You are currently browsing the monthly archive for May 2009.

queen meets war veterans at 60th anniversary

I am not a fan of Royalty, but I do notice the pattern of the day to do a 1984 on history.

After the self-serving job on Bill Clinton, here comes a new twist where D Day is celebrated by collaborationists while the actual fighters are left out.

The queen, who is 83, is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II. As Elizabeth Windsor, service number 230873, she volunteered as a subaltern in the Women’s Auxiliary Territorial Service, training as a driver and a mechanic. Eventually, she drove military trucks in support roles in England.

And who is participating? TIME refers to a Daily Mail article that sheds some light

Sarkozy’s Hungarian-born father celebrated D-Day by fleeing collaborationist Budapest for Nazi-controlled Germany to escape advancing Soviet troops. The same story also alleges that the family of Sarkozy’s current wife, industrial scion Carla Bruni Sarkozy, had been pretty chummy with Mussolini.

but NYT had the interesting reason

In Britain, commentators have suggested that Mr. Sarkozy did not want to share the telegenic moment when he hosts Mr. Obama.

But of course. We know old women should sit down and shut up…

As for blaming the entire mess on France, I have my doubts on this. Maybe because my memory goes as far as last month. Us old women tend to have this penchant

If the event was design as “Franco-American” – where is the American part in all this?

Satire is hard – during times when life is almost too ridiculous to witness.

The Onion has occasionally encapsulated a moment in time.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

Like W following Clinton with this speech

Bush: ‘Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over’

.Or Edwards’ campaign in 2008:

John Edwards Vows To End All Bad Things By 2011

Like with everything, Obama was spared from attempts of satire until installed. Now finally he got his headline

Obama Revises Campaign Promise Of ‘Change’ To ‘Relatively Minor Readjustments In Certain Favorable Policy Areas’

Who would have thunk it?..

And another reason for my choice of illustration – the miracle: NYT has a non-acrimonious Bill Clinton profile.(I guess now, that the right puppet is installed, it can be told).

here’s one of my favorite excerpts, – the ending

Still, as he boarded the plane in Medellín one night, he posed on the tarmac with the local security officers who had been guarding him, as he dutifully does at every stop. He seemed tired and not particularly interested, but he did not complain. Climbing the stairs to leave, though, he noticed some other officers. “Were you in the picture?” he asked. Then to an aide, he said, “These guys weren’t in the picture.” He came back down the stairs and posed again.


Over at the Widdershins, MadamaB has the best analysis of the NYT article. She points out all the reasons that made me feel uncomfortable reading it and made me use the term “non-acrimonious” instead of “positive”. She plucks out the talking points embedded in the article

Talking Point: See? Obama has only been in office five months and already he’s got an Age. An Age, I tell you! He is the most historical-est, bestest Preznit EVAH! And did Bill have a clothing line and his own TeeVee station? I don’t THINK so! Obama Roolz, Bill Clinton Droolz!

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

I am old enough to remember when liberal meant fighting for civil rights and helping the disadvantaged, having a just society, and progress in every field.

It stands to reason that in the age of Obama when most “liberals” are silent on torture, gay marriage and right to chose, alternative definitions would be sought.

We have already seen Generation Jones invented by a political strategist – idealist but pragmatic, no longer wanting to change the world

Jonesers are idealistic, Pontell says, but not ideological like boomers. “Boomers were flower children out changing the world. We Jonesers were wide-eyed, not tie-dyed.”

Nicholas Kristoff comes with a sillier, symbolically more accurate definition: nothing can disgust a liberal. And predictably, ends this with how brilliant Obama is…

Not  coincidentally, Kristoff starts with the attitude towards authority – the slapping your father experiment which holds the title of this. And the anonymous studies (reminding me of the Family Feud surveys) say:

Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.

And I think this is the subliminal point Kristoff is driving. Liberals need to check for permission before slapping “Dad”.

