He Pokes the Kitty

Tea Party Transslation Guide, Pt. 2

Just a quick one:

-- Dumbocrat:  Not a Republican

-- Libtard (or libturd): Not a Republican

-- Liberazi: Not a Republican

-- Socialist, Fascist, Comminist, Nazi: Not a Republican

-- Idiot, moron, retard: Not a Republican

-- Pseudo-intellectual, Elitist: Anyone who values knowledge not gained from FoxNews.  Also -- not a Republican

New! The Tea Party Translation Guide!

Like many sane people, you may have difficulty communicating with, or even understanding, the members of the Church of Tea.  Sometimes it seems like they're simply insane and have lost all contact with reality, but it's not so!  They've simply come up with their own meanings for words and phrases you already know, and once you read my handy guide you'll be able to chat with Tea Partiers like you are one yourself!  Check it out:

-- Freedom:  To most people, the word "freedom" means something like, "I may do as I please as long I do not infringe on the freedom of another."  To the TPers, however, it means something more like, "I may do as I please, and so can you, as long as what pleases you also pleases me."

-- No taxation without representation (and Don't Tread on Me):  To you and me, these phrases indicate that we refuse to pay taxes to a government unless we as a country have elected it.  To the average Partier, it means, "I didn't vote for him, therefore he doesn't represent me."

-- Fiscal responsibility:  Most people thinking of reducing wanton spending on unnecessary initiatives or projects, but in this case it means spending on programs for U.S. citizens, like schools, Medicare -- wait, maybe not that one -- and environmental impact studies.  Reducing funding for poorly planned, poorly executed wars is not part of "fiscal responsibility."

-- The Constitution:  To the average American, the Constitution is a living document that uses specific language where necessary and broad language when appropriate.  The Supreme Court exists to make sure the broader parts are interpreted in a way that fits our times while adhering to the spirit of the document.  (All nuance-y, and stuff.)  For Sarah & Friends, the Constitution is carved in stone, and every word has one, and only one, literal meaning -- much like Christian Fundamentalists view the Bible.  (Also like Fundamentalists, the Tea Partiers seem to forget the parts of the document they don't like.)

-- Patriotism:  The common idea of patriotism is that it means loving one's country and being willing to die to protect it.  In this case, it means never, ever saying anything negative about the country (unless the president is a Democrat), and if you do you're a damn dirty traitor.

-- The Founding Fathers:  Most of us who paid attention in history class know that guys like Jefferson and Franklin were extremely bright, worldly, educated men who had human flaws.  But that's wrong.  The Founding Fathers (always capitalized) were good, God-fearing Christians who were the kind of guy you'd want to have an ale with, not some kind of elitists.

-- Big Government (also always capitalized):  Commonly, Big Government refers to one edging towards totalitarianism, where personal liberties are taken away "for the common good," but in this case pretty much anything the Federal government does is Big Government.  EPA?  Big Government.  FDA?  Yep.  USDA?  You betcha.  Public schools?  You know it.  Basically, "If the government is using tax money for something I disagree with, regardless of my lack of knowledge regarding said thing, it's Big Government."

So, there you go!  Now you understand the basics of Tea Partese, go out and communicatize!

Holy shit, it's another entry!

Am I the only who's sick to death of these oh-so-wordly and cynical "libertarians?"  I'm not talking about politicians, I'm talking about someone you actually know.  In my experience it's always a guy, he always has nothing but negative things to say about Obama and the "socialeftists" (just learned that one today), and claims to know what the real world is all about.  In his real world, the government stops taking communist (or fascist, or socialist, depending on the day) liberties with our sacred Constitution, like trying to provide health care for everyone.  He won't cop to social Darwinism, because he'll always talk about how generous he is to charities.  He'll never answer a direct question, but will cherry-pick any comment for a way to snidely prove you just don't know. You don't know how it is.  But he does.

