The PCTC Blog

Be Skeptical: George Soros Didn't REALLY Say Obama/Romney Same

I’ve been writing a lot lately about the importance of checking facts and making sure those you’re being fed are actually as represented. Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. There was a story about George Soros floating around the left and right blogospheres yesterday, that revolves around an interview Mr. Soros gave to Reuters, in which he was asked about the coming election.

The headline on most news stories and blog posts was a variation on “Soros: Not Much Difference Between Him and Romney,” with honest bloggers and publications adding an ellipsis, and the “less honest” adding a period, or implying that was the entire quote. Many of the right wing bloggers put Romney’s name first because, well, they hate Romney. Here’s a Google search on the above headline:

            

A lot of progressives apparently saw the headline repeatedly and ran with it. Progressives all over Twitter castigated Soros for the statement, and some hysterically called him a "traitor.". It was repeated ad nauseum, as if the headline constituted the content of the entire interview, even though it wasn't even the entirety of his statement. A fine example is the following Re-Tweet of a Daily Caller “journalist” by our friend and self-proclaimed “journalist” Glenn Greenwald. Matt Tweeted the following:

           

Lewis, as a journalist, even for Tucker Carlson’s rag, should know better. But to his credit, he used an ellipsis at the end of the quote, meaning there was more to it. When you see an ellipsis at the end of a quote, fellow progressives, it should be automatic that you check the quote. It means there’s more to it. Go find out what it is, because in most cases, it’ll put the quote in context.

Here is Greenwald’s “follow up:”

          

Now, I guess I could applaud Greenwald for at least tipping his followers that there’s more to the story. Unfortunately, he fails on several levels. “He added nuance, but…” is a way to pass on a false narrative without taking any responsibility for it. If Glenn really wanted to tell the truth, he would have challenged Lewis on the concept, especially since it’s not actually truel. Soros would have said that, of course, if he had (God forbid) dropped dead in mid-sentence. And Greenwald's smart enough to know Soros didn’t add “nuance” to the statement at all. Nuance is subtle. He added context. The other words Soros placed around that half sentence put that half sentence in a completely different context. 

Here’s a link to the article Lewis cited, and here’s what Soros ACUALLY said:

Chrystia Freeland: I’d like to turn now, if we may, to the United States, where politics and the economy are also quite volatile. You were a very early supporter of President Barack Obama. What report card do you give him now?

George Soros: Well, look, either you’ll have an extremist conservative, be it Gingrich or Santorum, in which case I think it will make a big difference which of the two comes in. If it’s between Obama and Romney, there isn’t all that much difference except for the crowd that they bring with them. And that’s not very encouraging on either side because Obama’s administration is a bit exhausted — a lot of the talent has left — and the Republicans would have to, or a Republican candidate would have to, bring in probably an extremist vice-president.

Chrystia Freeland: But isn’t there actually quite a big difference between even a President Obama and a President Romney when it comes to questions of taxation, particularly taxation of the so-called 1 percent, issues like carried interest? Do you see any difference there?

George Soros: Well, that is the big difference, and that has led my hedge fund community to abandon Obama in favor of any Republican because they don’t like to be taxed. I personally believe that when it comes to policy, you shouldn’t be pursuing self-interest, but the public interest. And I think that the income differentials are too wide and ought to be narrowed.

Certainly, you can see how context matters. Yes, Soros said that, but that’s not all he said. He said the Republican candidate, even if it’s Romney, will bring a far right conservative cadre and thought process into the White House. And he also said there was a major difference between the two candidates with regard to handling the issues of taxation and income inequality, two issues that are formost in the minds of progressives.

In other words, he acknowledged a major political reality that many self-proclaimed "political junkies" don't understand; the candidates don't stand alone. If Obama and Romney were running entirely on their own, he's right; they're not terribly different, politically speaking. Well, except that Obama's mostly honest with a bit of political BS thrown in for good measure, and Romney is completely dishonest. But they are backed by two different political parties, with completely opposite political philosophies. What they bring with them MATTERS. 

In short, he did NOT say "there isn’t all that much difference" with a period after it.

