Ol' Buckaroo's Texas Ho-Down - Archives
Cause I think that would explain a lot about the media appeal of people who haven't actually done anything worth celebrating.
Parents of 'Adolf Hitler' Lose Custody of Newborn
By Alyssa Newcomb | ABC News Blogs | November 19, 2011
Heath and Deborah Campbell, the New Jersey parents of three children with Nazi-inspired names, lost custody of their fourth child 17 hours after he was born, the Express-Times of Lehigh Valley, Pa., reported.
Hons Campbell was taken into custody by the New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services late Thursday night after the doctor who delivered the baby called the agency, the paper reported.
“There’s no legal binding court order. It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” Heath Campbell told the Express-Times.
The Campbell family stepped into the spotlight in December 2008 when a ShopRite grovery store declined to decorate a birthday cake for their son Adolf Hitler Campbell’s third birthday.
(See more at Yahoo.com)
The only downside is that now no one at my office gets to win the pool on what the 4th kid's name will be. I have $5 on Wagner Von Ribbentrop Campbell, but now we'll never know.
Feel free to add your own examples to this frightening list...
1. Take a penny/leave a penny jars in convenience stores operating a slow-boil stealthy wealth redistribution scheme right below our noses!!
2. Kids taking turns on the playground.
3. Scary authoritarian neo-Stalinist teachers actively encouraging kids to take turns on the playground.
4. Zoos feeding jobless animals for free and not even making them do community service hours in exchange!
5. Intrusive government overregulation of traffic at intersections, slowing down job-creating businessmen.
6. Eucharist (ever notice how many cardinals wear red? Makes you think, huh?)
Oh my God!! Is it too late for America already?!?!!!11!
Often children, mere infants, are accidently cut and end up bleeding and enduring unimaginable pain when their parents, for purely cosmetic reasons, carve off parts of their own children's bodies. These so-called parents are untrained in this delicate invasive procedure. They think they can just snip off the nails from these Infanto-Americans' toes and thumbs and fingers just because they're their parents and they "own" them. There is NO VALID MEDICAL reason why the nails should be trimmed. Human beings survived untold millennia without nail clippers. The practic is unnatural. It's purely a cultural form of ritualized abuse. Look, once they're grown up and can make their own lifestyle choices, I say let them do whatever they want with their bodies, except smoke cigarettes. But while they're young, they need our protection. Please, won't someone think of the children? If Obama does not crack down on this hideous practice, I will vote for Mitt Romney in protest. And if Mitt Romney wins by one vote, I will move to Canada.
Right fucking now!
I've seen a couple of comments on DU that protestors just want attention and that they don't change things. In one of those posts, Code Pink was disparaged for not accomplishing much against Condi Rice. But of course, the purpose of protesting, especially high brow protestors like ladies in pink taffeta or people in those ridiculous V for Anonymous masks (cause a religious terrorist like Guy Fawkes is such an awesome role model), is not to actual change things.
The point is to raise awareness. If we all wanted to make a reasonable decision about some public policy question, I think what would happen is that we'd all read up on the topic, cull the information into a spreadsheet program, and meet over coffee to figure out the best course of action. Democracy is nothing like that. Democracy is about passion and publicity and about educating the broader public about issues they aren't paying attention to. Thus protests are about getting attention. They're also about raising passions. They're critical to a successful democracy.
Power is about not raising passions or publicity. Power in a democracy relies on quiet acquiescence from the public. Power is about holding equilibrium and protest is about upsetting that balance. When naysayers tells you "Those protestors aren't really accomplishing anything," please remind them that they've accomplished everything just by making you aware of them.
Smart protestors, effective protestors, will relocate the understanding of the problem they protest. Code Pink was immensely successful (or should I say "fabulously successful"?) because they brought attention to the people who were making the horrible decisions to prosecute one needless war badly and one necessary war incompetently. Their stated goal was to be "a women-initiated grassroots peace and social justice movement working to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, stop new wars, and redirect our resources into healthcare, education, green jobs and other life-affirming activities." Well, since they got going, we haven't had any new ground wars over oil. We've had an air war over oil, but committing ground troops was unthinkable. Anyone who was paying attention to the plans of the neocons in the mid-aughts knows that the Bushies certainly had other wars in mind when they started their drumbeat for Iraq. Somalia, Syria, and ultimately Iran were on PNAC's hitlist. Code Pink and its allies didn't stop that march to a "Long War" (as the neocons called it). But they were the drum majors who led the band.
When you hear about the hippies on Wall Street raising a ruckus, don't measure them by whether a law gets passed because of their monkeyshines. They're not running the train. But they are laying the track. That is to say, they're helping the rest of us understand where the pain on Main Street is coming from. They're making a few extra people question how matters in the economy ought to be gauged. From an economist's point of view, we're not in a recession because large corporations are making profits. The protestors remind us that slimming down overhead (by firing a few thousand people) is not the same thing as increasing business.