He knows GWB and Palin are twits, but he'll rarely admit it.  He has no suggestions for better leadership.  He'd rather hint at fomenting revolution, because -- by God -- that's the only thing that will save this great country.  They like to pretend that anything that the government does which is not srictly and perfectly outlined in the Constitution is an abuse of power and is a move toward FCS (Fascisto-Communo-Socialism) -- the Illuminati in all its glory, in other words.  (As if the Freemasons would ever allow a Democrat in their ranks!)

I kind of hate this guy.  He's worse than the know-nothings on the street because he believes himself to be extremely well-informed and so much more of a critical thinker than anyone who would actually vote in this sham system we have (even though he voted for Bush twice).  Actually I want to punch this guy.  All of the "this guys."  I know it's not civil, it's not a way to win an argument, but let's face it -- you can't win an argument with these arrogant pricks, because they don't even know how to argue.  All they know is how to heap scorn.  So I'd like to heap knuckles on them.  Is that so wrong?

Quick Thought

I have a suggestion for a new FoxNews motto:  "We make it up, you eat it up."

Doze ah innozent peopole down day-uh!

Arnold, in his waning gubernatorial days, has placed a ban which disallows welfare recipients from using state-issued money for things like bingo, psychics, and tattoo parlors.  I like Ahnold, and as far as Republicans go I think he might be one of the most thoughtful and moderate, but I'm not sure I agree with this move.  It almost seems like a far-Left move, telling people what they are allowed to spend their money on.  I mean, yes, it's stupid to spend money you supposedly need on something like a tattoo, but is it right to put strings on charity?

What do you think, my handful of readers?

MyopiAmerica

I haven't posted in forever, but I only have a few quick rants about our country's short-sightedness:

-- The GOP is running the mid-term campaigns under the slogan, "It's the Demmicrats' fault!"  Sure, no one remembers 2000-2008.  It was, after all, so long ago.

-- I heard a Tea Party rap song this morning in which the chorus was, "No taxation without representation!"  Hey, there, brilliant guy -- the only way you're being taxed without representation is if you don't vote.  (The same moron says later how it's all a lie, just like evolutionary theory.)

-- Every day I hear about how there are fewer new houses being built, which is an economic indicator and that's bad.  I know builders need to work, but we already have tons of existing houses on the market, what kind of wisdom says we should be building more?  Our economy is so shallow and so fragile that there's no plan B for anything.  How about doing some of those repair contracts no one had time to do during the housing boom?

-- All these Tea Partiers who call themselves Constitutionalists and wave "Don't Tread on Me" flags while shouting about "taking back America" don't have the faintest idea what they're talking about.  Sure, let's return to a time when black people weren't people, women were property, corporations were even more evilly voracious than they are now, and all the infrastructure we rely on did not exist.  Great plan, folks.  (Also, the Constitution's rights and guarantees explicitly apply to everyone, not just you.)

-- And here's one for the Democrats:  Stop hoping people will notice your successes.  The GOP will lie and misdirect and claim credit, and people will believe every word they say, while you sit back and have faith in Americans' ability to reason.  Stop that.  Get out your trumpet and blow, or we're going right back to the bad old days.

Hmm.  I'm done.  For now.

 

Random thoughts

-- I've been trying to imagine the "ideal" neocon/Tea Party world, and it seems very bleak to me:  No taxes and no government regulation or oversight sounds so good on the surface -- like many "ideal" forms of government -- but a world where we don't know anything about the products we buy, corporations control all infrastructure, and Christianity is the official religion of the U.S....   I just don't understand how anyone can look at this scenario critically and actually find it appealing.

-- Jerrymandering -- err, redistricting -- is a crock of shit no matter which side is doing it.  Why the hell do we leave this incredibly important process up to the people who most want to pervert it?

-- I think Android needs to go back to the marketing drawing board.  This demographic seems very small, and do ruminants even use cellphones?

(Thanks to CRo for bringing this silliness to my attention.)

Brains are overrated

Listening to a bit on NPR this morning about a fellow who wrote a book about how a starfish is superior to a spider, and how the Tea Party is like a starfish.  His argument -- and I'm sure it's one the Tea Party loves -- is that since a starfish has no centralized brain or, really, central anything, it's much stronger and more adaptable.  It can have limbs cut off and regenerate, and some starfish can grow entirely new creatures from a severed limb.  In contrast, if you cut off a spider's limb, it's crippled, and if you cut off its head, it's dead.

Analogies are neat, aren't they?  I wonder if the racist movement -- err, small government movement -- has thought about the fact that they're proudly comparing themselves to an organism so simple it doesn't even have muscles.  And when asked for other examples of organizations similar to starfish, the author mentioned the mighty and noble Apache, who had no centralized leadership.  For some reason, I can't imagine why, he never mentioned terrorist cells.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the Tea Party's similarity to the Taliban and other terror organizations. 

-- Both groups have a loose and decentralized structure, which enables deniability for all the other "cells" if one commits an unpopular act (farewell, Tea Party Express). 

-- Both groups have huge distrust and disdain for the governments of their own countries, to the extent that "revolution" is a word thrown around. 

-- Both groups are largely homogeneous racially, and frequently spout hatred toward other ethnic or religious groups (although the TP'ers keep painting a veneer of inclusiveness over their group). 

-- Both groups are heavily armed, angry, and feel they have been cheated out of something they deserve.

Hmm.  I wonder if the Tea Party will put out a fatwa on me for writing this.

Just a quick trip to the land of batshit

Yep, it's not just our uneducated fringe that's frothing-at-the-mouth crazy with conspiracy theories, not just Michelle Bachmann, but plenty of other elected officials as well.  Climate of fear indeed.

Running on adrenaline fumes

This post might come as a surprise to some, or seem hypocritical to others, given my history of cynicism and prophecies of doom, but nevertheless I have to ask:  How long can Americans subsist on a daily diet of fear?  Will we ever become immune to it, callused, or will we continue to lap from the bowl of nightmares as long as it is full?

You know what I mean when I say this.  For decades we've been told strangers would kidnap, rape, and kill our children if we so much as let them out of our sigh, despite the fact that the probability of such a horror has always been low and has only grown less likely over time.  In the fifties, sixties and seventies we were taught at a very young age how to "duck and cover" (presumably so our flash-fried silhouettes would be nicely symmetrical).  In the eighties it was AIDS and drugs, in the nineties it was -- shit, I don't remember.  In the nineties I was in my self-absorbed twenties,  I just wanted pot legalized.

As we approached the millennium it was the Y2K bug, and I think ever since that fell through the biggest bogeyman has been germs -- the phobia of which may have caused all sorts of allergies and weird brain chemistries in children.  I know the list is much longer; these are just the first that spring to mind.

And now we have a new litany: immigrants, gays marrying, terrorism (ooh, is that a juicy one), socialism, Islam, fascism, activist judges, uppity Negroes in the White House, microwave popcorn, cell phones, Toyotas, lead in toys, increased taxes ... you get my point.

I'm not blaming this on Republicans or Neocons or even Tea Partiers (much), because I don't think it's political -- at least not directly. Even our local news channels love foreboding ads like, "Which shampoo you may use every day could put you at risk for spontaneous human combustion?  Find out at 11."

Why?  Do we get off on this stuff?  Does it make our hearts race the way they used to when a pack of wolves chased or hairy ancestors up a tree?  Do we just not know how to be content and realize that we live in an astonishingly safe environment?  Are the media and politicians just pandering to our need to feel afraid?

I have plenty of worries, don't think I'm above it.  But I like to think the things I worry about are things I actually KNOW something about.  It seems like people are increasingly glomming onto conspiracy theories that don't even begin to make sense and spreading them about as if they were beamed down from the heavens. 

I ask you, my fellow thinkers, why?  Why do we allow ourselves to be this way?  Do we perhaps need to introduce wolves and bears back into populated areas so we can have something REAL to worry about?