Once again, folks; you don't become smarter politically just because you read a lot. You have to scrutinize what you read, and you have to stop believing whatever anyone with a byline says, without checking things out. Headlines are devices to get you to read the article; they rarely summarize the article itself, and they can often be completely non-representative of the content of the article itself.  If you see a headline that seems uncharacteristic of what you know George Soros to be about, you don’t do anyone any favors by simply believing it. Check it out, and you’ll find out that everyone else got it wrong. That really does happen in this era of the lazy media.

Skepticism is your friend, folks. Use it. 

 

Pro Lefties' and Advanced ODS (Obama Derangement Syndrome): Case Study: Robert Scheer

I woke up this morning preparing to finish a post on capitalism and the right wing this morning, so that I could put it up this weekend, when I received an email from the “Truthdig!” web site. The author, who is also the Editor of Truthdig, was Robert Scheer. I dropped my capitalism post immediately, out of concern for what has to be the worst case of Obama Derangement Syndrome I've ever seen in a professional lefty. 

Robert Scheer was a liberal reporter and columnist of incredible note for many years. I’ve been a fan of his since I was a kid. Unlike many on the professional left, Scheer has unquestionable journalistic chops. He’s one of the few on the professional left who can boast of Pulitzers and legitimate acclaim. 

So, when I found the following article linked in my email this morning, I was concerned. If ODS can hit a pro lefty with his reputation, is anyone really safe? Here's the article of which I speak. 

Obama’s Faux Populism Sounds Like Bill Clinton

The title itself is not meant to be a compliment. You see, Robert Scheer is an old-school liberal, who inarguably knows a lot about politics. In relation to most of the rank amateurs in the professional left, Scheer knows a hell of a lot more.  And it is that knowledge that makes this particular attempt to throw basic logic out the window more concerning than recent attacks of ODS exhibited by Greenwald, Hamsher, Moore and the like. That Robert Scheer is just trying to attract pissed off liberals to his site and his columns just makes me sad.

This is troubling, folks. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Scheer is retreading the same tired, ridiculous arguments the far left has been pushing for years, and which have never had any validity. He pushes the absurd “President Obama is in Wall Street’s pocket” meme so hard, he had to have herniated himself after writing it. The entire column is a whine about the people Obama’s hired in his administration, and the things he hasn’t done, without any consideration of what he’s actually accomplished. And there isn't an actual fact in the entire piece. Not one.

That's how ODS works, folks. It sneaks up on a pro lefty and takes away his formerly rational sense of reason. For example, he actually claims that he feels “betrayed” by President Obama:

… I get angry because betrayal by the “good guys” for whom I have ended up voting has become the norm.

Yes, betrayal, because if Obama meant what he said in Tuesday’s State of the Union address about holding the financial industry responsible for its scams, why did he appoint the old Clinton crowd that had legalized those scams to the top economic posts in his administration? Why did he hire Timothy Geithner, who has turned the Treasury Department into a concierge service for Wall Street tycoons? 

ODS strikes the memory first. Apparently, Scheer's current memory is that his vote for Obama was a vote for a far left progressive when he voted for him in 2008. After all, that's the only way he could feel “betrayal.” To feel “betrayal”, you have to have trusted the person in question, don't you?

Fortunately for Robert, I was a regular listener to KCRW’s “Left, Right and Center” podcast at the time. I can assure you; in 2008, Robert Scheer continually reminded the other panelists, Matt Miller, Tony Blankley and (sometimes) Arianna Huffington, that Obama was a centrist and not a full on liberal. His columns before the 2008 election (such as this one) and after the election but before the inauguration (like this one) also reveal that he knew he was voting for a “centrist,” and one he didn’t seem to like very much.

 In other words, Scheer's ODS has been part of his life so long, and has been a part of his life for so long, he can't possibly feel betrayed. 

It's especially sad to see an actual professional left journalist stricken by ODS, because they're so rare. His ODS is so severe, that he even engages in irational attacks on Tim Gethner, which seems to be a major symptom of ODS. From an ODS sufferer, the attacks on Geithner are always non-specific, because he really hasn’t done anything objectionable as Treasury Secretary.  An off-hand remark that is absolutely unsupportable by fact such as “turning the Treasury Department into a concierge service for Wall Street tycoons” is unworthy of a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, and a sure sign that the ODS has advanced almost to the point of no return. 

