An easy guide to keeping political news in perspective

1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the
country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but
don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their
statistics shown in pie charts.

5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the
country, if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave
Southern California to do it.

6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country
and did a poor job of it, thank you very much.

7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's
running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on
the train.

8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the
country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while
intoxicated.

9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but
need the baseball scores.

10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there
is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that
they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are
handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be
illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that
they are not Republicans.

11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery
store.

12. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and
need something to wrap it in.

Ad Hominen Attack

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for arumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out the negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.  Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as a "logical fallacy". 

In other words, when I call Debbie Wasserman-Schultz a moron when she claims the Republican's are trying to keep people from the polls by requiring them to provide identification to prove that they are registered to vote, American citizens legally allowed to vote and that they haven't already voted ("Vote early, vote often!  It's the Chicago Way!), I mean she really is a moron. 

If I call you a moron it's because you've done something moronic.  It's not to disprove your point or prove mine.  I will disprove your point with facts.  I'll point out your fallacy.  I'll call you a moron because you've stated something or done something that is, after all, moronic.  Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a moron.  She stated moronic things.  Her argument is invalid not because she's a moron but because it's wrong.  Patently wrong.

To put it in terms even the Main Stream Media and morons can understand, an ad hominem attack is equivalent to a child on the school playground defending their wrong position by calling the other person a "poop-head". 

You're welcome.

Edgy 

"Don't Pepper Spray Me Bro!"

...or, "You don't have to do this!"

Here's 15 minutes of what went down.


In a discussion on BookFace, a libertarian border-line liberal, takes no solid stance, fence-straddling acquaintance of mine basically said the protestors were "peaceful", this is no big deal, the cops used too much force and the OWS people have a legitimate complaint therefore it's the same as the Tea Party.

Hogwash.


This was a pretty good response:


"The protesters want, in part, more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics." What's been bandied about the most is the "equal distribution of income". In most OWS "manifesto's", they want those who produce to give up what they make and pass it around to the "less fortunate". Not just voluntarily but, if necessary, by gov't edict.

And that flies in the face of what made this country great. Capitalism is not evil in and of itself. It is the proven system of commerce that makes it possible for people from all walks of life and socio-economic backgrounds to succeed. Like Paul said, don't work, don't eat. Pretty simple. Don't whine about evil corporations whilst using evil corporations said products. That makes you a hypocrite. Oh wait, I forgot, there's an entitlement sentiment running deeply through those who are protesting. 

While I agree we need more and better jobs, bank reform and a reduction of influence of corps on politics we also need people to become responsible for not only their actions but call to account the actions of those they elect. If you want more and better jobs...get off your butt and look. If you can't find one, create one. THAT is the American way. Redistribution has never worked. It has led to a lowest common denominator system which is the only way redistribution works. Plus, if you take from those who produce, you eventually run out of other peoples money. 

Protest all you want. Do it within the conventions of the law and constitution. Blocking someone's way, defecting on police cars, calling for violence, smashing windows, disrupting the commerce of the very people they want to take from and redistribute is just childish and asinine. Like Mr. Newt said, "go get a job but first take a bath..." Had to laugh at that one."


And the response to that was:


"What they ARE protesting is the corruption and greed evidenced by the recent Wall Street scandals. Have you not been paying attention to that? It has nothing to do with taking money away from you and giving to a bunch of lazy, good-for-nothing pot smokers. Geez, I get so sick of hearing such inaccurate character assassinations. I saw the same thing by liberal extremists leveled toward folks in the Tea Party movement. I've attended several of those, and the sentiments proffered - in my estimation - were of a similar caliber. ALL parties care deeply about their country and the state of their fellow man. As long as you folks keep screaming past each other, nothing will change in this country."

Another FB post about the above video went like this:

"So I'm watching videos of the UC Davis incident, (both for and against the pepper spray) and I've decided on a few things: (Without bias For or Against the occupy movement) 1. I have to say the police stayed incredibly calm 2. They gave those students waayyy more chances than I give my kids when they talk back 3. The protesters may have had a great reason for protesting in the beginning, but by the end they just ended up looking like a bunch of ingrate dumb asses. 4. The moral of the story: Protest Smarter!!! No one will listen to a bunch of belligerent jerks... it makes it harder for the rest of us who actually have an intelligent argument."

 So I'm thinking this last post says it best.  "No one will listen to a bunch of belligerent jerks..."  You have a legit beef but, in the vernacular of the youth of today, "You're doing it wrong."  

Let's use an analogy.  You want a raise.  You think you deserve a raise.  So you have two choices.  

Choice A)  Make an appointment with your boss, explain your position in a calm, rational manner outlining your achievements and accomplishments and what you thing should merit a raise.

Choice 2)  March into your bosses office yelling through a megaphone about how he's the 1% and you're the 99%, bang tom-toms, shout while he's trying to talk, defecate on his desk, piss on his chair, sit in his doorway blocking people who have legitimate business with the boss then Tweet and FB, complete with edited video of your temper tantrum.

Now which one do you think will get you the raise?  And it all depends on whether you really deserve a raise.  You see, the OWS people are those who are just skating by in their jobs.  They don't really add to anything.  They're like Dwight on "The Office".  The see others succeeding and getting raises and they want the same.  But in their mind, they think the problem is the boss and not themselves.  The boss is obviously greedy because he's the boss and he makes more than you.  The boss in in cahoots with upper management and they are trying to take you down by not giving you the raise.  You're upset because you didn't get "Employee of the Month" and argued and protested that everyone should get an award so no one feels left out.

What freakin' planet did you grow up on?  Oh yeah, that's right, you went to public school in America during the 80's and 90's.  You got a ribbon for just showing up to P.E.  You got an award for being the fifth person in your class to turn in your math assignment last week.  You were honored with an attendance award because you made it to school for two weeks straight.

Like Mr. Newt said, "Go get a job but take a bath first."

There are right ways to get your point across, legitimate or not, and there are wrong ways.  OWS is the wrong way.  The Tea Party's "doing it right".

Edgy