Psychopolitik 2.0

For some reason, USA Today did an interview with Hillary.  During that interview, she said this (all emphasis mine):

“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on,” she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” she said.

Let’s count the possible insinuations here, shall we?

1. A college education means you don’t do “hard work”.
2. “hard-working” minorities are irrelevant.
3. Whites that have been to college are somehow corrupted.
4. Only poor whites do “hard work”; blacks are either on welfare or uppity college-educated fancy car drivin’ Dilbert-with-a-tan negros.
5. Non-college educated whites are automatically racist, and should be pandered to.
6. Everyone that votes does so on the basis of race when there’s that option, and there’s more whites than non-whites, ESPECIALLY blue-collar whites, so…’nuff said.

Unlike much tamer comments by Obama, this will not be called out in the media as a WTF moment.  Why?  Because they go by narratives that are imprinted on the coverage from day one, and a rule of their narrative is that an establishment candidate always gets the benefit of the doubt, whereas an “outsider” can barely breathe without saying something stupid.  Besides, she’s white and Bill’s Wife, he’s some skinny nigra that knows how to talk.

This isn’t about being for or against either of them: the only reason I register to vote anymore is so they know that I chose not to though I could, as a silent protest against legitimizing a system that I reject.  It’s about how the media’s definition of fairness is to give equal time to obviously dumb ideas, and not to treat similar conduct with the same response when different people engage in it.  It’s about my amusement at how when someone of the majority plays to race as a factor it’s seen as OK, while the slightest whiff of it from anyone else signals Panic Time.  Most importantly, it’s about being absolutely SICK and TIRED of hearing people who by definition don’t care spewing “blue-collar” this and “regular folks” that & not being questioned about it, when in the long run the best outcome for “regular folks” involves these empty suits taking a 7 foot walk off a 6 foot ledge.

-I just got back from an event where they had beer and all you can eat chicken wings. An’ it was for CHARITY! That’s my kind of givin’, hells yeah!

-Um…oh yeah, Microsoft can suck my dick. What someone plays on their portable video/audio player should be none of their damn business. What’s the deal with this gradual overriding of the proper concept of what it means to buy something? I pay you for a product, from then on it is mine, I can do whatever I feel like with it, if you have any power over me whatsoever then I am merely renting, which means you lied to me in the process of buying it. THAT, folks, is why I bought a no-name mp3 player, it was cheaper and they understood their role, which was to give me the ability to play mp3s on it, and stay out of my way.

-Remember that book about Cocaine I mentioned here before? Lately I’ve been rereading it, and I notice a curious undercurrent behind the history of yayo that says a lot about class, race & the true nature of international trade. That it all started with incas chewing a leaf and getting a buzz akin to some really good coffee, then went on to being exploited to keep them in what might as well have been slave labor by the imperialist invaders of the time, only to be distilled to its purest state and used for medical purposes w/ a wink and nod towards the global corporations that were dealing the shit, only for the world to freak once the people where coca actually grew started getting paid off of it, really says a lot. It’s fast becoming a cliche here, but I gotta say it in reference to how people south of the border took up demand of such a popular product: what the fuck did you expect? It’s highly ironic that the easiest way of dealing with the street crime in the US due to the drug trade — calling off this retarded-ass “War on Drugs” — would, if one seriously thought about it, actually make it much less lucrative. The status quo, functionally speaking, is no different from simply subsidizing the production of Young Jeezy’s Favorite Subject.

-Irony is…the office responsible for enforcing whistleblower protections & anti-discrimination meansures within the gov’t being investigated for violating whistleblower protections & anti-discrimination measures.

-Associated Press: “Borrowing is higher than expected“. Gee, ya think?!?

-Last but definitely not least, some good news for the ladies with Backtion: a recent study suggests that a certain type of hip and butt fat actually helps prevent diabetes.

Of course, I am referring to Chris Paul. What a ridiculous outcome…

re: those exit polls: How long is the gap between that and knowing the actual result, on average? Who started the exit poll thing anyway?

Yes, that’s the closest I will come to talking about todays primaries, because to be honest with you I’m wrapped up in multiple layers of don’t give a fuck, and the Cavs play in a few minutes.

The “war on drugs” claims another one:

A man who was denied a liver transplant largely because he used marijuana with medical approval to ease the symptoms of hepatitis C has died.

Timothy Garon, 56, died Thursday at Bailey-Boushay House, an intensive care nursing center, said his lawyer, Douglas Hiatt, and Alisha Mark, a spokeswoman for Virginia Mason Medical Center, which operates Bailey-Boushay.

His death came a week after a doctor told him a University of Washington Medical Center committee had again denied him a spot on the liver transplant list. The team had previously told him it would not consider placing him on the list until he completed a 60-day drug-treatment class. (emphasis mine)

Clearly he didn’t HAVE 60 days, huh? Dumbasses like this get medical licenses?

The case highlights an ethical consideration for those allocating organs for transplant: whether using marijuana with a doctor’s blessing should be held against a dying patient in need of a transplant.

The Virginia-based United Network for Organ Sharing, which oversees the nation’s transplant system, leaves it to individual hospitals to develop criteria for transplant candidates.

At some, people who use “illicit substances” — including medical marijuana, even in the dozen states that allow it — are automatically rejected. At others, patients are given a chance to reapply if they stay clean for six months. Marijuana is illegal under federal law.

Uh, yeah, because all “illicit” substances are the same, and marijuana being the only thing that kept him functional during his last days still made him a junkie in their eyes. Do they turn away alcoholics? And if not, why not?

May this tragedy earn them a huge malpractice suit.

If this story qualifies as a “top story” for Yahoo News’ frontpage, then they need to slap whoever programmed that computer algorithm that picks those.

The other day, the audience at Glenn Greenwald’s blog expressed their outrage over the relative silence of the TV newsfolks at their “independent” military analysts being revealed as puppets, specifically NBC News’ Brian Williams.

Williams’ response: “Meh.  I don’t see nuthin’ wrong with ours.”

Glenn sees this, and does what any self-respecting blogger of his capabilities would do: approaches Williams, forms his prowess at uncovering lies into a shape akin to a 357 Magnum, and proceeds to pistol whip the living SHIT out of him with it.  Read the whole thing.

Bacon-wrapped grilled hot dog? Yes please! Gimme a side of nachos an’ a cold stout an’ I’m good.  Food blogs are the shiznit…

Political angle: why the hell are these illegal in Los Angeles?

Florida wants to offer devout Christian drivers a distinctive…mark:

Florida drivers can order more than 100 specialty license plates celebrating everything from manatees to the Miami Heat, but one now under consideration would be the first in the nation to explicitly promote a specific religion.  The Florida Legislature is considering a specialty plate with a design that includes a Christian cross, a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe.”

Rep. Edward Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, said people who “believe in their college or university” or “believe in their football team” already have license plates they can buy. The new design is a chance for others to put a tag on their cars with “something they believe in,” he said.

If the plate is approved, Florida would become the first state to have a license plate featuring a religious symbol that’s not part of a college logo. Approval would almost certainly face a court challenge.

The problem with the state manufacturing the plate is that it “sends a message that Florida is essentially a Christian state” and, second, gives the “appearance that the state is endorsing a particular religious preference,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida.

I’m not all that enamored of vanity plates myself — unless I can get “Fuh Cue”.  Still, my own common sense tells me that an easy way to have their cake & eat it too would be to offer this kind of mark for any religious group.  That way, it wouldn’t be promoting a particular religion, since any religion could have their own mark.

Bullard, the plate’s sponsor, isn’t sure all groups should be able to express their preference. If atheists came up with an “I Don’t Believe” plate, for example, he would probably oppose it.

…well Fuh Cue then.

This is why these things always result in huge conflicts, people know that when some Christian Statist proposes something like this they never have in mind the fact that not everyone in the US prays how they do, if at all.  Thus, the appropriate thing to do when they throw a tantrum is ignore them.

BTW: see those links on the word “mark”?  I wanted to segue from this to a larger point about how ironic it is that supposed Christians want to be identified by the State, let alone that they support the State at all and try to co-opt it, and how IMO any group wanting to be identified as a certain religion or lack thereof on a government-issued identification is wasting time at best, if not practically BEGGING for trouble in the long-term (check out the second “mark” link: nuff said), but by now I figure that should be obvious.  Besides, it’s enough that at least in the case of Christians it boldly contradicts that book they claim to love so much.

In case anyone has been under a rock and still wonders about the credibility of those TV military analysts…:

Many U.S. military analysts used as commentators on Iraq by television networks have been groomed by the Pentagon, leaving some feeling they were manipulated to report favorably on the Bush administration, The New York Times said in Sunday editions.  A Times report examining ties between the Bush administration and former senior officers who acted as paid TV analysts said they got private briefings, trips and access to classified intelligence meant to influence their comments.

“Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks,” the newspaper said. […]

Many of the commentators also have ties to military contractors who are vested in U.S. war efforts, but those business links are seldom disclosed to viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks on which they appear, the newspaper said. (emphasis mine)

Dunno which one is worse, that I expected this all along or that it took this long for anyone in the media to figure it out.