Another example of the effects of ODS is apparent in the following passage:

Why hasn’t he pushed for a restoration of the Glass-Steagall Act, which Clinton’s deregulation reversed? Does the president really believe that the Dodd-Frank slap-on-the-wrist sellout represents “new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like this never happens again”? Can he name one single too-big-to-fail banking monstrosity that has been reduced in size on his watch instead of encouraged to grow ever larger by Treasury and Fed bailouts and interest-free money?

This has to be the ODS speaking. The journalist Robert Scheer knows the answers to all of these questions, and the implications are flat wrong.

Obama actually did push for a restoration of Glass-Steagall, which is why we have Dodd-Frank. What the president proposed what was pretty much a full restoration of Glass-Steagall in June 2009; it was in all the papers. If the ODS wasn't so debilitating, Scheer could have looked up the history of the bill on THOMAS. It seems to be too much to ask that the opinions of OGS sufferers be backed by facts. The ODS has clouded Scheer's judgment so much, he seems to not realise what a miracle it was to get Dodd-Frank passed at all, since Republicans in the Senate were filibustering everything Democrats proposed. He should know this; that’s his job as journalist. But alas, the Obama Derangement Syndrome has taken its toll on his journalistic judgment. 

If he isn't suffering from ODS, why would Scheer imply that Obama and Geithner bailed out the banks? The bailouts were passed before he became president. I would also point out that, assisted by Geithner, Obama has recovered MOST of the bank bailout money. And only an ODS sufferer would think a president could simply order private companies to break up? A Pulitzer Prize winning journalist without ODS would certinly understand that CONGRESS would have to pass a law that leads to them breaking up, and that such a law would never pass the Republican brick wall. 

Scheer's ODS is apparently so ingrained that he even managed to take a little dig at Clinton in the passage above. To call it “Clinton’s deregulation” is a bit sophomoric. Phil and Wendy Gramm were the masterminds behind that amendment, not Clinton, a fact that Scheer actually once knew all too well before his ODS took over his entire mind.

Here is Scheer from his appearance on Democracy Now, September 22, 2008:

ROBERT SCHEER: Yeah, well, the point is, when Bush and McCain and Paulson, who was head of Goldman Sachs before he was head of the Treasury, say they don’t know how this happened, they designed this system. We had a regulatory regime in place ever since the Great Depression to prevent this kind of meltdown, and that said that stockbrokers, insurance companies, banks, investment banks, commercial banks, could not merge. And in 1999, they passed legislation, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Gramm is the guy who McCain supported for president in ’96. He was co-chair of his campaign until he complained about the whiners out there, meaning the public. And that legislation is what caused this. It allowed the swaps and everything else. 

And then, in 2000, hours before the Christmas break, Gramm introduced legislation. I’m holding it in my hand. This smoking gun is available on the internet; you can read it. And what it said is that the swaps is defined in the Financial Service Modernization Act, meaning that instead of going into a bank and somebody said, “OK, we’ll give you a loan, and we expect you to pay it over thirty years. We know your house has the equity. We know you have the means to pay it” — that was the traditional way — instead, they allowed these mergers, and as a result, they could buy insurance on it, they could do these swaps, they could do what they call hybrid instruments. And it is legislation that was never discussed, was — never had hearings or anything, says that all of this stuff is exempted from all previous regulation. The SEC cannot regulate it, the Commodity Futures Board cannot regulate it. 

So they gave these institutions, of which Goldman Sachs was critical — so was Citigroup, where Robert Rubin, who was Clinton’s Treasury secretary, he had also come from Goldman Sachs. And, by the way, even though this is Republican-led, there were plenty of Democrats, in fact, a majority of Democrats, who voted for this. And Robert Rubin, who unfortunately is advising Barack Obama — I don’t know how this guy can wake up and — you know, and not be embarrassed and how he can appear on television — and Lawrence Summers, these are the two guys in the Clinton administration who teamed up with Phil Gramm to pass that atrocious legislation. 

