Features

Political features and current events

That Which We Call a Radical by Any Other Name

by Pokey McDooris • March 1, 2015

Some random thoughts struck me this week, Zano, like squirrels on water skis, honey badger, and that hot barista over at Starbucks. Then some relevant thoughts struck me, but, since you have no answers, I thought I would list them all in an attempt to continue to annoy the crap out of you. First off, stop the placating! Start to join the voices condemning Islam as irrational, hateful, and just plain wrong. Quit encouraging these bullies and let’s start our own academic Jihad! Then more squirrels on water skis.

This week Rudy Giuliana said he didn’t believe that Barack Obama loved this country but, when challenged, Giuliana didn’t give a very strong defense of his statement and essentially backed down. Glenn Beck, however, did have a good response. Beck asked the question, “Is it possible for a person to want to ‘fundamentally change this country’ and still love this country?” I believe that to be a fair challenge. I know you have nothing but contempt for Mr. Beck, but back in 2013 Beck claimed that ISIS was forming a Caliphate. At this time our president was referring to ISIS as “the JV team.”

Then, this week, President Obama said, “Islam is woven into the fabric of the foundation of the United Sates” (paraphrased). This is totally false. Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the foundation of the United States, and it wasn’t until the 1890s that the 1st Islamic center was built in New York. In the 1700s, if there were such a person on this land who had even suggested Sharia law, they would have been rightly executed.

“We need to transform our history.”

—Barack Obama

President Obama said that ISIS is not Islamic, but rather a “hijacking of Islam.” This is also false. ISIS is not a deviation from Islam. ISIS has a coherent theology rooted in the Koran. ISIS is as Islamic as Muhammad; it might make us feel good to say otherwise, but if anything, ISIS is a ‘Reformation’ of the barbaric, yet theologically rooted, foundation of Islam.

The central message of the Koran is for the community of believers to spread its message through violence. Those people who truly believe that Muhamad is the last Prophet of Allah and that the Koran comes from God are at war with us, whether we like it, believe it, speak of it, or not.

By not addressing the reality of what is actually occurring in ISIS, Islam, and the Middle East, we are putting our heads in the sand as our enemy grows stronger and is emboldened by our feeble signs of weakness.

To say ISIS is not Islamic is like saying that the Nazis were not fascist. Let me start by contrasting the “racist slayings” in the U.S. with the real bigoted slayings going on around the globe like in Syria, France, Africa, etc. Our President and Al Sharpton and you too, Zano, ought to be rallying protests against the bigoted ideology—yes, “Islam.” Say it with me, kids. Isssslaaaaaam. What’s the capitol of Pakistan, kids? Islamisbad. I’m here til Friday. Is this thing on?

Those on the left have been tiptoeing around these bullies for too long. Call it what it is: Islam is a religion of intolerance—no, not just radical Islam, Islam itself. Read the Koran, look at the history. A Moderate Muslim is a person who doesn’t really believe that Muhammad is a prophet and doesn’t really believe that the Koran is from God. Anybody who really believes that Muhammad is a prophet and that the Koran is really from God is a radical Muslim.

We, that is reasonable Western thinking democracies, must expose Islam for what it is, no holds barred. Islam is a religion of intolerance. Oh, I know not all Islamic people are violent, but all true believing Islamists are tolerant of the violent worldwide jihad which is right not being waged against you and I.

Oh, and Zano, the only thing separating the Islamic State from you and me is conservative Christians. It sure isn’t the Democratic Party. Those same folks who work tirelessly to undermine, weaken and ridicule, Conservative Christians, kind of forget about Islam. Boo hoo, a reprehensible cartoon depiction of Muhammad, a reprehensible video, a reprehensible book, a reprehensible blog, blah, blah, blah. Yes, your blog is reprehensible but for decidedly different reasons.

I’m tired of these guys making everybody tip toe around them. Oh, be careful not to offend Abdul, kids. No really, he’s wearing a suicide vest.

Oh yeah, and the President will encourage the showing of the ‘Interview’ as a sign of patriotism? Well, let’s paste those cartoons on every newspaper and news station across the world. Oh no, that would be incendiary. What is more reprehensible to joke about the killing of present day world leader, or the satirical depiction of a false prophet who’s been dead for 1400 years?

Next installment: rethinking the virtues of the Holy Crusades…

by Mick Zano • February 24, 2015

To me the ‘unalienable rights’ part of the Declaration of Independence means absolute rights that cannot be tampered with. Whereas the origin of these rights remain open to debate, the rights themselves are not. Pokey worries that without defining the origin-part, liberals will try to change shit. On that note, there’s as much Athens as Jerusalem in our founding documents so let’s begin by replacing ‘God-given’ with ‘Zeus-given’. Then let’s draw a really cool lightning bolt over the entire next paragraph and change the name of this thing to the Bill of Smites.

[Winslow: This is a continuation of a debate that has sadly been allowed to continue.]

To benefit from the spirit of our Constitution we needn’t define the God-part. Our Founding Fathers (FFs) had a healthy dose of atheism, so they avoided naming the particular deity in question. The WHO who bestowed these rights is moot, and with good reason. The Age of Reason comes to mind, or the flip side Sharia Law. Of course, our FFs were more worried about the Church of England at the time. Damn Protestants. They understood God could be any God, Gods, or higher power. But please avoid cartoon Gods where prohibited.

Some believe these rights are bestowed by a bearded guy in the clouds while others do not. But one day YOU WILL ALL KNOW the glory of the Flying Spaghetti Monster! To me the key is that these rights are inherent and irrefutable. Sure the FFs stated the “right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” comes from God, but then these same folks spent no small amount of time ensuring a clear separation of church and state.

To me unalienable means—

[Zano’s 17 page Ancient Alien rant rejected by the editor]

Whereas you, Pokey, are looking at colonial times from solely a Christian standpoint, I realize our founding documents were an amalgam. Sure it’s an amalgam with clear ties to The Bible but, taking a page from Ken Wilber, I believe our FFs were operating at a much higher level of consciousness than the norm for that time period. The idea of starting with some basic tenants that could not be overruled by anyone from a lower, or even a higher perspective was brilliant (no matter how you slice it). They were certainly light years ahead of either party today. They only used this fundamental origin-myth to protect the essence of their vision, not the least of which is that all men are Created Splenda. (Sorry, but I already changed that part, because Equal causes cancer.)

After all, they started this schitznik with We The People, not We The Children of God. The people had the sovereignty here, not the all-mighty, or the all-mighty dollar. That came later. The whole tug-o-war between a Christian Nation vs the Wall of Separation between church and state remains ongoing, then and now. I’m not an all-or-none thinker and the answer, as usual, lies somewhere in between:

“The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.”

—Richard Berkhiser

Let’s look at the rest of that phrase “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Life

To me life means breathing and stuff. The GOP seems to only find life in the womb sacred. Discuss any post-natal rights and they get all snotty. Post-natal drips? I believe The GOP has become a cult of death. Climate change? Nah. Dying oceans? Nah. Overpopulation? Nah. The need to shift to alternative energies? No thank you. We prefer a better life, through death.