Just like the many IQ “studies” we’ve seen before, Kristoff provides fodder for the nature vs nurture political differences

The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses.

So, you see boys and girls? Obama would have all his children agree with him, but some are just born differently…

Meanwhile, those born well, are harder to be disgusted

Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.

Liberals can live with military tribunals, torture and discrimination against gay and women – they won’t object especially as “Dad” didn’t give permission to be slapped.

“Obama did not like it and stated it was not helpful to equate me with President Bush”.

What does this mean for activists? Just stop!

Those of you unhappy about gay rights – calm down, Kristoff says

Thus persuasion may be most effective when built on human interactions. Gay rights were probably advanced largely by the public’s growing awareness of friends and family members who were gay.

All you have to do is wait for enough gay people  to be born in conservative families and voila!

So, now that we  know the answer to “who’s your Daddy”, how will he deal with those children with the wrong neural responses?

Kristoff, who exposed his daddy issues by writing a long admiring piece about W entitled “Reagan’s Son”, is now ‘splaining this one as well:

He’ll use persuasion! he’ll make the “special kids” believe he thinks they are “normal”

A corollary is that the most potent way to win over opponents is to accept that they have legitimate concerns, for that triggers an instinct to reciprocate. As it happens, we have a brilliant exemplar of this style of rhetoric in politics right now — Barack Obama.

So, you see kids? Obama only threw women under the bus so conservatives would reciprocate. Just wait for the respect they’ll show to the woman nominated for SCOTUS (without asking her views on the women’s right to choose). It’ll all work out.

Nothing is disgusting to the good children, the “special” ones will come around. And be sure to ask permission from Dad before doing anything untoward.

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

As the media is debating how racist Sotomayor is for being a woman, The New York Times finally asks the right question: where does she stand on the right to chose? Unfortunately they frame this in RW terms speaking of “abortion rights”. Armed with this skewed point of view they are listing a host of dubious Sotomayor decisions impacting the right to chose . From the entire list, there’s only one that is actually quite disturbing:

In a 2002 case, she wrote an opinion upholding the Bush administration policy of withholding aid from international groups that provide or promote abortion services overseas.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that the government is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she wrote, “and can do so with public funds.”

The other worrisome sign was the press briefing  answer:

But in his briefing to reporters on Tuesday, the White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.



Why would he? It’s not as if Roe was his “ace in the hole” to con women into rallying for him, was it?

Assuming for a second Gibbs is honest about his answer, how offensive is this? “He didn’t even ask”???

Would that be Obama’s “sensible conscience rule” Or simply his royal FU that he could hardly send to women everywhere?

and the joke on women is

“Everyone is just assuming that because Obama appointed her, she must be a die-hard pro-choice activist,” Mr. Waldman said, “but it’s really quite amazing how little we know about her views on abortion.”

I am assuming nothing from theAce in the hole” beneficiary. These people didn’t pay attention:

leaders of several other abortion rights groups spoke out in support of Judge Sotomayor, and several conservative groups opposed to abortion rights attacked her, saying they were convinced that the president would not nominate someone who opposed abortion rights.

Interesting that my cartoon talks about women’s health. Reproductive rights would be another good one.

However, the New York Times prefers to go with “abortion rights” vs “right to life”

It is why some of the examples of Sotomayor’s decisions picked are so egregious. Ruling to protect Chinese immigrants from forced abortion is a perfectly good pro-choice position. If one is for choice – i.e – “reproductive rights” a forced abortion is no less a restriction of this right as the inability to obtain one.

It’s only “unacceptable” for “abortionists”. But who are they, if not straw men of the right and now Obama media?

Which says it all.

Only one tabloid correctly summed up the news of the day, the free daily Metro

All the others (except for the Post which chose to ignore it) went with the same

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

nauseating, patronizing photo

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

on their covers

Click here to add text
Click here to add text

over and over, reminding me of the look of the press in a dictatorship (there were two newspapers, both looking identical)

Not Your Sweetie