A couple of things to note from the above. One is, obviously, Phil Gramm was the guy who wrote this crap, Clinton was given shitty advice from Rubin and Summers. But obviously, it’s not “Clinton Deregulation.” And look at his sideways attack on Barack Obama, just six weeks before the election. Again; how can someone “betray” you, if you never trusted him in the first place? Apparently, the ODS was already taking hold. 

ODS is an insidious condition that turn an award-winning journalist's brain to irrational mush. Take this attempt to adopt what has become a de rigueur far left slur on Steven Jobs in his attempt to slam Obama.

It was also a bit bizarre for Obama to celebrate Steve Jobs as a model entrepreneur when the manufacturing jobs that the late Apple CEO created are in the same China that elsewhere in his speech the president sought to scapegoat for America’s problems. Apple, in its latest report on the subject, takes pride in attempting to limit the company’s overseas suppliers to a maximum workweek of 60 hours for their horribly exploited employees. Isn’t it weird to be chauvinistically China baiting when that country carries much of our debt?

Like I said; ODS is an insidious disease. Look at the complete disregard for facts.

First of all, the notion that Apple is simply about “manufacturing jobs” has been debunked before, such as with this article from ZDNet. The fact is, jobs have been leaving the United States for such a long time, we no longer have the factories or skilled workers to make something as sophisticated as the components in the machines Apple makes.  But it’s also unfair, because Apple has created a class of entrepreneur that is huge in its scope. I’ll get into this more in a later post, but suffice it to say, Scheer’s ODS-driven whine about Apple is based on a Luddite’s approach to economy. Computers simply won’t work without the software and apps to run them. Without the software, which is largely made here, most computers, including Apple’s, would be doorstops. It's the software that makes these machines work. And with their app store, anyone with the ability to write code has the opportunity to create something that will work on one of these machines. Computers are not toasters. 

But the best evidence of the effect of Scheer’s ODS comes when he accuses the president of tying to “scapegoat” China in the State of the Union Address. Seriously? He obviously didn’t listen to the speech very well. Here was everything President Obama said about China:

Tonight, I'm announcing the creation of a Trade Enforcement Unit that will be charged with investigating unfair trade practices in countries like China. There will be more inspections to prevent counterfeit or unsafe goods from crossing our borders. And this Congress should make sure that no foreign company has an advantage over American manufacturing when it comes to accessing finance or new markets like Russia. Our workers are the most productive on Earth, and if the playing field is level, I promise you – America will always win.

(…)

I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.

Those were the only mentions of China in the entire speech. I don’t see any attempt to create a “scapegoat.” I have to be honest here; the ODS has progressed so far, I'm not sure Scheer can be helped. How can you take anyone seriously when they accuse the President of the United States for trying to “scapegoat” a dictatorial country that acknowledges use of slave labor, imprisons anyone who tries to bring democracy to the country, and that openly acknowledges the use of what is practically slave labor? Even if he was trying to "scapegoat" China, any progressive should reject the notion out of hand. 

Apparently, The ODS-addled Scheer isn’t planning to vote in the next election, given the way he ends this silly column:

Of course, Romney, Obama’s most likely opponent in the general election, will never challenge the Wall Street hold on Washington, since he is the personification of the vulture capitalism that is the true cause of America’s decline. Obama should shine in comparison with his Republican challenger, but there is little in his State of the Union speech to suggest he will chart a much-needed new course in his second term.

Well, he won’t be able to at all, if Obama Derangement Syndrome continues to grip the professional left.

There is a way to curb the spread of ODS among the professional left, and that is by promoting the truth. Join me in spreading this cure, won't you?

 

Pro Left Insult Obama Every Chance They Get: Case Study #2: Huffington, Michael Moore

If you want to quibble with President Obama’s State of the Union address last night, feel free. This is a free country, after all, even if the right wing would like for everyone to be less free. But the speech was masterful for two reasons. First, it laid out a bold vision for the future that every progressive should be excited about. But just as importantly, it used the Republican Party’s own rhetoric to frame the issues, which means they'll have to abandon the few principles they have left, to attack Obama. This should make progressives downright giddy.

Yet, my Twitter feed has been chock full of naysayers this morning; mostly, they’re self-professed “progressives” who are managing to twist themselves into something of a pretzel shape in order to backhand President Obama for not being perfect. The professional left have been particularly harsh.

