(Sorry if you clicked this because you thought it was about illicit trysts.)

I work independently and travel sometimes, mostly to "college towns." It seems wherever I go, some religious group I never heard of moves in for a conference on the weekend. Right now, my hotel is once again inundated with an unknown-to-me religious group. The welcome board referenced "ECK." (I Googled: http://www.eckankar.org /.)

Holy Moly. What kind of modern-day Elmer Gantry attracts a following big enough to invade this hotel?

What is it about things like this? Seems it comes down to some simple scripts:

1. ("Look at me.") I have an inside channel to God (and/or "feeling good"), and thus to the ultimate release from the struggles you're experiencing right now; I came through it, from a humble beginning, and reached this high plane. So I am able to raise you up.

2. ("The Vibe!") To show how much this can mean to you, let me describe how much better your life can be, and let's get excited about that! Let's sing, meditate, imagine, repeat a chant about it!! Wow. Did that resonate with you? Did you feel something?? This is (I am) The Answer.

3. ("I understand.") If you've rejected the other, it's even stronger. Let me tell stories to emphasize the evils of what you've already rejected. See how well I understand you? Doesn't that feel good? Now look at how my thing is the total opposite from that. This is the REAL solution that you are now wise enough to embrace.

4. ("It's Genuine.") I have a rare, genuine experience most people don't have, from which I rose to my current role as Leader. I was in this special place you never experienced, and you don't have to -- you only have to follow this path. It's not about me --it's about this special (mushroom, exotic place, discovery, campaign) and for me it's just about serving by bringing it to you. It's not about me.

5. ("You Understand.") What we share isn't understood by others, which is why we're in a special league, fighting against the disbelievers. We have a special understanding about what's real and right. We have a special language. It's so sad that others don't understand what we do; so aggravating sometimes, so disheartening, discouraging. But we must persevere for what we believe in. Such is our struggle.

It's almost like politics, isn't it?

Just sayin'. ...



(Edited to change subject line for clarity of The Point.)

What will it take for America to learn? Republicans get it WRONG, every damn time. A few examples:

1. Counter-terrorism before 9/11: "Nobody would dare attack us on our own soil! What could happen?"
What they feared instead: "ICBMs from rogue nations."

2. Wasting the surplus on massive tax cuts for the wealthy: "Tax cuts always increase revenues! What could happen?"
What they feared instead: paying down the national debt too quickly.

3. Privatizing Social Security: "Private investments give better returns! What could go wrong?"
What they feared instead: Social Security as "some government program."

4. A mess of an Iraq occupation: "We can take Saddam out in a few weeks and be greeted as liberators! What could go wrong?"
What they feared instead: Terrorist gas station owners.

5. BushCo's outsourced jobs, soaring national debt, economic smoke and mirrors: "We're the wealthiest country in the world. What could happen?"
What they feared instead: John Kerry windsurfing.

6. Bank regulations: "Businesses don't need the government telling them what to do! What could possibly happen to the banks?"
What they feared instead: Big Government bossing the poor banks around.

7. Offshore drilling and oil regulations: "What could happen? There won't be any accidents!! Drill, baby, drill!"
What they feared instead: Barack Obama and Joe Biden replacing two oil men.

Now they don't believe there's anything to worry about regarding global warming, lack of affordable health care, or the massive power of greedy multi-national corporations.

(Besides, if anything DOES happen, they'll just scream at the Big Bad Government.)

Since they spent years saying such things to/about sane people who dared to even MENTION disagreement with "W," I think it's fitting to return the favor and remind the rightwing of the need for patriotism, in their own words.

Let's see... a few of my favorites:


1. Stop WHINING! Do you want some cheeeeese with that whiiiine?

2. Why do you hate America?

3. If you don't like it here, move to France.

4. He is your president, too.

5. You are not a Real American. You're a wacko on the fringe.

6. You just look for any excuse to bash the president because you hate him.

7. Get over it!!!

8. You're just crybaby sore losers. Grow up!!

9. You're treasonous traitors!! You're anti-American!!

10. You're terrorist sympathizers!! (Or worse, actually...)

Have I forgotten any?