Maybe you, dear DUer, already know about it. I assure you, most people don't and most people don't vote and if they do they don't follow the decisions of those whom they vote for. I know you're past the protest stage and you're ready for action from Washington. That's just not where the public consensus is yet. There are still more passions to be raised and there are still more powerful people out there needing to have their balance thrown off and their decisions brought to light. They still hide in the dark; they can still step back from their high windows and pad their comfortable chairs with bonuses. We still need more and we still need bigger protests.
Yes, the masks are silly. But democracy isn't. Holding the derailers of the economy accountable and redirecting public policy to a fairer system will require a lot more attention from a much angrier public. We need the silliness. We need the high concept protests that will draw the attention of a lazy smug media establishment. We need more attention so that a critical fraction of the public starts asking the right questions. That's what creates the change in the long run.
The protestors are like the alarm clock you set by your bed. They're screaming for all of us to wake up. Don't let anyone tell you they're useless if they don't get the work done for you. They're doing all they can. God bless 'em all.
Sharkey and McMillan - sounds like a 70s buddy-cop tv series. They even got the hair.
rubes are just patriotic emos
I dedicate this post to all my fellow DUers who like to bash Texas.
Without much thought put into the matter, tribally loyal, highly partisan conservatives get mad when they hear words like taxes, affirmative action, Mexican immigrant, Planned Parenthood, or stimulus package. By Pavlovian discipline, Rush Limbaugh and his echo chambermaids have taught them to close down their inquiries and spew out prefabricated arguments and logical inferences--untarnished by fact or experience--that denounce all the negative implications they can imagine falling out from these necessary things. Now, these are not stupid people; most of them handle complex problems and navigate daunting logistical tasks in their personal lives and react to the human community around them with compassion and decorum.
But when it comes to the political arena, they surrender their operational secular humanism to a tribalist identity--voting and donating and rallying to whatever proclaims itself Republican or Tea Party for public consumption. They have gay friends, but still vote for politicians who bray about "protecting marriage." They recoil from the harsh presense of racial prejudice when they see it in their neighborhoods, but still manage to pass those quieter prejudgments down to their children. They lose jobs to overseas companies, but still vote in favor of the Congresspeople who give massive tax cuts to fuel the outward flight of American investment capital. They ignore the fine details of America's complex politcal realities in favor of the dull comfort of familiar words because they feed their pre-set notions. Paying attention to social nuance means nothing when compared to the endorphinal kick they get from hearing and repeating the rhetoric that defines them as safely within their tribe.
Sociologists call this unthinking behavior "role immersion." After all, don't we all want to feel like we belong?
I compare this to the portion of DUers who like to mob onto the point that Texas is evil and full of nothing but haters. As a tack-on, they'll occasionally toss in the cliche "but we can keep Austin". These people are speaking out of a pure bone ignorance, smug in their stereotypes, and knowing nothing about the liberal enclaves in Kerrville, Beaumont, Odessa, the Red River Valley. They wilfully wipe Jim Hightower, the Dixie Chicks, Lloyd Doggett, and Molly Ivins from their pinched angry brains. They're too busy mimicking the scorn they think is required to assert their online tribal identity as liberals to calculate what a modern urban state like Texas adds to America's political equation, what it means to have NASA, and Rice University, and the Houston Medical Center, and the Port of Houston and the museums and small presses and charitable organizations that come out of Dallas and San Antonio and Fort Worth but still don't fit into their ignorance-based broad stroke stereotypes. They just see the word Texas and choose only to see the red.
But I don't get mad at them for this, any more than I get mad at my neighbor's dog for barking angrily at me every time my car pulls up the driveway. Dogs yip; that's what they do and there's no point in getting upset when they follow nature. I'm sure in real life even the most caustic Texas-bashing DUers have real life friends from Texas. Hell, they probably even have the good manners to not be such bigoted pricks when talking face-to-face with their off-line Texas friends... cause that's human nature, too.
If the defining characteristic of liberalism is an openmindedness to new ideas and different people that step out of tradition and defy social order wherever it holds back human potential, then none of us is perfectly liberal. We all have areas in which we prefer to not think through the details and just go along with how things have always been. If the unexamined life is not worth living, keep in mind the counterbalancing point: that a constantly re-examined life is not lived at all. If you wish to post "Let's get rid of Texas" threads on DU, I hear you. I live in Texas and I see up close the things your scorn from afar. I take a small comfort from the fact that your words don't really matter and that you probably don't really mean what you've said anyway.
But if you take a second to really think through what the implications are of the words you write and see some value in transcending the small minded prejudices that the flippantly rude ones among us use to define our tribe, I will preemptively offer you my gratitude and appreciation. It ain't easy being Texan, some days. But it feeds my prejudices when I see tolerance and inclusive thoughts coming from the left.
The word was coined by Horace Walpole, an 18th Century English man of letters, describe happy accidental discoveries by people who are smart enough to pick up on the usefulness of a given unintended outcome. He coined the word from the name "Serendippo" (which he translated as "Serendip"), meaning Sri Lanka (or Ceylon) which in one Persian folk tale was ruled by a king who exiled his three sons to test how wise and worthy they would be in ruling Serendippo, the land of lions, after he retired.
As the sons travel the world, they stumble across certain clues to a lost camel which, like Sherlock Holmes, they are able to deduce the characteristic of (sight unseen) by piecing together several small clues. For instance the camel was part blind, part toothless, and limped as it carried a pregnant woman and was transporting two baskets--one filled with honey and one with butter. By explaining their deductive work (actually inductive reasoning) they were able to prove their innocence before the Persian Emperor against the accusation of having stolen the camel.
The princes continue on their adventures, wisely seizing upon little clues to learn new things and advance their fortunes in the world. These young Serendipian lords time and again display their skills of serendipity, modeling wisdom and advancing human learning along the way. They were wise wanderers, freely seeking knowledge as they bumbled far from their home and being rewarded for their noble capacity to keep an open mind when they encountered new things.
We could all do with a little serendipity in our lives, but the first trick is not letting false certainties wall off our brains from new possibilities.
The 2004 election proved to be the high water mark for the post-Reagan Republican Party, if you count the 1988 election as "Reagan Era" (which I think, given the 1992 results is a fair judgment). In Dubya's fall, we sinned all, of course but at least since then actual insanity only seems to have a working majority in the US electorate when the voter turn-out is under 40%. So now I'm thinking about 2012. In the weeks preceding the Mayan Apocalypse, how well does Barack Obama gotta do to ride out the end of the world with relative smile on his face?
His first election was pretty much a measurement of how happy Americans were with being governed by lunatics. The Electoral College said Americans preferred sanity 365 to 173. The popular vote said it was a 52.9% to 45.7% preference, but no one cares what the popular vote thinks. I mean, come on. Still, this comfortingly lopsided 2008 victory was produced by the president flipping a number of states from them to us when compared to the 2004 high water mark. And those states were...?
In the west, Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico went from Bush 04 to Obama 08
In the midwest, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa switched
In the south, Virginia, North Carolina, and Virginia switched
And that's how Dubya scraped out his 286 vote EC victory... just 17 electoral votes over a dead tie.
So the question I'm asking in this thread is: "How well does the president stand in the states he flipped 2½ years ago?" Also, are there any surprises out there? That is, states that stayed put between 2004 and 2008 that may yet flip, like New Hampshire going Red or Arizona or Missouri going Blue?
Here's what I'm looking at. In the West, Nevada & Colorado might be vulnerable, but New Mexico is snugly on our side. Arizona, I just don't think is winnable.
The Next Election?
In the Midwest, Ohio and Indiana are at risk, but Iowa's Republicans are gonna go crazy as usual and scare the smart people in the middle over to our side.
In the South, North Carolina is a lost cause and Florida is probably right on the barn top, but Virginia can only be lost if the Republicans can keep the economy down and manage to convince the voters that it's Obama's fault. I assume Obama's still hungry enough to keep that from happening, so count Virginia slightly blue again.
Unless Republicans quit acting like Republicans, I can't imagine any other states flipping one way or another. So, given the worst case scenario... Obama wins by a nosehair next year: 270-268. If he keeps either Ohio or Florida in his column, even losing Virgina doesn't matter, he still wins. He'd have to lose Ohio and Virginia and Florida in order to lose reelection. Even if he lost all three of those, if Obama could somehow pick up Arizona plus just one other wild card Red state like Montana or West Virginia or Nevada, he could scrape out a win.
Someone with some actual wisdom about these places help me. What else do you see as dangers in 2012?
Re: The Short Happy Candidacy of the Donald
He's hurt his own good will with the public. He used to be a big ego who took audacious risks, which occasionally paid off. Now he seems like an out of control ego who has crappy judgment. Now he's a joke. I see a sad decline for his ratings in the coming months. There's a difference between pissing off your audience and turning off your audience. The Do' seems to have crossed that line by going full birther.
The ten most recent threads posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums.
Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders battle over meaning of progressive
By Divine Discontent
The X-Files Reopens
By Divine Discontent
DU 2 Still Exists
Hillary Clinton's Glass-Steagall
Who should Sanders choose for VP?
By No Elephants
Donated to Sanders
President Bernie Fucking Sanders, Baby!!!
Democratic Underground forums and groups from my "My Forums" list.
Use the tools below to keep track of updates to this Journal.
Today's Featured Forums