Follow Gerald (Jerry) Zezas on WordPress.com

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 2,633 other followers

How Many Times Can You Be Wrong And Still Keep Talking

2009-Obamacare will never pass—It Passed.

2010-Obamacare is unconstitutional—Supreme court says otherwise.

2012-Romney will be the next president because he promises to repeal Obamacare…Romney still shilling for Fox “News” and he still can’t fly on Airforce One.

2013-Website is down, Obamacare will collapse—Website fixed.

2013-Obamacare will kill the economy—Unemployment is half what it was 4 years ago, the deficit is half what it was 4 years ago, the Dow is more than double what it was 4 years ago, housing, construction, property values are all increasing, GDP is the highest its been in 5 years.

2014-The 7.1 million signups that are being claimed are “cooking the books”.

Actually, that part is true, the 7.1 million signups that they’re claiming is not accurate. It neglects the fact that there are now more than 3 million people getting expanded medicare coverage, approximately 2 million more who signed up, not on the website, but through their own agents, and about 5 million kids between 19 and 26 who had no coverage before but are now covered on their parents plan.

So, yeah, 7.1 million people insured under the ACA is a big fat lie. It’s closer to 17 million, and it will only keep growing.

So, friends, if you believe that the Repubs are going to repeal Obamacare, especially if they get into the White House in 2016, just remember how many times they, and you, have been wrong up until now.

Just think how any president, of any party, is going to tell what is likely to be 25-30 million people that he’s taking away their health insurance.

Or, if you’d rather not think about it, just keep believing what they’ve been telling you for the last 5 years. And just keep being wrong.

Your call.
.
.

Don’t tell Limbaugh or O’Reilly about this

Oh no, the right wingers will have a field day with this story about a black woman with 32 kids. You know, all the welfare queen stuff they love to talk about. I hope Fox doesn’t pick up on it.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/21/annmarie-richards-jamaica_n_5008107.html

 

Just kidding…

 

 

Racists Continuing to Flaunt Their Abject Ignorance

Bill O’Reilly, that self-annointed harbinger of all that is decent and good, has decided that white kids are more resistant to celebrity influence than those stupid, err, ah, you know, urban ones.

The other day he offered his opinion on Beyonce’s newest video, in which she simulates having sex in the back seat of a car. This, according to Mr. O’Reilly, is bad. Bad for all those thugs (the newest euphemism for black kids) who can’t distinguish between reality and show business. You see, according to Mr O’Reilly, the proof of the ostensible damage done by Beyonce’s admittedly hyper-sexual video to our black youth (who O’Reilly only seems to care about when he thinks he knows something that they don’t) is the fact that 70% or 80% or 90% of black children are born out of wedlock (I have no idea if these numbers are accurate nor do I care. I only know that that’s what O’Reilly is claiming).

Now, I’m sure that black people everywhere are grateful that O’Reilly is once again explaining that they not very good at making life decisions, and so they seek his assistance to improve their lives. I mean, let’s face it, O’Reilly is an aging white male, and we all know that it is the burden of aging white males to tell those who are less old, less white and less male how to live more like aging white males. He apparently uses the vast resources at his disposal to do unbiased analysis of black children all over the country, I guess by inviting them to Beyonce’ concerts and then following them home to see if they, too, have sex in the backs of their cars.

Hey, I’m no fan of Beyonce’. To me she’s more celebrity than talent, but that’s not the subject here. She apparently has millions more fans than does this blog, so I guess she knows something that I don’t, but I digress…

I guess the only problem I’m having with this is the fact that O’Reilly doesn’t seem to think that Miley Cyrus, that unoriginal trailer park escapee whose primary talent appears to be arriving on stage mostly naked to stick out her tongue and grind her ass on men’s crotches, has a similar influence on white kids. I mean, if Beyonce causes black children to be born out of wedlock, then Miley must be responsible for at least a couple of two-year-old aspirational crystal-meth aficionados slung on the hip of some white chick whose stretch-marked tramp stamp is visible under her dirty Nirvana tube top and drives a 77 Trans Am replete with old air fresheners hanging from the mirror and duct tape holding up the right window. Ya think?.