Arianna Huffington, for example, Tweeted the following first thing this morning:

 

A speech that ran for about 90 minutes, and THAT was what she took out of it? And isn’t she supposed to be a great journalism mogul these days? She actually had to take the quote completely out of context in order to take a swipe at the president. Here is the quote in its proper context from a transcript of the State of the Union Address:

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn't know what they're talking about. That's not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That's not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they've been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can't control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs - and as long as I'm President, I intend to keep it that way.

Yes, that’s right; the woman who has control of a significant journalism enterprise actually had to take a quote referring to American global leadership, and apply it to domestic issues.

The fact of the matter is, America’s prestige was greatly damaged by the Bush Administration, and the black eye that was left by those clowns on the world stage for eight years has largely been healed over the past three. THAT was what Obama was referring to, as is clear when you bother to look at the context.

Say, aren’t journalists supposed to include context in their reporting? More importantly, if someone has to take a quote OUT of context in order to make a point, is that criticism valid at all?  

The FACT is, President Obama acknowledged that we still suck, domestically speaking. And he offered a number of initiatives, in the form of tax breaks for those who bring manufacturing here and the elimination of rules that allow American companies to locate offshore and avoid taxes in their own country.

But what bothers me most about the Tweet is that it actually implies that President Obama is the one responsible for “23 million” being unemployed or under-employed. That is obviously false, and that is what people see when they read Huffington’s crap. The constant negativity and the false narratives play to the Republicans’ major strategy, which is to depress turnout. Depressed turnout makes their solidly fanatical minority more powerful, and makes it more likely that Republicans will make gains again in 2012.

Then there is Michael Moore.

I actually like Michael Moore. I know he doesn’t think I do about now, but this blog deals with real politics, and he only seems to have one foot in the real world. I have no doubt that he really cares about the poor. But his political instincts just plain suck, and much of what he does actually leads to more right wing influence, not less.

He’s made a few silly Tweets since the State of the Union, but this one shows just how important it seems to be for everyone on the professional left to make a dig at President Obama, even when they’re complimenting him. That would be okay, if the dig was actually true.

 

The truth is, Michael, that given Iran’s history and their current leadership, war IS an option. It will always be an option with them, because they are not above threatening to start one. Also, if you knew anything about dealing with the Middle East, you would know that leaderships in the region always have to leave the possibility of war on the table. If you don’t understand why, I suggest you teach yourself some history.

It’s a mischaracterization of what Obama said in two ways. The president didn’t imply that war was not off the table, he stated it outright, as any good political leader would with a country like Iran. I know some progressives only want to think of puppies and kittens and unicorns who fart glitter, but we live in the real world, in which bad guys want to get their hands on nuclear weapons so they can sell them to other bad guys, or use them themselves. That’s the real world. 

But read what Obama actually said in the State of the Union address:

And we will safeguard America's own security against those who threaten our citizens, our friends, and our interests. Look at Iran. Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran's nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent. Let there be no doubt: America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.

Can you imagine ANY Republican running for reelection making such a statement? Again, in context, he DID threaten them with anything he had to do to keep them from getting a nuclear weapon (which is rational), but he also offered them an olive branch at the same time. Yet, Michael can apparently only hear the threat of war, and not the offer of peace because, for whatever reason, he seems to have to bash President Obama every chance he gets. It almost seems pathological to these folks.

When did it become de rigueur for the professional left to say something bad about President Obama every chance they get? They have to be under the impression it resonates with progressives, or raises the “street cred” factor among lefties. But we can’t afford this anymore, folks. This is how we ended up with teabaggers running the damn Congress. This is why President Obama can push forth a comprehensive jobs bill, and Republicans can simply refuse to pass it. This is how we got Governors like Walker, Daniels and Scott.

Our side sucks at politics, and Republicans have come to depend on it.

It’s time we all started putting pressure on professional lefties, and got them to at least tell the truth. Just as importantly, they all know the choice for president will be between Obama and either Romney or Gingrich, so what’s the point of habitually trying to put the president in a bad light? Do they really think putting Romney or Gingrich into the White House will make the country more progressive?  Republicans have been winning most elections for 32 years now; how much longer are progressives willing to wait? Do you really imagine the Occupy movement will be able to convince either Gingrich or Romney to put moderates on the Supreme Court? And who do you think they’ll drag into Congress with them if we depress turnout enough for them to win again? Gosh, yes; what this country needs is more teabaggers.

