is to have fun and take your time finding someone. 1) Singles instant messages and chats start flirty and get steamy right off the bat. Tiara of Mulberry Grove, Illinois warns, 'Don't try to find love in the same group of people.
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
June 27, 2013 5:17 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
"Yes massa, iss nice, massa, thanks for the gifss, massa. Of cose I won' rebel, massa, you one of da good'ns, massa, nah like them otha bosses."
Score: -3 (3 votes cast)
July 22, 2015 7:25 PM | Posted by : | Reply
Max Rice here. this author is a lazy a hole. I'm not an aspiring comic. Please do not donate to support bad journalism.
Score: -1 (1 votes cast)
July 23, 2015 3:21 AM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
What is the correct way to disagree with you then, Max?
Score: -2 (2 votes cast)
July 23, 2015 11:00 AM | Posted by : | Reply
the correct way to right an article is with research, respect , and maturity. Your "jokes" in the begginning show why you write for a blog and not for a living. Gretchen Carlson is a better journalist .
Score: 0 (2 votes cast)
July 23, 2015 7:22 PM | Posted, in reply to , by : | Reply
...with research, respect , and maturity
This coming from the same person who labeled the blog author "lazy a hole."
Practice what you preach and grow up already.
Score: 2 (2 votes cast)
Comments