Mr O’Reilly should keep to what he knows. I’m not sure what that is, but he should keep to it. You know, like when he commented that Abraham Lincoln, well known by historians for telling truly dirty jokes at inappropriate times, would never have diminished the Presidency by going on Zach Galifianakis’ internet-based show, Between the Ferns, as Barack Obama did. Now, I’m sure that Mr O’Reilly forgot that the internet didn’t exist when Lincoln was President, so he deserves a pass. I’m sure he also forgot that Richard Nixon went on the comedy show Laugh-In in 1969 and did sock-it-to-me jokes with Goldie Hawn. And also apparently forgot about George Bush’s little video where he joked about not finding WMD’s in Iraq (he pretended to look under a couch at the White House for them) But Barack Obama somehow diminishes the Presidency by his brilliant performance on Galifianakis’ show. Right…

Mr O’Reilly would be well served by tamping down his self-congratulatory, self-aggrandising pomposity and stepping out of his limo on occasion to actually meet some of the people he so easily dismisses as in need of his advice. Sure, the bottoms of his Bruno Maglis might get dirty, but the lessons in tolerance and acceptance of those who don’t cleave to his particularly banal world view would likely be worth it.

“Can’t We All Just Get Along?”…John McCain

2014-Russia invades Ukraine. Sen. John McCain, responding to suggestions that President Barack Obama is not reacting strongly enough, said, “This is the ultimate result of a feckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America’s strength anymore.”

2008-Russia invades Georgia.  Sen. John McCain, responding to suggestions that President George Bush was not reacting strongly enough, said “The time now is for the United States of America to act united on behalf of the people of the country of Georgia, and not do a lot of partisan sniping.”

You can’t make this stuff up folks…

.
.
.

How Republicans Can Learn to Love Gays

The primary contradiction of modern conservative philosophy is the fact that they’re against Gay sex and Gay marriage at the same time that they’re against abortion. One of their mantras has been “Adoption not Abortion”. Okay, got it.

But Gay sex, by its very nature, can never, ever result in an unwanted pregnancy and so, by extension, can never result in an abortion. And Gay couples who want children have no choice but to adopt.

So, my conservative friends, if you truly want to reduce abortions at the same time you’re increasing adoptions, you should be promoting, rather than fighting, Gay marriage.

Discuss…

Patriots Pay Taxes

I’ve been reading quite a bit about patriotism lately. Those who claim to be the most fervent patriots tend to be socially and fiscally conservative. Not all, but certainly most hyper-patriots tend to identify with the right. They revere the military, conservative principals and Ronald Reagan, not necessarily in that order.

Now, I like living here as much as the next guy, and I even get a little choked up when I see the breadth of military power we can bring to bear at a moment’s notice. (watch the rescue scene in Captain Phillips).

Now, the fact that I think the USA is a neat place to live doesn’t inform my other social and political opinions. I am a balls-out lib and will explain it nice and slowly to anyone who wants to know, but that is separate and distinct from anything resembling patriotism which may reside within my psyche.

I once considered joining the Civil Air Patrol and went to a couple of meetings in order to help me decide. In one meeting, the man in charge of the local group was teaching a lesson in military ethics. He spoke of the dilemma of a soldier being given an illegal order by his commander. The question posed to the group was whether the soldier should obey the order, thereby potentially breaking the law, or report his commander to superiors higher up the chain of command, knowing full well that doing so would likely destroy any chance of him ever being promoted, since he would thereafter be tagged as a “rat”.

Most in the group said that they would obey the order, for various reasons, most of which included not wanting to ruin their military careers. I must admit that I was perplexed, at first saying to myself that I would turn him in, but later agreeing with most of the others that I would probably just do what he said for the sake of self-preservation. I thought that the leader of the group would agree, offering some sage bit of military advice like “leave no one on the battlefield” or some other such brothers-in-arms sort of platitude so common in military settings. But the old soldier surprised me by saying that we should turn him in.

When I expressed my shock at this answer he responded to me with what I could only describe as one of the most logical, ethical things ever said to me by anyone. He said, “My friend, those who join the military are expected to be willing to give their life for their country. If that’s really true, then giving up your career is a walk in the park, wouldn’t you say?”