Words matter. Rhetoric matters. And most of all, the TRUTH matters. And they all matter because the American people matter, and the people need progressives to take their turn at bat and run the show. We have to become smarter, politically. And that means taking everything a self-proclaimed “progressive” tells you with a grain of salt, and check the facts before drawing conclusions. Yes, folks, that includes me. No one is always right; always check facts. Believing everything the professional left says just makes you gullible, not smarter. 

The professional left is not your friend. 

 

On Skepticism

You know why Fox News is so popular? This may seem strange, but it’s precisely because they don’t tell the truth. They tell people what they want to hear. Many people have preconceived notions about how things should be, and they like to feel validated, regardless of the lack of truth contained in their opinions. In other words, right wingers tend to be low-information types, and they care more about seeing their opinions being validated than telling the truth.

One thing you can count on from extremists; they don’t care about the truth much at all. And if you think only right wing extremists fall victim to the Fox News curse, then you need to pay better attention. Many on the professional left sell us misinformation in much the same way. If you fall for someone trying to flatter you into believing something they want you to believe, and you don't check the facts, that makes you just as gullible as those poor saps who depend on Fox News for all of their information. 

Here are a few facts to chew on:

The Main (But not the only) Reason to Vote Democratic; The Current GOP Sucks; Here's Proof

You've heard this from me many times over the years, but both parties are NOT the same, and anyone who says such a thing is not an "expert," no matter how he/she portray themselves.

The 2012 election is a crucial one for progressives. This is our tipping point; if we don't make our mark now, we risk becoming a historical asterisk. We have allowed the right wing to pretty much run the show for the last 32 years, and it's time to take the country back. I'm not talking about marching and singing and playing political theater. I'm talking about opening our eyes and seeing the real problem with our politics and getting rid of it. 

 Whether you like it or not, the economy will always be the number one issue, regardless of the year. But the Republican Party still touts economic policies which were proven wrong many years ago, like supply-side economics, which is often called "trickle-down." Unless we're comparing the economy to molasses, a lot more should have "trickled down" to us by now, don't you think? It has been 32 years, after all. 

Pro Lefties Can't Give Obama Credit for ANYTHING. Case Study #1: FDL

I’m really not all that worried about President Obama winning reelection. The GOP Klown Kar is doing all it can to help Obama win another four years. Seriously, if the best they can do is Willard Romney, progressives will have to screw this one up worse than we did in 2000. 

Yes, progressives; it wasn’t the Katherine Harris or the Supreme Court that decided that election; Even running an admittedly lousy campaiogn the choice of Al Gore over George W. Bush should have been a no-brainer for progressives, including Ralph Nader, Michael Moore and the like. But alas, those savvy political thinkers on the professional left undermined Gore mercilessly, while leaving Bush untouched.

That was twelve years ago, and you’d think such savvy political thinkers might have learned a little something by now.  After all, they’re supposed to be “professionals” right? And aren’t professionals supposed to be better than the rest of us amateurs at politics?

They haven’t learned much of anything.

Last Word on NDAA: If You Don't Like it, Stop Helping Right Wingers Win!

See, the problem with us progressives is, many of us think we know all about issues, but we don’t. We get so bogged down in pointless minutiae, we completely lose sight of the issues themselves. The funny thing is, some "progressives" PRIDE themselves for knowing about millions of small details on every issue, at the same time they lose sight of the big picture, and what politics is REALLY about.

Take the NDAA, for example. Oh, my, are some people on the left pissed off about this! It started with the professional left, but a lot of far lefties took up the mantle. 

Oh, my goodness, folks! The entire republic is about to go up in flames because the president might actually be able to imprison some non-citizens indefinitely during a war! Gosh, when has that ever happened, right? And it’s ALL President Obama’s fault! That hopey changey bastard! How DARE he sign a bill that passed with a veto-proof majority in which 2 of its 565 pages were flawed? 

Anybody Wanna Buy Our "Mansion"? Politifact Surrenders Its Credibility

As those who have been following this blog for a while know, it’s about uncovering lies and encouraging the use of facts to move the progressive movement forward. The problem with saying things that are provably false is, eventually someone will discover the falsehood, and will tend to not believe anything you say afterward. We need a majority on our side, which means we must invest ourselves in truth. 

I’ve always had a problem with “fact checking” web sites run my major news or propaganda organizations. Media Matters, I love, because they don't actually interpret. They simply say whatever was said, then show whatever caused a contradiction, and let the readers decide what they should believe. They do lean left when it comes to choosing which lies they discuss, but their discussion of falsehoods is rarely, if ever, actually biased. Too many "fact checking" organizations, however, have a tendency to assert their own biases in their analyses. 

Some will recall that I had a major row with Factcheck a couple of years ago, when they tried to claim the Affordable Care Act would allow for government funding of abortions. It was bad enough that they made a mistake, but after I uncovered the mistake and corrected them using language in both the ACA and the Hyde Amendment, the director of Factcheck, Brooks Jackson, insisted he was right because, well, he was, that’s all. They lost a lot of credibility with me, and many of my readers, and I still fact check Factcheck as a result. 

The TRUTH Will Set Progressives Free!

I know some of you think I have something personal against people like Greenwald, Hamsher, Moore and the rest of the professional left. I assure you, I do not. I'm sure if I met them and had a conversation with them, I'd find them delightful. In fact, I can honestly say, I admire them all for the things they do right. I still point to Bowling for Columbine as one of the best examinations of our gun culture ever, and Roger & Me changed the definition of documentary forever. (Well, until Ken Burns came along and added another definition, anyway.) I happen to like a lot of what Glenn Greenwald and Jane hamsher write; I only have a problem with their increasing tendency to exaggerate, and even outright lie, in an attempt to "sensationalize" their views on issues. They think they're helping the cause by providing extreme lefties with "red meat," in the same way the right wing does. They would be wrong.When the professional left simply makes things up, it actually undermines the movement. Our media can’t be like Fox News and expect to win elections.

For the last 40 years, the progressive side of the debate has been largely dormant. We have been extremely ineffective, politically speaking, to the point that a small minority of right wing cretins has been able to dominate electoral politics for the last 32 years. The reason we have been dormant is because a large portion of our most vocal “advocates” apparently believe that the sorts of things Limbaugh and the douchebags at Fox News do and say actually work, and make the right more popular. They do work, but not because the right wing becomes more popular. The right wing doesn't win elections, we LOSE THEM. That's a VERY important distinction.

There's No Such Thing as an “Indefinite Detention Bill” and Other Pro Left Lies

One of the most galling things about the professional left is the number of times they lie to make a point. You can’t be a progressive and also lie to the people who read your stuff. As this blog notes time and time again, the truth has a liberal bias; Fox News needs to lie; we do not.

Case in point; the hysteria over what many pro and emo lefties refer to as the “Indefinite Detention Bill.” Even people I often admire are buying into the hysteria, and it’s become depressing.

First thing you should know is, there is NO SUCH THING as an “Indefinite Detention Bill.” The actual bill Obama first threatened to veto and has now agreed to sign is called the “National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012.” The part about the “indefinite detention” is actually one small portion of a very large bill.

Yet, who the hell do these supposed "liberals" go after? Not the people who put that crap into the bill in the first place, of course. They go after President Obama, who has command of the military (which includes my son, who’s working hard trying to rebuild Afghanistan, by the way) and have little choice but to put up with such Amendments. How incredibly stupid is this? Did so many progressive really learn NOTHING from the 2010 elections?

Another Example of Professional Lefties Blowing Off Facts

One reason the progressive movement has been largely stalled for the last 30-40 years is because the average person simply doesn’t understand what our movement is supposed to be about. That's entirely our fault. The loudest component of the progressive movement, the “professional left,” as it were, likes to speak broadly about issues, at the same time they obsess over minutiae that really has no basis in reality.  If you look at the liberal press, especially the blogs, you see mostly broad negatives, very few positives and quite a few unhealthy obsessions.