Republicans love children and they show this profound Christian love by gutting education, child protective services, and all regulation of food and water. They always just want to turn their heads …and cough.

So in this nirvana of yours the church is supposed to take care of the mentally ill with prayer and with cookies? You don’t need to be insured, you don’t need medical care, you don’t need basic sick leave or any basic wage to function in our current society. You don’t need workers’ rights, you don’t need vaccinations from deadly illnesses…you know, the ones once eradicated through said vaccinations. You have the freedom to either die in the lobby without coverage or die in your designated sweatshop. That’s a wonderful interpretation of our Founding Fathers’ vision. You have the right to life…until our policies kill you. Mass extinction sold separately.

Is life longer and fuller without healthcare coverage? Do you really believe that?

“Just live a little. No really, just a little. That’s all we’re funding.”

—John Q. Republican

Liberty

Let’s take liberty…no really, take it. James Madison extended the Constitution to include the Bill of Rights to protect said liberty. The Bush Administration essentially junked the thing indefinitely post 9/11.

And what about the War on Drugs? That shit-show cost us dearly. Ever heard of the Rico law? Your house car or cash can be confiscated by the police if they even suspect anything you or your family member might have done related to a drug offense. And you’re trying to tell me that having a well-funded emergency room in your town trumps all of these affronts? Isn’t it more likely you’re being duped? I think NSA is all we agree on this topic.

Suffice to say, once you can by picked up off the street by your government without due process, held indefinitely, and then tortured, uh, I think that might infringe on your liberties ….a tad.

“Never ever get a writ of Habeas Corpus.”

—Groucho Jefferson

The Pursuit of Happiness

Let’s ignore my hedonistic view of happiness for a moment. Sex, drugs, and rock & roll sold separately. Christian “values” keep people from dying with dignity and it keeps them from having access to pornography while in hospice care—which is no small point when your last request is spiritual midget porn. If given a chance Christians would impose their version of happiness on us all. The FFs understood this part, even if you don’t. On a related note, I come from a long line of Impuritans.

One nonstarter is how a Christian Nation invariably tries to remove temptation. They would block even any chance of sin, which is a ridiculous approach to helping someone move toward spiritual growth. Try interviewing some altar boys to see how well that’s working out. This is also why the decriminalization of all drugs must occur. Did God remove the Tree of Knowledge from the Garden of Eden? Hell, he didn’t even block porn in that liberal Portlandia. Eve? Is that you burning frankincense again, you naked hippy chick?

I think there’s a big difference if you call something like healthcare an inherent right, but universal healthcare does seem to work in everywhere it has been tried. Sorry, but freedom didn’t die anywhere it’s been tried. The taxes associated with healthcare costs polled well in all 18 countries. Again, I think there’s a middle ground at play here, well, should our republican friends outgrow their middle school playgrounds. Pursuing happiness from poverty is possible but not always preferable. I don’t want to belittle the efforts of our churches, but they are not the whole picture—they’re not even the previews.

Rick Santorum, a guy cut from your cloth, would like to see the church prominent and powerful again. He feels the separation of Church and State only goes one way. He feels the government itself must be separated from any church, but churches can petition the government as much as they want.

“WHAT?!”

—Our Founding Fathers amidst a collective face palm

And that was just their reaction to his latest sweater vest. If you recall the context back in 1776, our FFs obviously wanted a very clear separation of Church and State. Hey, why not shift the whole wall on our southern border back to where our Founding Fathers intended? …between Church and State. Lest we forget the church had full control of the West for many centuries. It was called the Dark Ages.

Back to the Other Main Point: The Constitutionality of Obamacare

I never said the individual mandate was a clear violation of the Constitution. I said I had concerns about that one aspect of that 1,000+ page law. I am not a constitutional scholar, nor am I an all-or-none thinker, so I am forced to leave that important task to our partisan Supremes. Any ruling that arises from your infallible document—the one handed to us from God himself—is deemed constitutional or not depending on the ratio of D to R appointed judges during said ruling. Funny how that works.

Meanwhile, Senator Orin Hatch (R) and Senator Fred Upton (R) have just proposed an alternative health plan, which is suspiciously similar to the ACA, minus the individual mandate. They want to give tax credits to compensate for this emergency room penalty. In their version you can keep coverage for your existing condition as well. But unless you counter the high risk pool with lots of other people that approach makes no sense (See: any other proposal by republican in the 21^st century).

Things may go down as Starsky and Hatch are proposing, but essentially it will be Obamacare under a new name and without any viable way to pay for it. Of course, if we elect a republican president what we call the ACA will be the least of our problems.

Others have already come up with some individual mandate work-arounds, as previously mentioned here. I won’t strip millions of Americans from their healthcare coverage for a piece of this law that is not remotely fatal, for a piece of this law that is currently deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, for a piece of this law that may well be correctible. If you change ‘unalienable’ rights to unconscionable then I think you have a point.

How is having access to an emergency room destroying your freedom, Pokey? Could we afford the fire department needed if every household in the U.S. burst into flames? The government takes a lot of your paycheck and it always will, so why is this bit so hard to digest? How much of our check goes to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, fire, garbage, infrastructure, schools etc? If you don’t have a kid, you still pay a school tax. If you don’t have a fire you still pay for that fire department. And now, if you don’t have a medical emergency there still an emergency room down the street should you need it. You peeps always complain about the money associated with a basic functional society, yet you ignore the fact you can’t unionize, get a raise, get time off, or get a life. Freedom…you’re doing it wrong.

Excuse me if I don’t want to pay for your ‘personal responsibility’ from my pay check. It’s a shared burden…like Fox News. If you don’t like it, live off the grid, nature boy. You’re making much ado about healthcare. And what are you complaining about? You and your ilk are winning. We don’t invest in infrastructure, we don’t take care of our most vulnerable, as we devolve into a third world nation. How do you folks twist reality into such a pretzel? Don’t ask me to get inside the head of a republican; I have weak constitutions. See? I just threw up on my amendments again. Oh and sorry, Pokey, but I changed some of the first part too:

We the Spoof Bloggers , in order to form a more perfect Onion.

What da ya think? Oh, and I already changed the Zeus part again. I’m kind of partial to Dionysius, but I’m still keeping the lightning bolt. It doesn’t have to make sense. Hell, republicans don’t.

by Pokey McDooris • February 22, 2015

I’ve recently read one of your articles on the Discord, Zano, where you acknowledge that the individual mandate is wrong, but you still argue that Obamacare is overall good for the nation. Perhaps Obamacare is an overall benefit to the nation. I don’t believe that it is, but I will hypothetically grant you the point—my problem with Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional and my problems with you go much deeper.

I know that you are going to find this redundant, but it is the central point that you refuse to acknowledge—the difference between a quantitative argument and a “principled” qualitative argument. It’s not that the individual mandate is one of the few problems with the legislation and that the virtues of the law so out-weigh the problems that Obamacare should be supported. You seem to recognize that the ‘Individual Mandate’ is unconstitutional, because it deprives Pokey McDooris of his unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet you still support it? This is the height of hypocrisy and I’m used to just dealing with your usual depths of depravity.