That damn Obama, letting people starve.



That damn Obama, spending us into debt.

<---- in case it's needed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100202/us_nm/...

I'm amazed this is such an unusual perspective on a "progressive" board, but here goes:

1. Hooters objectifies women by using one body part as a logo, a corporate identity, and a commercial theme. It is more objectionable to me than strip-joints, porn, etc., because it's in the mainstream -- making such sexism acceptable and "normal," and showing an offensive logo as if it were innocuous.

2. I do not fault the women who work there. There is no question that women are free to make choices within the culture as it is. I fault the company, the patrons and the general zeitgeist that accepts a restaurant like Hooters as inoffensive.

3. It is not about the clothes the waitresses wear. Yes, you can see much more at a beach, etc. etc... It is the context of those clothes within a commercial entity that uses breasts as fetishes for consumption in the mainstream. What women wear, what our bodies look like, and what men may enjoy about them visually has nothing to do with Hooters.

4. I view the laissez-faire attitude that it's sexually "free" and "progressive" to accept Archie Bunker mentality about sexism as backwards. There is nothing "progressive" about reverting to pre-feminism and calling it "post-feminism" -- whether among men or women.

5. Objectification can't be reversed, as in "I wish there was a restaurant called Dicks where we could ogle men's penises." It isn't that simple, because the experiences of men and women remain so vastly different in our culture, historically and still today.

6. Objectification means seeing a body part we share on a billboard, as a cartoon image, after years of mixed messages. Our culture treats breasts as such a huge sexual fetish, it's crazy. They are to feed babies, and yet that is considered more unusual than using them to entertain men.

7. I'm not suggesting censorship, legal bans, etc. on Hooters.

8. Like arguments I've had here about the confederate flag, "offensive" is in the eye of the offended. "The flag isn't offensive" doesn't hold up when people are, in fact, offended by it -- despite the flag-flyers' intent. Similarly, "Hooters isn't offensive" doesn't hold up when people are, in fact, offended by it.

9. The restaurant chain "Sambo's" went out of business because people finally saw it as racially offensive, and stopped going there. I'm sure they had great pancakes, though. Personally, I hope the same thing happens with Hooters in my lifetime.

10. My views have nothing to do with my sexuality or my views on sex, bodies, etc etc. I think prostitution should be legalized; I think our sexual mores are crazy (and replete with double-standards that work against women); I think the fact that Hooters even exists as a successful chain is symptomatic of deeper issues.

Finally, I think that arguing against differing experiences and perspectives from women in an effort to invalidate them (whether from men or other women) is insulting, arrogant and closed-minded. If you haven't walked in our shoes, accept what we're saying as truthful from our own perspectives, without judgment.

Thanks. That's all.

One is considered a family restaurant, and the other is considered a nightclub for adults.

But when you get right down to the branding, the logos, the image, the commercial identity, both use the same "hook" -- women's bodies, as entertainment and as a brand.

Some want to claim that both are really about the menus -- "great wings!" -- and that the commercial use of women's bodies has absolutely *nothing* to do with it. It's just about food. You can't get food anything like what's served at Hooter's and Playboy Clubs ANYwhere else -- it's rare cuisine!

Some have pointed out that you can see the same body parts at the beach, the pool, the gym, etc. (in arguing that Hooters is a fine family place). That's right, you can! That shows that it isn't about "seeing body parts" alone. After all, you don't see much more at a Playboy Club than you do at a Hooter's. So it isn't about what's worn, it's about the context.

How are the contexts different? In my view, they aren't. If anything, I think Hooters is a more obnoxious chain for its "mainstream, family, healthy and wholesome" guise. I don't think it could have existed a few decades ago, which goes to show the effectiveness of the backlash against the women's movement; and I hope it goes the way of Little Black Sambo's restaurants in my lifetime, but I'm not encouraged.

To pre-empt the usual arguments: Do both chains have a right to exist? Of course. Should the government shut them down? Of course not. Am I a "jealous prude hostile to sexuality etc. etc.?" Far from it. What I wish is that the culture would become enlightened enough to make places like Hooters first, and Playboy Clubs second, irrelevant and reviled, as happened to Sambo's.

With Sambo's, the confederate flag, and the civil rights movement in general, there have been many claims (continuing even now) that opponents were just "over-reacting," that it's not actually "offensive" if that isn't the intent, that people who take offense have personal problems, etc. Similarly with women's issues -- it's "poutrage," it's being uptight, and if *I* am not personally offended by it, nobody else should be -- so "lighten up."

Well, just as white people don't know what the black experience is, and need to listen in order to learn, so men don't know what women's experience is, and need to listen to learn. (NB: There are many enlightened men, and many unenlightened women.)

Some want to make the debate about criticism of the women who work at these places, but they aren't the point, and I don't criticize them. That is how this relates to porn and prostitution. Individual women have the choice to do what they want within the culture as it is -- I would never deny them that. But consciousness about the culture, as it is, is important to the equation, and a big step in evolving beyond it.

Porn, like Hooter's and Playboy Clubs, commercializes women's bodies, BUT it is largely (not entirely) hidden -- the cultural message is that it's private ("adult").

Prostitution, in my view, is completely different from these enterprises. In prostitution, individual adult women could have the potential to be their own enterprises, to control their choices independently --in private contracts between consenting adults -- with no mass exploitation or commercial messaging. Yet THAT is illegal.

So back to my question: What is the difference between a Hooters and a Playboy Club?

1. I know what I don't know. I don't know all that's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan; I don't know exactly what Obama's going to say tomorrow night; and I am no expert anyway. One thing I do know is that Socratic wisdom is a good thing.

2. I believe any of the leading Democrats in the primary would have backed out of Iraq and focused more on Afghanistan and Pakistan, including some increase in troop presence, but it seemed they were talking about increasing NATO involvement, international collaboration, and political maneuvering. So IF it's primarily about combat troops, I'll be might dismayed. (But I'm not expecting it's only about combat troops.)

3. To the primary rehashing, the one real difference between Obama and Clinton on this question had to do with hypotheticals about "actionable intelligence" within Pakistan (i.e, if we could take out Osama bin Laden inside Pakistan, should we strike there?). However, that was a campaign, and this is now, so I expect the administration's stance is more nuanced at this point.

4. Whatever the decision, but *especially* if it involves a massive "surge" of combat troops (with or without other multi-billion dollar expenditures), I hope President Obama will explain it specifically, including:
-- Why he thinks his action is absolutely necessary
-- What other options were considered (and why they were rejected)
-- What the exit strategy is
-- What the timeline is
-- How Pakistan is involved

5. To what's "necessary," I include the safety and freedom of large numbers of people (here and elsewhere) but frankly I do not include "letting women go to school" in other countries, staunch feminist though I am.

So, I'll wait to hear what he has to say.

That's all.

2000: The "Al Gore is a Liar" campaign
The rightwing compiled a whole list of comically ridiculous distortions about Gore, and "writers" (stenographers) at major, serious newspapers repeated the lies verbatim as fact (and then quoted each other -- "the echo chamber"). The Gore campaign reacted too late with too little, apparently thinking nobody could possibly believe such craziness and that if it's ignored, it will go away -- whereas if it's responded to, it could take over, drown out the campaign messages that had been carefully honed, and distract, pulling things off-track.

We just need to "get the truth out," past the media, right? But the horse had already left the barn before the campaign tried to lock the barn door. "Al Gore is a serial exaggerator" had taken hold, and it's hard to get the horse back into the barn.

(By the way, I am NOT saying that is all Al Gore's fault.)

2004: The "John Kerry is a Traitor" campaign
The rightwing managed to redefine a war hero as a traitor -- quite a feat indeed! The Kerry campaign responded as the Gore campaign had -- too little too late, and I think for the same reasons. (Who could possibly believe such lies? Don't feed them with attention - just stay on message.) Once again, the horse left the barn, and the campaign was REacting, trying to overcome something that was already out there.

(Again, I am NOT saying that is all John Kerry's fault.)

(2006 INTERIM: The "Vote for Democrats and Die" campaign" -- The answer to "What the HELL is it going to take before people freaking wake UP" question is answered at last: Near collapse of the economy, the military, foreign relations, and anything else you can think of. Democrats regain some real power.)

2008: The "Barack Obama is a Terrorist" campaign
The rightwing tried it, a lot of the media rejected it (especially compared with their compliance in 2000), Republicans had cooked themselves into burned toast, Obama was an awesome, compelling candidate, the campaign was on-target, the party was on message, and the lies were overcome in immense measure!!

Victory at last!! Forge ahead!!

2009: The "Health Care is BAD" campaign
Here we go again. Even with the White House and both houses of Congress -- and TEAMS of highly-paid career experts tackling every issue on every level -- Democrats are REactive, as thought this were a surprise.

Like, "What, are you kidding me? How could anybody possibly be convinced that something as obviously good as healthcare is actually bad?" Meanwhile, people are equating it with Hitler and murder. Nobody saw it coming, apparently --the horse is out of the barn running wild, Democrats are asking bewildered questions about how to close the door now, while a CORRUPT minority is successfully convincing a FEARFUL populace of outright lies, day after day after day.

(Once again, I am not saying this is all President Obama's fault.)

So...
WHY are Democrats still playing DEFENSE???

WHY are Democrats always REACTIVE, rather than PROACTIVE?? It doesn't take years of expertise or high salaries to anticipate that the opposition will mount an outrageous campaign and to set up the machinery to fight back, QUICKLY.

WHY are Democrats always VICTIMS?? "It's the media," "It's the idiots," "It's the money" -- No kidding! Here we are now, with all the power in the world (even literally, perhaps), with a historic number of people behind the president, against the rightwing, seeking change and hope... And WE are fighting "back:" -- against what??

What are the excuses, again? Rightwing radio? Willfully ignorant people? Are you kidding me???

(AGAIN, for the people with the hair-triggers, I am NOT blaming Barack Obama, the man, as solely responsible for all of this. It's a broad system, with many layers and calculations involving a lot of people. He is one person in this equation, who's tasked others with various jobs.)

HELLO!!! We aren't VICTIMS anymore! Our party holds THE Power nationally and internationally. Our Democratic president is THE Leader of the Free World. And we're whining about the power of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? We're surprised there are gullible people swayed by fear in this country, and can't overcome this? Our party leadership is clueless about how to "control the message?"

Our well-paid, experienced experts at the highest levels of power are caught playing defense, as though caught off-guard -- trying to put the horse back in the barn. Why was the door even left open? Are they really incapable of seeing the opposition's machinery and MO, from 2000, 2004, and 2008 (and years before those)? Is there any SURPRISE here??

I'm reaching a point of complete and total cynicism. I have to wonder whether the party is even trying to succeed at its stated goals. Either they are smart but not trying, or they're trying but not smart....

I believe they are smart.

(And I'd rather believe they aren't.)

Tools -- things you USE for the ends you want.

What a sorry bunch of deluded morans. A whole lot of fury, emotion, and opinion -- totally heartfelt and invested in -- based on lies and manipulation.

It's puppetry at its worst.

I never much liked the term "tools," applied to people -- but here, it's a perfect fit. I feel sorry for them, and infuriated with their puppeteers.

Why should I have to pay for things I don't need? Like public schools - I don't have any kids in school, so why pay for it? Let the kids damn parents pay.

If they can't pay, they shouldn't have children. But don't make me pay for any abortions, either. Stop having sex or use birth control. But pay for the birth control yourself.

No money? Not my problem - rob a bank. But don't expect me to pay for your prison stay -- you pay for it yourself. Rob another bank or something.

And furthermore, there are roads all over the place that I never drive on -- why should I pay for them? And the library -- haven't been there in years! Haven't had to call the police or fire department, ever. Why can't we privatize those?

I'm still pissed that we didn't privatize Social Security. We know what to do with our money better than the government! We could have invested in stocks!

Damn Congress -- why are we paying for them, anyway? People who want it should pay for it. We should have private, for-profit government so market forces will keep it in line, not this government-run government we have now. I never even write to them.

Speaking of writing, why do we still have government-run mail? Most of the mail is junk mail, anyway. I should only have to pay for the mail I want, and I think I get less mail than most people. Why should I pay for everyone else's mail?

I don't use a lot of laws, either. Let's just pay for the laws we want, a la carte.

And now healthcare. If my neighbor gets a deadly disease, why should I care? Unless it's contagious. In which case he should pay for my healthcare. I could sue him for it. In a privatized court.

Yup, this government-run government has got to stop.

I was miffed to hear this point of view on Scarborough the other morning, but I guess it's a wider stance than I realized. (So to speak.)

The idea is that Republicans have an advantage in making fair, "best-person-for-the-job" judicial appointments, because they aren't saddled with the limitations of diversity. That's right, diversity means limitations. It's always been complete coincidence, or a fact of natural superiority, that tends to put white men in such positions so often -- nothing to do with "identity politics" or "limitations!"

Here is Benjamin Wittes in WaPo today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...

Now it's "bucking" something to nominate white men. Conservatives supposedly don't "care" about diversity, which means they "care about issues" (especially, as it just so happens, about issues negatively affecting women and minorities)!

No group is monolithic, of course -- Clarence Thomas, Phyllis Schlafly... But there's not a thing wrong with taking life experience into account, and race and gender matter. If there were a fantastic minority lesbian deaf atheist potential judge out there, wouldn't either party be "limited" by excluding her?

There's not just one easy, obvious "best person" who's a white male -- that's a strawman -- nor is there a big pool of "the best" who are white males yet somewhere beneath them a "diversity" candidate is picked. That's the image being pushed here, and I for one say it's BS.

Remember when we were all convinced of the things that are slowly dripping into evidence now -- torture, illegal eavesdropping, vast general disregard for national and international law? What were we called? "Fringe," people who just have personal hatred for the Bush boy, whiners, traitors, people who hate America, etc...

Now we see the "teabaggers," riled up by moneyed rightwing interests. They are indeed fringe, people who have personal hatred for the president, whiners, traitors, haters of America, etc...

It's been a rightwing ("Rovian") ploy to accuse others of their own weaknesses. In many cases, that equalizes the playing field in the public mind, and both sides are equally dismissed -- it's a draw. Their opponents' strengths are neutralized, as are their own weaknesses.

(Perfect example: Kerry vs. Bush on the subject of military experience in Vietnam. By the time the Swiftliars and the Dan Rather sting did their damage, there was a general cry of, "I'm sick of hearing about Vietnam! Both men served admirably, let's just leave it at that." Thus, the contrast between Kerry's heroism and Bush's privileged dishonesty was effectively neutralized.)

I wonder whether the rightwing is rallying their true fringe into a lather, insisting it's a "grassroots movement," to accuse President Obama of outrageous things in a way that, in the public square, equalizes sides. Can't you hear it now: "Both sides have a radical fringe. Both sides' extremists accuse the president of the opposite party of illegalities, dangerous erosion of fundamental American principles and rights, etc..."

Thus the plain contrast between the Bush and Obama administrations is "neutralized" -- dismissed. "I'm sick of hearing about presidents being traitors and acting illegally -- they both do what they think best, they both get crazy accusations, let's just leave it at that."

The people doing the "teabagging" are fearful, racist idiots. The people pulling their strings, however, are crafty and as smart as they are selfish. Put nothing past them.

I don't think the rightwing powermongers expect these nuts to be taken seriously and gain them any political popularity. I think they fully expect them to be ridiculed and brushed off. My theory is that this is really about the call for prosecution of BushCo criminals.

Their blast-faxes are always SO freaking obvious. I'm not paying all that much attention to teevee, and even I am hearing the same parroted lines over and over again.

First, if it's not Rove himself, it's a classic Rove tactic: Find the places where your opponent is strong and you are weak, and make accusations. It leaves us with our jaws dropping at the audacity of it, but it's played for them in the past. (Swiftboaters are a classic example.)

The Chimp was "polarizing," and they pushed his popularity with a phony image because his policies were not popular with the majority. (Fake "ranch," anyone?) Polls always showed Democratic policy positions more popular than Republican ones, and now Obama has personal popularity, as well. So they claim he's more popular than his policies.

They also achieved some level of success claiming we were a "fringe element." Now that they are the "fringe element," they're going for something like a self-fulfilling prophecy -- if they say we're polarized, and everybody repeats we're polarized, maybe we'll get polarized. Poll numbers make the whole thing laughable.

So they've got to get even more McCarthy about the whole thing and claim we're evil socialists, radicals, dangerous! They, of course, took us to the brink of fascism (if not beyond it) and the state of the nation (and world) today shows who the dangerous radicals are.

It's hard to know whether to laugh and ignore the claims, hoping they won't get traction (risking that they might), or fight back, hoping to stop them from gaining traction (risking that it publicizes their claims).

I'm looking at Obama from the left, and "polarizing" is the last thing I see. He reaches out so far toward unity that I often disagree with him. But polarizing? Radical? Unpopular policies?!

Hey Pollys! Have some crackers, and shut your beaks.

I am far from an expert on any of this, but my hair hurts from reading and discussing it here! There are a lot of fundamental misunderstandings.

First, some background info and analysis:

Here is the argument from Electronic Frontier Foundation:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama...

Here is the Obama administration's motion to dismiss:
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/jewel/je...

They link to Glenn Greenwald, who in turn links to more background information.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/200...

And of course, Turley and Olbermann, like it or not:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#30096...

Now, some things I've seen on DU today (I'm paraphrasing):

1. "It's okay because it isn't official Obama administration policy." It is an Obama administration filing. Whether or not you call it a "policy," it's still pretty damned important.

2. "The motion says Obama has 'dismissed' wiretapping." I think this is a misunderstanding of a phrase in the motion to dismiss referencing BushCo's "Terrorist Surveillance Program" as no longer "operative." That was put out of use (supposedly) back in 2007. (Which means warrants, by the way, not "no more wiretapping.")

3. "Obama shouldn't insert himself into this because it's a suit against BushCo." It's a suit against the government. It is now for Obama's administration to deal with, and they are. (Having said that, I think it could impact possibilities for lawsuits against Bush admin. personnel later.)

4. "The DOJ has to defend the government." It doesn't have to make the arguments it's making, re state secrets and legal immunity, in attempts to throw the case out.

5. "The motion to dismiss is Obama's way of getting the courts to rule on this illegality once and for all." This doesn't even make any sense.

6. "There are lots and lots of lawsuits out there." What has generated such controversy this week is the motion linked above. There's complicated history but there's not a big soup of confusion about "which case" -- this is the Obama administration's first response to the EFF lawsuit and it's a stunner.

7. "Why, imagine if everybody could just sue the government whenever they wanted to!" Imagine if we couldn't!!

8. "This is a financial lawsuit. The plaintiffs want taxpayer money. If everybody did that, it'd get expensive." Please. This is about the public's right to know whether or not the government is acting legally.

9. "It's only about what BushCo did in the past." It is certainly that, but it also impacts our Constitutional rights going forward.

10. "We can't let state secrets out!" Even just knowing whether or not intel was illegally collected will endanger us all? Please. We already know.

11. "Presidents don't give up power, they just don't." We aren't describing animal behaviors here, as in "cats don't bark, they just don't." This is about the law. If there is a "power" to break the law with impunity, it is a power that must be "given up."

12. "Bush asked Congress to make wiretapping legal, and they did, and now Obama isn't doing it anymore." Uh, not exactly. I'm not saying Obama's administration is eavesdropping without warrants, but Congress did not "make it legal."

Bottom line: civil rights and laws don't mean much if they can't be enforced. This is about holding government accountable for breaking the law. Otherwise we can't ever know, going forward, that the government is acting legally.

To be continued, probably...

Evidently, we're in for a ticket with a VP who has one or more problems:

1. No national security, foreign policy, or military experience

OR

2. Voted "yes" on the IWR, taking away the rationale for Obama's campaign on "judgment."

AND/OR

3. In addition, it may be someone who doesn't help in the south, and/or someone who pisses off the Clinton supporters, and/or someone who's a long-term "Washington Insider."...

(Disclaimer: Yes, I'm voting for the ticket. I would prefer a ticket with the best possible chance of winning.)