I’m reminded of the brilliance and honesty of that remark whenever I hear so-called patriots who scream about small government, taxes and their hatred of so-called entitlement plans, the Affordable Care Act and imaginary welfare queens. I wish I could say to them that if it is righteous to give one’s life for his country, giving up some money should be a walk in the park.

It seems to me that true patriots should be willing to give up a couple of bucks to help those for whom they claim to be willing to give their lives.

I don’t know how you can claim to love your country but hate those who live in it.
.
.

Attributive Shortcuts and Stand Your Ground

We are all racists.Some are just better at it than others. Just as we are all sexists and ageists (I’m pretty sure that’s actually a thing). The point is, we all tend to me more comfortable around those who are most like us, and tend to categorize those who aren’t. Seeing others through the filter of their race, sex or age is a cheap and simple way for us to assign attributive shortcuts to others, such as intelligence or willingness to work for a living, or some other made-up set of characteristics. It requires little cognitive ability. Its a trait that many smart people share with idiots.

These attributive shortcuts are however, purely subjective and are assigned by any and all of us to anyone we like at any time. When you hear of a shuffleboard game being playing in Florida, you think old people. When you hear of a gossip session over herbal tea you think women, when you hear of a bunch of kids walking around in a bad neighborhood, yeah, you think of black people. Oh yes you do.

These things are part of our nature and reinforce the premise that we are good at seeing patterns (we’re not as good as we think) and so enables us to believe that we’ve got the world figured out. Once again, what I referred to above as attributive shortcuts.

The Florida Stand Your Ground Law (what a horrible name that is) reads, in part:

“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

The operative words in the above paragraph are “reasonably believes”. This is truly problematic since it relies on reasonableness rather than rationality. The problem is that it can’t be measured quantitatively. Assigning a degree of reasonableness to a decision is like assigning a specific degree of beauty to a poem or a specific degree of stupidity to an imbecile (Although god knows I try).

Reasonable belief lies solely within our consciousness and cannot be measured, nor can it be judged objectively. If an 85-year-old grandma who lives in an all white, gated community where the most difficult decision she makes all day is whether her pants matches her sweater has car trouble in a “bad neighborhood”, and is approached by 4 youths with their pants down around their asses (I’ll let your brain decide what race they are. Ready, ok, I’m sure you’re done), she will likely have visions of that overhyped “knockout game” that was so breathlessly reported by the conservative media a couple of months ago (I think it happened a total of about 5 times but was reported as rampant, especially in conservative media, kinda like they report shark attacks) and in all likelihood will “reasonably believe” that she is in danger and, according to that law, can pull out her legally concealed Glock 19 from the glovebox of her Caddy and go all wild west on them.

Now, if those youths happen to be approaching to help her, well, we’ll probably never know, especially if she’s a good shot. The Glock 19 gives her 17 tries since that’s its magazine capacity, so taking out 4 kids shouldn’t be too hard.

Michael Dunn might have truly believed that he was in some sort of danger. After all, black kids playing “thug” music in an SUV fits right into our attributive shortcut. All us white folk know that the site of more than one of them at a time is almost always trouble (wink, wink). And because there are more of us than there are of them (white folk, that is) we get to use our majority status to determine the relative value of a group of people who we have deemed dangerous. The fact that we have the money to purchase a gun bestows upon us the power of life and death, simply because something scared us. Rational options like driving away or simply putting up with the loud music are apparently not valid options (I am 58 years old and quite specifically remember playing loud music in my car when I was 17, as do most adults. Somehow, though, my life was spared).

Although I don’t have any facts on this, I’d be willing to bet that Michael Dunn, at least once in his life, was in a car with other kids playing loud music. But it probably wasn’t “thug” music, so that makes it OK.

But, according to Michael Dunn and his apologists, my life and his are more valuable than that of 17-year-old Jordan Davis, the kid he killed.

Kinda like the old lady from the gated community in the broken down Caddy. According to Florida 776.013, every time one of us white folk gets scared, we get to kill at least one black kid.

Recent Posts

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,633 other followers

%d bloggers like this: