Saturday, October 18, 2008


From Bartcop.

Friday, October 17, 2008

origin of species 

yukkin it up 

Scenes from an alternate universe:

Was There Too Much Sex And Profanity In The HBO Presidential Debate?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Photographic election predictor 

All I have to say about ACORN 

McCain said that ACORN "is now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy."

Is ACORN rigging all of the state and national opinion polls too?

Fuck Joe the Plumber!!! 

Joe the Plumber: racist fuckhead!

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

We need to get Obama in touch with this guy... 

Phillip Blond is a rising star among the Tories in England. He espouses what he calls "Red Toryism," a variant of Christian socialism. He criticizes both right and left, though he believes the future in England belongs to the Tories, whom he advises. There are many signs that there is sentient life on the Tory side of the aisle in England, unlike in America, where conservative = demented fascist. But some of what Obama says could perhaps be extended in the direction of Red Toryism, perhas under the banner of "real conservatism" -- that is, conserving what is valuable, preserving society, etc. In fact, Obama could use the idea of "real conservatism" to sell some of his policies should he become president -- a real conservative regulates the economy, a real conservative does not try to solve problems with violence, etc. Here is a recent piece by Blond, whom I have managed to talk to a couple of times:

Let's be honest, the debate on progressive character of Conservatism assumes that we know what it is to be progressive and we are trying to judge if the Tories might possibly, just possibly, fit the bill. I guess that for most Guardian readers, to be progressive is to be left wing and to be left wing is to be committed to the state rather than the market. By virtue of this definition, progressive Conservatism is a contradiction in terms.

Much of our contemporary debate is conducted around the idea that the market and the state are fervent political opponents, with the good guys playing for the state and the bastards for the market. But of course, as recent events have more than amply demonstrated, the state and the market are far more intertwined than one might suspect. Indeed in their current guise and their contemporary formulation, it is not clear that progressive opinion should endorse either the market or the state. Both seem to support each other's monopoly interest and both disempower and destroy civil society. After all, New Labour's surveillance and audit state sits all too easy with a neoliberal endorsement of market appropriation. The idea that state and market are opposed seems on the face of it to be a completely spurious belief. After all, the triumph of laissez-faire economics could only be achieved by the vigorous and concerted action of the state. For it was only the state that had the power to dismantle all pre-existing social forms of exchange, modes that offered a far greater potential to increase the prosperity and stability of all. For example, it is a truism of economic history that outside of free ports, no country has ever successfully developed without protecting itself against the market. Moreover, state welfarism, often cited as the greatest achievement of the postwar left, is little more than an official acceptance that the majority will never own and that most will not even earn sufficient income from the labour they do perform to sustain themselves or their families.

One is reminded of Hiliare Belloc's thesis that the predominant social structure of the future would be that of The Servile State – where the state would accept that monopoly capitalism could not be challenged and the best that could be attained would be a subsistence level of indentured servitude for the majority of the population. It is hard not to see some merit in this account – a moneyed bureaucratic oligarchy moves seamlessly from state to market and back again, while the rest of us survive as best we can on wages supplemented by private credit or increasing state subsidy (and after all, what else are tax credits?). So conceived, the leftwing claim as to the moral superiority of the state is reliant on the very thing it decries: the capitalist market, since higher state benefits only increases our reliance on the monopoly market and the dependence of those who live on the taxes and benefits accrued from its operation. Witness, for example, Labour's fawning subservience to the City – for, indifferent to the needs of a balanced economy and reluctant to encourage the widening of ownership beyond the model of mortgaged housing stock, it encourages rampant speculative growth for the few in order that the supplicant class, which is an increasing many, can receive the tender mercies and meagre benefits of state bureaucracy.

Full article here.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

14% of Republicans are willing to say to a total stranger that they think Obama is a Muslim 

According to the new CBS/NY Times poll.

Compared to 2% of Democrats and (sigh) 13% of independent voters.

This question could just have well been phrased, "Are you a fucking batshit-crazy racist hate-tard? If yes, say, 'Barack Obama is a Muslim.'"

I've already seen this result reported as "14% of Republicans think Obama is a Muslim" but "think" is absolutely the wrong word here. I'm willing to bet that the number of actual Americans who "think" Obama is a Muslim -- that is, the number of people who are simply erroneously and innocently under this impression and for whatever reason don't know better -- is very close to zero. Even the 2% of Democrats who make this claim are probably, somewhere in their heart of hearts, kidding themselves.

What the poll actually shows, as I have phrased it in the title here, is that 14% of Republicans know that Obama is a Christian but are actually willing to tell a total stranger who calls them on the phone that they think he is Muslim. That's extraordinary.

I'd be very interested to see the answers Democrats and independents give to an analogous question, such as: "Do you know who the father of Trig Palin is? If so, who is he?" Or possibly: "Do you know whether John McCain has an illegitimate love child? If so, is the love child black?"

Amazingly, this is a poll in which Obama is winning among likely voters by 53% to 39%.

Monday, October 13, 2008

What a loser, vol. 5,143 

The man sees no substantive difference in their positions on the issues? Must have blacked out when they were talking about health care, the war, the economy, etc etc etc...

After flagellating himself out of repressed shame for his support of the Iraq War, now Hitchens trashes McCain rather than unveil the true source of that boner in his tweed pants.


Someone finds a use for dogshit:

h/t Urban Prankster

Happy Monday 

Here's hoping...


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?