When a person recognizes that a legislation is unconstitutional, they do not have the right to support such legislation, as a matter of fact, they have an obligation to oppose it. You realize that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the 20 plus executive amendments to Obamacare are also unconstitutional). This is the principled flaw of your position, of which you have not addressed.

Here’s my ‘angle’ on the principles of our constitutional rights, and the possible differences we have on this subject:

1) All human being are endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s important to recognize that our constitutional rights are given to each and every human being as a gift from their Creator. These rights are not dependent upon human beings. Certain governments recognize my unalienable rights, and certain governments don’t recognize my unalienable rights; but no human power can take away my unalienable rights.

The core difference between our views on constitutional rights relates to our understanding of where those rights come from. I claim they are given to us by God; but you deny a God who grants us rights. So this is your problem, Zano. I know that you believe in Constitutional rights, but where do they come from? If you deny a Creator, then you are forced to either ignore the issue or admit that our constitutional rights are merely granted to us by human beings, and therefore they cease to be ‘unalienable,’ since human beings can in fact take those rights away. If fickle human beings grant us our rights, then fickle human beings do in fact have the “right” to take our rights away. Because if God doesn’t exist, then all things are permissible, um, except the things you do in your spare time.

Lucky for you, Zano, that God does indeed exist and not knowing the truth does not stop the truth from being true. It’s a choice between ‘power or truth’. The kingdoms of the world indoctrinate us to submit our rights to the powers that be; the Kingdom of God assures us that we have been specially created by God Himself, and that God has granted us certain rights, regardless of what the kingdoms of the world decide.

This is the core difference in everything, both religion and politics, that we debate. So answer me Zano, from where do we get our constitutinal rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I’m waiting….

by Mick Zano • February 18, 2015

I’ve read a lot of articles about Jon Stewart’s departure and most of them seem unusually harsh. Both left and right seem ready to see him go, for decidedly different reasons of course. Republicans don’t like Maher or Stewart because there’s nothing like them on the right, but the left’s whining is sad and unexpected. Kidding, SNL’s Doug and Wendy have nothing on libs.

Comedy doesn’t really work on the right because being constantly angry, wrong and paranoid just isn’t the best recipe for humor, but there’s way more criticism from the left than I would have expected. Slate Mag says get lost here and The Daily Banter says good riddance here. The gist of the Slate article is that Stewart is too centrist and should have been even more of a liberal attack dog. The Daily Banter article is just critical that he didn’t hire more transgender eco-feminist minorities, or some dipshit. Wow. Okay. Guffawrmative action?

Regardless of the topic, the best fodder always comes from the right. You can set your don’t watch by it. This wonderful bash came courtesy of HotAir: Stewart Sacrifices his remaining Credibility Defending Brian Williams? And the New York Post-Journalism brings us: How Jon Stewart Turned Lies into Comedy and Brainwashed a Generation. It says it was written by a guy named Kyle Smith but I’m thinking his main source for this one was Charlie Sheen after a yearlong Rave party. Of course, there’s no actual examples of lying or brainwashing in the article, but let’s give Kyle some credit, or at least a V for Vendetta.

Funny how republicans always say “You Lie!” and then invariably fail to explain said lie. Remember that guy who yelled “You Lie!” to Obama while Congress was in session? According to PolitiFact that was wrong too, but who’s counting? No, really, they don’t believe in math either.

Similarly the only ‘lies’ that Mr. Smith offers involves Stewart’s handling of the Brian Williams affair:

“Finally, someone is being held to account for misleading America about the Iraq war. It might not necessarily be the first person you’d want held accountable on that list. But never again will Brian Williams mislead this great nation about being shot at in a war we probably wouldn’t have ended up in if the media had applied this level of scrutiny to the actual f*cking war.”

—Jon Stewart

Apparently this is a lie, except for the whole being true part. After lambasting Stewart for not understanding the complexity of the Iraq War, he then attacks him for defending his friend to a fault. This is the only dirt you could come up with in 16 years? Really? Either Jon Stewart is the full-Cronkite or you didn’t do your homework. Stewart admitted Williams screwed up and was disappointed. I guess Stewart just lacked the necessary zeal to tear his friend to shreds like a grizzly at a trout farm. Speaking of fish, then Smith jumps the shark:

“Thanks to polemicists and clowns, the myth that ‘Bush lied’ has caught on, and now a majority of Americans believe it. Stewart-ism won the day.”

—Kyle smith

People believe Bush lied us into war for the simple fact that Bush lied us into war. Smith, yet again, blames the intelligence community for the invasion of Iraq. Bush should be retroactively impeached for Iraq and should hang for torture, in either order. That is not hyperbole that is what international law demands.

A Wholly Unnecessary Iraq Summary Alert:

We have the transcripts of the Downing Street Memos, which essentially say:

Hey Blair,

Help me come up with an excuse to blow the shit of Iraq.

Love George

P.S. Oh, and can I get to drive one of those big red buses?

I personally remember when inspector Hans Blix was begging to continue his work. He said that Hussein was cooperating and it didn’t look like there was any WMDs present. Bush essentially said, “Wrong answer. Get out of Dodge, Hans. It’s time for operation Shuck & Guffaw!”

Or:

“The invasion of Iraq was indeed a massive failure of intelligence, just not the kind you think.”

—Mick Zano

I know you forgot that part, Mr. Smith, in the same way you and your ilk conveniently forget every lesson from history of any significance. Jon Stewart is a comedian, yet he’s brighter and more journalistic than just about anyone on your team. While Jon understands the main points of the 21st century, you and your ilk simply do not.

Then comes this gem:

“College students, of course, are both little acquainted with realities of adult existence and walled off from conservative views, so they’re the perfect audience for Stewart’s shtick, which depends on assumptions that are as unquestioned as they are false.”

Then Mr. Smith must have gone to Washington, because he kind of forgets to mention any of these false assumptions, aside from the Iraq thing (which is your own, sir). False assumptions on the right are more prevalent than snowflakes at Fenway, yet this is your argument for the left’s delusions? Is there anything of substance spoken on your side of the aisle, ever?

So this Counts as Brainwashing a Generation:

Being on the air for 16 years as a comedian and 1.) Accurately understanding Bush’s deception during the lead up to the war in Iraq. 2.) Admitting your friend lied but not attacking him like grizzly in a trout farm.

And this doesn’t:

Fear Porn 4 Scared Fucks

Okay, I can see that. I believe over the years that I have made a strong case that Fox News is a brainwashing machine while you, Mr. Smith, need to find another hobby. Journalism…you’re doing it wrong.

When Bush left office there was an endless list of lies and real scandals. By contrast, when one of Fox’s arch enemies retires, you can’t even muster a beer fart? An article that mentions zero actual lies is pretty sad—even for you people.

Will the right ever acknowledge their own lack of any insight? That’s a rhetorical question. As long as they run cover for each other, this will never end. They will always have a false comparison on the ready. I might write something like ‘study suggests Fox News viewers are least informed’ followed by a link to said study, and they will forever counter with Zano is a Lying Asshole. They will then back up this claim by citing some other guy who watches Fox News and also believes that to be the case. In truth, I cannot defend the ‘asshole’ part. See? Even when I make up a fake headline, it ends up being half true. So how do they never stumble upon even a half-truth once in a friggin’ while? WTF?!