Their latest unhealthy obsession seems to be with banks, specifically "big banks," whatever the hell they are. I suppose it's one of those "you know them when you see them" things, right? Big banks are the root of all evil, as the professional left sees it. If we just get rid of those "big banks," our economy will be fixed, all poor people will become rich, angels will once again dance on the heads of pins, and no police officer will ever again stop a black man for walking through the “wrong neighborhood.”

Okay, that was a slight exaggeration, but only slight.

If Cain's Considered "Good Businessman," No Wonder Economy's So Bad

So Herman Cain has suspended his presidential campaign.  Pardon me while I yawn. This was never a campaign, so much as a book tour. No one on the Republican side has more than a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything. Cain was never going to get the nomination, which is why it has always amused me that anyone took him seriously at all. But this column isn’t about his doomed candidacy; it’s about this notion that Cain’s main qualification (besides his having the right skin color to allow right wingers to think they could be forgiven for their racism) was that he was a brilliant businessman.

He wasn't. Not even close.

Finally! Decent Political Satire in your eBookstore!

 

Tired of the Right Wing?

Sick of not finding good, solid political satire in your local bookstore?

BUY These Books!!! 

Talent on Loan 2.0

Talent on Loan 2.0 tells the inspiring story of a fat, lazy moronic right wing talk show host and the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that engulfs him. It's the story of a plot to take down the President of the United States by attempting to involve him in a sex scandal. Basically, this political satire can be a primer on how the Right Wing Fart Machine works. It's been completely rewritten and updated. 

 Available for just $3.99 from the Kindle Store. 

                            Now Available for the Barnes & Noble Nook

                                  Available soon in the iBook store for the iPad, iPhone

 

Also for Sale! 

The Most Blasphemous Novel Ever Written!

Not Another Savior!

Not Another Savior is the inspiring story of Jesse Carpenter and his involvement with the largest religious corporation in the world, and their attempts to become relevant again after a series of scandals rock them and rock their bottom lines. Perfect if you don't like what religion's become. It's also a great gift for the Christians on your list, to make them think. Note; there is no bad language in this book, so it should be safe for the Christians to read, right? RIGHT? 

On eBook Now Just $1.99 

Kindle   Nook   

Also available through iBooks app for iPad and iPhone

Michele Bachmann read these books, and had to have a corn dog!

Yes, that's right, folks. Michele's dream came true! So can yours!

Copyright 2011, Noitall Publishing 

Update on DHS Conspiracy BS; Rick Ellis Takes on Karoli, Fails BigTime

This is essentially an update to a column I posted 10 days ago, which can be found here.

As you can see at the link, I tried really hard to give Rick Ellis the benefit of the doubt, but I can't anymore. 

Saturday, Ellis posted an "update" of sorts, entitled "The dangers of relying on common sense (or why Crooks & Liars is wrong). Now, his original "story," such as it is, has been flying around the Internet and left leaning news, even though absolutely zero provable facts were contained in the original, and no additional facts have come to light. Yet, once again, Rick Ellis uses unverifiable fact and supposition to make the unprovable DECLARATION that "Crooks & Liars is wrong." 

He's referring to this story on the "Crooks & Liars" website, written by longtime blogger, Karoli. The essence of the story actually has little to do with Mr. Ellis; It's about the hysteria surrounding a story that has been bouncing around the Internet for 11 days, and which was absolutely refuted by my post 10 days ago. Mr. Ellis is only mentioned tangentially in this piece. The essence of his mention can be summed up by the following passage:

Politics 101 for the Far Left: Lessons #1 thru #9: Revised & Updated.

When all is said and done, if you want to know why the politics in what should be a liberal country such as the United States has been dominated for 32 years by people who should be relegated to the fringe, if you consider yourself to be on the far left, look in the mirror. If not, look at the far left.

A quick perusal of the leftist “blogosphere” shows people who obsess over everything that happens, as if they’re doing play-by-play for a baseball game. But they seem to neither know nor care about the average person, and they definitely lack understanding of basic politics.  It’s amazing how little they know, yet they act like experts, despite the fact that the only people who actually buy their bullshit are like-minded people who are gullible.

Yes, folks; a lot of left wingers, especially those on the "professional left" are JUST LIKE the far right in that way.