Summary Alert:

Stewart is a comedian and Fox News is a joke.

Stewart has skewered Fox News over the years and he will be missed for exposing their lies. His top ten takedowns here. Conversely they seem to have nothing on him…and did I mention he’s a comedian? I will miss your antics, Jon, and your important contribution to this War on Reason. Oh, and by the way, Jon Stewart also does retractions. The only thing the rightwing media has retracted in the 21st century is the word retraction. On the bright side, Fox News’ 24-hour news cycles have helped lower overall unemployment rates as PolitiFact and their ilk have had to quadruple their staff to keep up with their constant stream of bullshit. This may have been key to getting Obama re-elected, so thanks.

by Mick Zano • February 13, 2015

As you might have noticed I enjoy picking on Republicans. I’ve remained keenly aware how their ideology is not just a matter of ignorance, nor simply some mixture of cognitive distortions and propaganda. There are many ingredients in this ideological shit-soup. GOPzpacho? Bumpkin bisque? No soup jokes for you! Sorry to rain on this parody, but I want to discuss their suspiciously high IQs. Yep, you heard right…wing.

To me it seems counterintuitive, but not everyone who pulls the lever rightward just fell off the turnip cart. Some were pushed! One study suggests Tea Peeps are generally brighter than the general population. What General? …Scheisskopf? And this Yale article suggests Tea Peeps are even more scientifically literate than most. Yale gave George W. Bush a degree, but let’s not hold that against them.
So then I have to ask this: how did clever people create a movement that would jump a grade level with the addition of scratch‘n’sniff?

Don’t get to excited as somehow these smart Republicans still manage to be the least insightful. This PEW Report shows how the more educated the elephant the more skeptical of climate change.

“The fact is politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.”

—Chris Mooney

Keep in mind our most highly educated folks still tend to vote Dem, here, but what can we make from this group of outliars? Pardon the pun. In my personal life, most of our brainy Republicans either have strong ties to: 1. the military, 2. the Tea People, 3. or strong stock portfolios. Winning!

Let’s dissect all three groups. No, really, I have a biology dissection kit and some formaldehyde.

I: The Military Primarily Votes Republican

Most military types believe Dems are soft on terror and incapable of defending our country, but where does that myth originate?

Hint of the Day:

“Benghazi is the real 9/11 and it happened on Obama’s watch!”

—Sean Insanity

“If Benghazi is the real 9/11 than The Rutles started the British Invasion.”

—Mick Zano

One article suggests the marriage between the armed forces and The GOP occurs primarily because military recruiting tends to be heaviest in those square states, here. Knowing some military types, family included, I feel at least anecdotally that there’s still a fondness for Bush and a suspicion—if not an all-out hatred—of Obama. So I have to ask, how does a President who lied us into war and then lost said war end up more popular than a fairly savvy and cautious president?

I don’t know.

I think a bigger reason our military folks vote R is job security. There’s always a fear Dems will cut defense spending and, as Bill Maher always points out, our military is often a jobs program. The other part of this equation lies in the realm of semantics. Anything not deemed decisive is equated, by Republicans, to weakness. Obama’s long game doesn’t have the flare of Bush’s Shock & Awe, nor the consequences. I’m afraid with our current president we’re stuck with results that take far too long for your average Republican to fathom. Heck, I’m not even sure what Obama’s long game is exactly, but I’ll take his perseverating any day. Operation: Enduring Procrastination?

But as the younger generation shifts D, so too will go the military.

II: The Tea People Primarily Vote Republican

I see the Tea Party as those fiscally-responsible constitution-minded folks who seem to have mastered neither. They voted for George W. Bush twice (Dr. Deficit) and Dick Cheney (Mr. Secret police, torture, NSA and breaking Habeas Corpus). That makes sense. Whatever the hell you think you’re doing, you’re doing it wrong.

Primarily the Tea Party formed as a direct result of Bush’s cavalier stupidity and then immediately sided with Republicans sometime amidst Obama’s inauguration. But if you google debt by president a clear pattern emerges. Each graph—with the exception of the one submitted in crayon by Michele Bachmann—tells a similar tale. She did stay in the lines this time so her meds must finally be working. But deficits tend to explode under Republicans and then there’s this crazed attempt by democrats to restore the fiscal order. The worst debt explosion that occurred under a Dem was the first few years of Obama’s tenor. After Obama finally fixed our percent of deficit to GDP, Republicans shifted their focus to real dollar debt, but then:

*Graphs courtesy of Paul Waldman.

So what happens now that both are on the mend? I know the answer! They just make shit up. Lest we forget, Obama successfully avoided economic Armageddon—a fact history will note, even if Republicans won’t. If you don’t believe Obama’s spike was a function of Bush’s gross mishandling of EVERYTHING, you might be a Republican.

So how do Republicans get nearly all of the fiscal conservative credit? Again, this is part of The GOP mystique, the part Jon Stewart affectionately terms Bullshit Mountain.

Summary Alert:

III: The Wealthy Primarily Vote Republican

Let’s take the one percent out of this equation for a minute. They certainly benefit from the gutting of EPA and FDA regulations as well as decisions like Citizens United, so I get why Mr. Burns votes GOP. Why Republicans get more than one percent of the vote is the question. Let’s focus on those high IQ folks with some wealth. Case in point, here’s a conversation with a friend of mine who falls in that category (circa the 2004 election):

Zano: Why in God’s name are you voting for Bush again?

Eric: I made a lot of money off of Bush.

Zano: This is not going to end well, dude, for any of us.

I emailed him this exchange for comment and he graciously updated his delusions:

Eric: I made even more money off of Obama! I can’t say so much for the folks that were forced to pay for ObamaCare and the middle class that will be paying for his failed programs for decades. Fortunately for Obama, low gas prices may just bail out his otherwise failed presidency.

*Retraction: I called Eric “smart” in that first part

I think history will agree with my friend on his name, Eric, beyond that not so much. So he made more money under Obama? He made more money while Obama insured more people, minus that whole pesky global-collapse-thingie? Most Republicans remain wholly unaware how close to true disaster they brought us. They also seem oblivious to this new normal, a state we will remain in until the bitter end. But they don’t give Obama any credit for averting disaster because “his meddling just delayed the recovery.” Of course there’s no evidence of this (See: other countries on Earth post Bush). Actually Forbes just admitted Obama has outperformed Reagan on all of the most commonly watched economic indicators, here.

So high IQ Republicans showed zero insight in 2004 and somehow managed less than zero in 2015. Strong work.

*Retraction #2: Wait, isn’t your name spelled Erik?

Even more ingredients for this Republican shit-soup:

As discussed many times, Republicans have both a fear of out-groups and an inherent paranoia. Evidence suggests the Republican brain contains a more oversized amygdala, the fear center (check out Mooney’s book: Fear is a Mind Killer). That doesn’t mean they’re a different species, blood flow in the brain is based on utilization and Fox News makes them all very afraid. Fear also decreases activity in the frontal lobes. I’m just thankful to hear there’s still some blood flowing up there at all.

The smarter version of The GOP also seems to suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect. They may hold down a job and play the stocks well, but to them this equates as being master of all things. I’m not a scientist, but I saw a professor on Gilligan’s Island fix a radio once. I will leave my friend out of this one as, besides politics, he does seem master of all things. Politics is your only homework assignment, um… Erik.

Is it soup yet?

No. I’ve already covered many of the cognitive distortions so prevalent on in Republicana, but this is not the whole story. To be this wrong takes a truly hijacked brain:

“The more fossil fuels that we use, the deeper we have to drill in order to access them, and the more exotic the methods (take tar sands, for example). This is a classic symptom of addiction, as addicts typically go to great lengths to keep using despite knowing that their resources are being depleted, and that they are bound to run out and wreak havoc along the way.”

—Sarah Levine

Republican optimism for fossil fuels is certainly a function of addiction, but it’s also a function of the normalcy bias. They believe things will go on as they always have. We get oil from the ground so I can drive my Hummer to the all-you-can-eat steak house. And yet, one way or another, our grandchildren will not lead such lives. They truly believe that their actions have no consequences to the environment, or to terrorism, to the global economy, to the future, etc.

Lest we forget, conservatism starts out logically enough. You all know someone in your life who emphasizes personal and fiscal responsibility. But how does that end in a series of policies, positions, and politicians invariably wrong for the economy, the country, and the planet? Every flippin’ time! I believe the contradictions inherent in The GOP are fixed, profound, and fatal. Hopefully something worthwhile will emerge from the ashes, but I’m not holding my breath. Actually, I am. The EPA is all but gutted in my state.

Mick Zano

Live From the Grand Strip-Mine State

by Mick Zano • February 11, 2015

Discussing integral levels of thought will undoubtedly ruffle some feathers, about 99% of the world’s feathers if Ken Wilber is any judge. That’s about the percentage of hate mail Obama received after his breakfast prayer last week. Luckily my discussion on the subject will only anger most of my 11 fans, because my fans go to 11. So do the math. No really, it’s a fraction. Anyway, Obama’s event with the Dalai Lama impressed me greatly—I mean, eggs Florentine?! Yum!

Obama’s a gutsy guy, just not in the traditional Republican sense of the word, aka breaking wars and economies over one’s knee in the name of freedom! But where has this guy been hiding? Even though most will miss his main points, I commend his efforts. We should begin to speak to what’s best in all of us, not remain transfixed on those worst aspects of the human condition. Those with a clue deserve a little prime time as well. With religious fundamentalism still tearing our world apart, I loved Obama’s whole shebang.

Note to self: when trying to spell check shebang do not, under any circumstance, use the Google to accomplish this task.

Obama wasn’t throwing any one religion under the bus; he was compelling us to dump the shittier parts of all religions. Religion has a lot of baggage, present and past. Of course, Fox News “slammed” the president’s related comments and then “slammed” our strengthening economy and then “slammed” our falling unemployment rate and then “slammed” our staggeringly high stock market. Shock poll: no one shocked by this. Obama will be criticized for every sentence regardless of its meaning, which brings with it a certain freedom. Post this important speech, Charles Krauthammer honed in on this quote:

“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history. And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”

He was “shocked” and “stunned” that Obama would speak the truth, out loud, in front of other people. This is not the Republican way (see: U.S. history). I believe Krauthammer is about the smartest conservative out there and, boy, is he out there. Wow. Their brightest bulbs still can’t illuminate a phone booth. Of course Obama went on to list some of the abuses throughout history of some other key religions as well, annoying each country in question along the way. Good. This was Obama’s answer to that first quote, the part Krauthammer left out:

“So how do we, as people of faith, reconcile these realities—the profound good, the strength, the tenacity, the compassion and love that can flow from all of our faiths, operating alongside those who seek to hijack religious for their own murderous ends?”

Every one of Obama’s words rang true, but taken out of context you can and will offend. For example take my recent quote: “bite me, you gravy sucking whore.” When placed back into the correct context of my article it’s an entirely different beast:

“I would never say to the Dalai Lama, bite me, you gravy sucking whore, unless he continues to ignore my emails.”

See? Oh, and then there’s this bit:

“But we also see faith being twisted and distorted, used as a wedge—or, worse, sometimes used as a weapon. From a school in Pakistan to the streets of Paris, we have seen violence and terror perpetrated by those who profess to stand up for faith, their faith, professed to stand up for Islam, but, in fact, are betraying it.”

On Bill Maher last week Howard Dean exposed Obama’s playbook. They were returning to the Affleck/Harris argument, whether or not to call ISIS Islamic terrorists. Dean basically confirmed my suspicion that this President adamantly refuses to increase terrorist recruitment, through word or deed. He will therefore not conflate ISIS with Islam in any way. Does he think they’re related? Well, duh, but because he realizes they kill in the name of Islam many are calling Obama’s language-failure a lie. More accurately, it’s just a smart strategy.

For a brief review: Ben Affleck stands for the liberal appeasers among us who can’t even read a poll about radical Islamic beliefs without playing the racist card (wrong), while our Foxeteer friends forever attack and blame the entirety of Islam (wrong). As usual Obama is threading the needle. He understands how the future lies within moderate Muslim countries and their people. Conflating this as a war with greater Islam is an automatic recruitment tool. Is he shying away from blowing the shit out of stuff? Hardly. He just wants to balance his actions by not creating more of the problem. This is no easy task as Republicans have shown us all too well.

Obama would like to share the burden of tackling these radical groups with regional forces. At least to some degree this is starting to happen. Moderate Islam represents a key part of reigning in the radicals, otherwise this war is already lost. I think more and more Muslims will evolve, but the question remains: will it happen fast enough? Meanwhile my position hasn’t changed, I agree with air strikes and Special Forces to quell these radicals, but boots on the ground need not be American. Land wars have not been effective in this endeavor, remember? Of course not.

Back to breakfast:

Hell, I could repost this entire speech, but here’s the link. Wow! This is one of the speeches history will talk about. Your first clue? No one agrees with me. It’s ahead of its time and Republicans are so far behind the times, it would take a quantum leap forward to get them up to The Flintstones.

Paul Waldman differs:

“I’d certainly prefer it if Obama never went to another one of these. He could say that though presidents have gone in the past, the event has become highly sectarian, and since he’s the president of all Americans, he’d prefer to hold his own inter-faith breakfast at the White House, one geared more toward understanding and less toward proclamations of the one true faith.”

Come on, live a little, Paul. Who cares what fundamentalists think? After his diatribe on the ills of religion, Obama doesn’t abandon spirituality but rather encourages us to embrace those best parts inherent in spirituality. To borrow a page from Wilber, he wants to transcend and include what works and ditch the rest:

“Whatever our beliefs, whatever our traditions, we must seek to be instruments of peace, and bringing light where there is darkness, and sowing love where there is hatred.”

And:

“Each of us has a role in fulfilling our common, greater purpose—not merely to seek high position, but to plumb greater depths so that we may find the strength to love more fully. And this is perhaps our greatest challenge—to see our own reflection in each other; to be our brother’s keepers and sister’s keepers, and to keep faith with one another.”

Who better to have been sitting at this table during this speech than his Holiness the Dalai Lama? People need not defend every morsel of their sacred texts—to the death. Hopefully more people across the globe will move beyond fundamentalism in all of its forms. Face it, all religions contain some shittier, more contradictory parts. Even if you believe your own sacred text is directly from the Hand of God, you must admit the hand of man is evident throughout these puppies, or:

“I’ve done everything the Bible says! Even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff!”

—Ned Flanders

Let’s defend those aspects and those tenants worth defending. Let’s stick with Jesus’ kindness and lose Jehovah’s smiting, strive for the Kalimahs of Sufism and drop Sharia, a little more enlightenment and a little less crusades, a little more Menachem Begin and a little less Netanyahoos, and what do I have to say about those Voodoo Vikings that you don’t already know? Let’s a build a future that is brighter for everyone, not just for one sect, country or cult, but for all of mankind.

“The old appeals to racial, sexual and religious chauvinism, to rabid nationalist fervor, are beginning not to work. A new consciousness is developing which sees the earth as a single organism, and recognizes that an organism at war with itself, is doomed. We are one planet.”

—Carl Sagan

by Mick Zano • February 1, 2015

If you were wondering, the answer is Yes, Arizona can get dumber than the Big Wall on the Border thing. A 10-Billion dollar border bill just passed Arizona’s republican circus today, the details of which make Palin’s Iowa speech sound like Kant’s Critique on Pure Reason. I Kant explain? Who? Our budget is already straining at the seams and this is their fiscally conservative answer? Hey, but it will stop ISIS from using Fast & Furious to smuggle Death Panels into ‘Murica.

This Wall to Nowhere comes in the form of a series of fences and roads across the ass-end of this ass-governed state. This bill creates a one hundred mile no-man’s-land around a series of roads and fences along our southern border. The area would also conveniently be no longer under the jurisdiction of the EPA. Not that the EPA has much of a presence here in The Grand Canyon State—which I believe was originally formed by a Koch funded copper-mining project. Actually, it’s not that big a deal because we don’t have a lot of EPA agents anyway. Most were shot during separate “stand your garbage” incidents.

Homeland Security is calling this entire project “unnecessary” and most of the engineers consulted claim it can’t be done. Oh, and everyone involved—aside, of course, from the elephants in the room—think that even if they do defy physics, and nail this gazillion dollar moon shot, it won’t achieve the desired results. Hey, isn’t that Congress’ job? Are you trying to outsource their important inaction? Thanks NAFTA.

What a joke. A republican representative, Sally McRide or something, is spearheading this insanity. “We have to set a very high goal to understand how important it is to get this job done.”

Let me add her next unstated thought, “And I was very high indeed when I came up with this shit. Oh, but I’m still against legalization.”

[Foxy moron joke removed by the editor]

The Secretary of Homeland Security pointed out, “The bill is extreme to the point of being unworkable (now please extrapolate this to every republican solution known to man). If enacted, it would actually leave the border less secure. The bill sets mandatory and highly prescriptive standards that the Border Patrol itself regards as impossible to achieve, undermines the Department of Homeland Security’s capacity to adapt to emerging threats, and politicizes tactical decisions.”

Or as Senator McCain added, “Win, win!”

Never ask this: how can these people get any worse? It’s a loaded question and apparently so are they when they legislate. As they spend their time railing against a list of fictional Obama atrocities, their own very real decisions will haunt us for generations. Is this shit happening in your state or have we managed to corner the market on crazy?

Dear Republicans,

Fiscal conservatism: you’re doing it wrong.

National Security: you’re doing it wrong.

Sincerely,

Reality

P.S. I can’t actually think of anything you’re doing right, so why not just take a nice nap.

Let’s pull money from education for this monstrosity, I mean, we’re ranked only 49^th. Heck, we can only drop one more state, right? And, screw poor people, let’s have them live in hospitals and by spending more money it will somehow be cheaper. Just like 2011. Remember that? I do. The burden on hospitals spiked and the associated cost for the state increased, as predicted here.

Not to mention all that extra loot to rebuild the programs that they just gutted…you know, after they finally realized “well, that was stupid.” Yeah, let’s do that again under Governor Ducey!

Instead of this republican bullshit, let’s address the real problem to all of our problems: Republicans. Islam isn’t the only failed ideology in the room. A Muslim ideology flew planes into buildings and a republican ideology responded to that event. Summary Alert: The event sucked and so did our response. Let’s fix their draconian and failed War on Drugs and let’s place steeper fines on those who hire illegal workers in the first place and then let’s forgo the whole Great Wall to Nowhere thing. I realize this does not address their fictional issues, but I don’t suffer from a delusional disorder so it’s hard to address the array of paranoid scenarios bouncing around their fear-addled minds.

This is just another strategy brought to you by an entire political party that needs a competency hearing. Kidding, they failed that long ago. Remember that Orkan reverse-aging premise from Mork & Mindy? Looks like McCain dropped his binky again. When is it time to call Child Protective Services on an entire political party? Oh, that’s right, they gutted that program. But don’t worry, Senator Flake’s Send the Kiddos Packing initiative will cut down on child abuse, because those AZ toddlers will shoot back.

“Tear down the wall!”

—Pink Floyd

*Quotes courtesy of the Arizona Daily Sun.

by Alex Bone • January 30, 2015

From the old sofa in Tony Ballz’s Basement—As our three loyal fans can attest, The Daily Discord’s Search Truth Quest team continues to unravel the truth behind many hauntings and cryptid sightings across the southwest. Just last month we discovered that nothing paranormal whatsoever was occurring over at Hops on Birch pub. We shut this case after dedicating dozens of man hours, night after night, staking the place out. We left no Stone IPA unturned.

Why the managers over there weren’t willing to pay for our services remains another mystery and may well be the focus of our next investigation, night after night, staking the place out. We’ll leave no Stone IPA unturned.

Yet just as we became recognized locally as paranormal investigators our momentum ground to a halt—and that usually only happens when Zano refuses to buy another round. Our team was notified by our CEO, Pierce Winslow, that the Existential Ghosts for Assuming Dominance and Superiority (E—G.A.D.S.) had opened a legal claim against team STQ. Winslow went on to say we were all fired again, except Cokie, and that all of our security clearances at Discord Tower were hereby revoked.

Lucky for us, Winslow never allowed Ballz to officially move in so we could still crash in his basement as long as we promised not to touch anything, make any phone calls, use the internet, eat any of his food, use the shower or the bathroom, or touch anything.

But why were we being sued and by whom? I thought.

After an exhausting phone book search, we found the local chapter of E—G.A.D.S. What is the deal with phone books? The Joogle was down so we went retro. Anyway, I hopped on my bike and rode the fifty miles to their clandestine headquarters. Zano said he would have given me a ride, but a new coffee shop had opened and he needed to investigate some of the expresso as well as some of the baristas.

Upon reaching E—G.A.D.S., I was led through a passageway built from tombstones into a small crypt that served as the office for a lawyer named Ecto P. Lasim. When asked why we were being sued, he said, “We spirits of the liminal nether realms have taken great offence at your lame attempts to expose us via bad puns and the like. But Zano’s ectopilsner theory will not stand!”

When I asked him about all the other ghost busting shows, he replied. “Oh those ones are way off base, but if the secret of ectopilsner were to be made public, we’d be ruined! We might even have to start paying our own afterlife bar tabs.”

Rubbing my brow for a moment, I looked at his floating form and said, “But won’t the fact that we are being sued by ghosts be the one thing that could really prove your existence?”

Then, before I knew what was happening, his head began to smoke and the building shook under my feet.

“Everything I say is a lie. I am lying,” I added. His body pulsed red and cracks appeared in the walls. “If God is all powerful, can he create a nipple so big that even he can’t suck it?”

Lasim screamed as he burst into a thousand ecto-piddled pieces. The headquarters of E—G.A.D.S. collapsed around me as I fled. It wasn’t too different from that last Discord party at Winslow’s mid-august home—the one we threw without his knowledge while he was on his two year cruise to Atlantis.

Looking around I saw that no evidence remained. If only our cameraman hadn’t been busy making sure all our card decks had fifty three cards in them, he would have been here. We could have finally proven that ghosts do exist. But instead my bike was stolen by elves and I had leprechauns and paranormal serial killers harassing me on the long walk home.

As for the last insult:

I tried to take pictures of them with my cell, but Winslow had already canceled my cell phone service.

by Mick Zano • January 23, 2015

News on climate change is reaching a fevered pitch. We are currently being flooded with information that both confirms and confounds the whole climate debate, pardon the pun. But let’s give Pope Francis some credit. Earlier this week His Holiness the Lib admitted climate change is primarily “man’s fault” and he’s hoping for serious measures to protect the planet at this year’s Paris conference. What next, Pope and Trade?

Doesn’t the Pope get his praying orders from Fox News? Is the Vatican a rogue agency? Shouldn’t Ruperfer now cast Francis into the abyss? Aka, let the Pope-slinging commence!

Is the Pope Colluding with Al Gore?

Is the Vatican Covering up for Climate-gate?

Benghazi: Is God to Blame?

It seems like the conservative’s spiritual leader is starting to green around the gills. Kidding, he’s always been that way. He must have been influenced by some liberal Cardinal back in seminary school. Actually, he sounds like anyone else on Earth outside the reach of our toxic AM radio waves.

I can’t wait to hear Fox News’ reaction to this one. I’m starting to watch a little Fox again. It’s an effective appetite suppressant. Ask your doctor if throwing up on your family is right for you.

Sorry about using the words ‘fact’ and ‘Fox News’ in the same sentence. It’s been a long week. Meanwhile, The Times in India just broke this kernel:

“A study said on Wednesday that sea level rise in the past two decades has accelerated faster than previously thought in a sign of climate change threatening coasts from Florida to Bangladesh.”

—Quote courtesy of Juan Cole

On this side of the pond, the New York Times just broke a story on how this year is the hottest since records started. Of course, the Foxlands immediately countered with a Daily Caller article on how, although NOAA and Japanese climate scientist are calling 2014 the warmest, satellite data insists it’s only the 6th warmest in history. So two sources say it’s the hottest on record and one suggest it’s the sixth hottest, so…uh…

“Touché, Monsieur pussy cat.”

—Jerry Mouse

This is the hill you’re going to die on? Really? Oh, it’s not…I’m being told they’re moving to a hill further inland due to rising sea levels.

“Sea levels aren’t rising. Hasn’t anyone considered how a bigger government could make the land somewhat lower?”

—John Q. Republican

Do I really have to keep addressing this shit? Yes…yes I do. If you haven’t noticed these people are winning elections. Oh, you want me to switch gears to discuss what we should do about climate change? Try voting next time. Sorry, this is all part of The GOP’s Every Issue Left Behind program.

Let’s play their sick and frivolous game for a moment. What are we to make of the few remaining scientist nay sayers? There are instances in some regions as well as some data that contradicts this bigger trend. Is this a surprise? I took earth science in the 8^th grade, so …no. Scientists will be the first to admit they don’t know the entire play-by-play of our global demise. Admittedly some regions do seem to be working against models. A percentage of our glaciers are growing, but if 7 of 10 glaciers are still retreating at an alarming rate, uh…here, have a slice of pie.

But in their defense, what does the World Glacier Monitoring Service know about glaciers?

“Pie has to do with math, not science, right? But I’m not an iceologist.”

—John Q. Republican

Conservatives will forever be able to report on that one glacier that’s still growing. Kidding, that will end soon too. Nothing that our conservative friends are focusing on contradicts the larger trends.

You mean, the one about how they’re becoming even less insightful?

No, no, that other trend, the whole we’re all going to die thing. And, as for those few scientists still going all Bob Seger, against the wind, on us:

“Despite such arguments from a handful of scientists, the vast majority of those who study the climate say the earth is in a long-term warming trend that is profoundly threatening and caused almost entirely by human activity.”

—Justin Gillis, NYT, Pope collaborator and Al Gore sympathizer

Sadly, I review these articles that supposedly support the republican position, with the sole exception of Breitbart.com (that site makes Rush Limbaugh seem like Mr. Rogers). Yet, almost none of these articles linked from ‘The Drudge Report’ actually deny global warming—a fact that eludes our headline-reading-only friends over on Fox. These articles tend to focus on this one data point that science can’t yet explain, as if our demise is ever going to be an exact science. Give me a pause.

I love Bill Nye’s recent take down of Senator James Inhofe (R) and the rest of the bullshit brigade.

“As scientific skeptics, we are well aware of political efforts to undermine climate science by those who deny reality but do not engage in scientific research or consider evidence that their deeply held opinions are wrong. The most appropriate word to describe the behavior of those individuals is ‘denial.’”

—Bill Nye

This New York Times article Ocean Life Faces Mass Extinction, Broad Study Says is way overdue. It confirms our ocean’s demise. Of course, most of us came to this same conclusion years ago. In response to this article John Q. Republican is saying, “Broad study? What do chicks have to do with our oceans?”

Are we amidst a cooling trend that is stunting the warmer one? How do solar phases impact temperatures? What about the impact of deep ocean waters? How the hell should I know? Whereas I defer to the scientific community, they defer to Breitbart.com. I thought something was happening but did not expect to see such drastic changes in my lifetime, nor was I sure—then and now—how much man was actually impacted by man’s activity. But an evolving position is only possible when someone is capable of reason. My position here on the Discord has shifted from:

1.) Who cares, let’s focus on pollution anyway (2008).

2.) Something’s happening but is man impacting this? (2011)

3.) Full-blogged climate alarmist (2015).

During this same time period the republican position has remained, Fuck science. It’s not happening. I really thought at some point they would be forced to switch to, well, it’s happening but what does my hummer and my daily hamburger have to do with anything? That will still happen, soon enough, but it’s taking longer than anticipated. These behaviors that link both to their stomachs and their pocketbooks are deeply engrained. By the time they figure this out, cockroaches will rule the earth. Hey, maybe that’s why they’re not worried?

Is this a Zano retraction? Maybe, uh…I feel like such a moraine. Sorry, it’s an earth science joke.

Meanwhile, Republicans keep saying, “screw pollution, keep drilling for oil, there’s nothing to see here.” This is a sociopathic position. As I’ve said before, even if there were only a slight chance climate change would end mankind, it should be taken seriously. Ignoring this is a crazy enough position if the chances were slim, but with current consensus over 90%, we are going to have to come up with a new word as ‘sociopathic’ doesn’t quite cut it [Winslow: Moronopathic?].

Once again, trying to change the mind of a Foxeteer is a fool’s errand. Global consensus on the dangers of pollution levels arrived many decades ago and the consensus on climate change has come and gone as well. To give you an idea why a debate with a Foxeteer is meaningless, take the issue of torture. The world decided that torture was a bad idea at the time of the Magna Carta (1215 AD) and we don’t have another thousand years to explain this to them. Obama chose the right message on SOTU this week. Sure you can argue over the details for the medal round, but does that change the overall warming trend?

“No challenge poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change. 2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record. Now, one year doesn’t make a trend, but this does — 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all fallen in the first 15 years of this century.”

—Barack Obama, SOTU 2015

And now the Republican response:

“Satellite data suggests it’s only 13 of the hottest 15 on record. Liar!”

—Breitbart.com

by Mick Zano • January 18, 2015

Check out Salon and Edwyn Lyngar’s latest article The Angry Right’s Secret Playbook. It’s an interesting, yet frustrating read. Lyngar, a former republican, suggests liberals have a monopoly on the better ideas but that they need to adopt some of the right’s tactics to win the ideological debates of our time. I would rather lose elections than act like Sean Hannity for five minutes—unless it’s during a Discord News parody bit and I can coax Tina Fey into playing Sarah Palin.

Lyngar explains why the left keeps losing the war of ideas, despite having all of said ideas:

“In an ideological battle, the tendency toward inclusion and reflection can become a handicap. As a side effect of all this soul-searching, the left becomes ineffectual at fighting even the worst excesses on the right.”

—Edwyn Lyngar

Whereas I appreciate the sentiment, I also know such tactics—if taken one step too far—end up being fodder for the right (see: any Drudge Report headline). It’s often the only meat in any given Fox News segment. Behave badly and you will be called to the carpet.

“Hey everyone, look at what the craziest liberal professor thinks!”

—John Q. Republican

And yet I remain perpetually mortified by what the sanest republican thinks. That’s the difference. I understand there will always be fodder on both sides. Any poorly behaved liberal across the country can and will be the focus of the right’s scrutiny, be it politician, professor, teacher, plumber or what have you. Joe the Dumber? Just like any death in America will be somehow linked to Obamacare or how every snowflake that hits terra firma is God’s way of “refudiating” climate change. I don’t need to battle the comment section over on Breitbart.com., because I have bigger Fox to fry.

[Hyperlink removed for your protection]

The right’s inability to synthesize data as well as predict or understanding anything relevant remains astounding to me, and yet this zombie party still exists, devouring resources, craving brains, and gathering in ever greater herds. The Walking Deaf? Whereas it’s true the country will always be replete with ultra-liberal morons (ULMs), the real media need not slip down to Fox News standards. In fact, I insist.

As a person with some liberal sensibilities, MSNBC does not speak for me. The problem for conservatives is that Fox News always speaks for all of them. They may say in some private conversation “this one goes too far,” or “I don’t agree with this tactic,” but then they all, in unison, regurgitate any given Fox News talking point like the gospel—which if I recall is from Leshiticus: Chapter Poo.

“When you only have to win the news cycle, it doesn’t matter that any Fox talking point has a shelf-life on par with your average unpasteurized dairy product.”

—Mick Zano

There’s only one Foxx quote that ever resonated with me:

“When you see the handwriting on the wall, you’re in the toilet.”

—Red Foxx

Fox News is that toilet. We either move back toward reason, or this place isn’t worth saving. Lyngar is calling for liberals to play dirty pool. He wants them to get in the trenches and start winning the arguments.

“I call on my fellow liberals to embrace the rough stuff. Engage in battle with people who hate you and feel free to throw crazy right back, even if you only half believe it.”

—Edwyn Lyngar

Win the arguments, certainly, but minus these questionable tactics. Lyngar’s a bit too Machiavellian for my tastes. The ends justifies the Seans? Oh the on-Hannity! Sure we must, in the strongest possible terms, dismantle their arguments and remind them each and every news cycle how fundamentally wrong they all are. Hell, that’s what I do. But why stoop to bullshit? If both sides are mindless mudslinging machines, what good can come from that? Having two polarized and nonsensical arguments is depressing, not inspiring. Hold the line, people. The society you save may be your own.

I do agree that liberals are far too wimpy, on each and every topic. Pluralism is a handicap and a fatal one at times (see: Neville Chamberlain). Dems are wishy washy, they are too aloof, they are too cerebral, and they often perseverate to the point of total inaction. But ask your doctor if deciding on a course of action is right for you. Still, it sure beats being the village idiot any day of the week (Python bit excluded).

I refuse to replace crazy republicans with crazy liberals. That thread back to reality is tenuous enough for all of us these days; there’s no need to muddy the waters further.

[Hoochie Steve Doocey joke removed by the editor]

So you want our elections to be decided, not on the merits of any given argument, but to the loudest blowhard? Okay, let’s skip the election and anoint President Christie, right now. And let’s hope Air Force One doesn’t go all Kevin Smith on him.

Hey, I’m allowed one once in a while. Maher does it every week.

I do agree with Lyngar on this much: liberals need not work across the aisle and compromise with crazy people. Use the existing laws and fight them on every issue through every legal avenue and for the love of their God block every appointment. But I don’t want any further expansion of executive power and I do not want Foxian tactics to win elections. If neither side gives a shit about the truth, or the Constitution, we’re in big trouble. It’s bad enough having half our country living amidst some delusional self-created echo chamber of feces. [Editor still working on lousy acronym joke]

Liberals are all over the place and republicans remain one massive united force of wrongness. It’s why liberals still lose easily winnable elections, well, besides gerrymandering, voter suppression and The Fox News All Sharts. Republicans are on the same page, but in the wrong book. Everything is on a spectrum and so are they. Sorry, it’s a DSM-V thing.

“Liberals focus on leveling the playing field while republicans focus on leveling the rain forest.”

—Mick Zano

Having MSNBC employ guilt by omission tactics is disturbing enough, but I don’t want the outright lies to follow, though as per Lyngar’s sentiment, I’m sadly predicting they will. Still, I don’t know how anyone can watch Fox News and think for a moment that this is a serious attempt at journalism. The fact half our country is not immediately nauseated by the likes of Sean Hannity is beyond me. He should be marketed, not as a news anchor but as an appetite suppressant.

At the end of the day, I don’t want any part of what Lyngar the Horrible is suggesting. Go back to conservatism if you feel this way. We don’t need you and I won’t defend you. I refuse to mimic the right wing’s media tactics in any way shape or form—with the exception of Megyn Kelly’s form, who, despite being unable to spell her first name properly, has a pleasing form nevertheless.

[Closing comment deemed inappropriate by the editor]