Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Skepticism and critical thinking is not panacea, but can help to understand the world better

Politically Incorrect Humor bulletin, 2015

Home 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

Old News ;-)

[Sep 04, 2015] Clinton is transparently Fake.... Looks like Josh is a Extramarital Art Expert.... Anyone know if he has the Black Condom yet? Yoringe Fri, 9/4/2015 - 9:34 am

[Jul 12, 2015] Increasing Number Of Parents Opting To Have Children School-Homed

March 29, 2010 |The Onion - America's Finest News Source
WASHINGTON—According to a report released Monday by the U.S. Department of Education, an increasing number of American parents are choosing to have their children raised at school rather than at home.

Deputy Education Secretary Anthony W. Miller said that many parents who school-home find U.S. households to be frightening, overwhelming environments for their children, and feel that they are just not conducive to producing well-rounded members of society.

Thousands of mothers and fathers polled in the study also believe that those running American homes cannot be trusted to keep their kids safe.

"Every year more parents are finding that their homes are not equipped to instill the right values in their children," Miller said. "When it comes to important life skills such as proper nutrition, safe sex, and even basic socialization, a growing number of mothers and fathers think it's better to rely on educators to guide and nurture their kids."

"And really, who can blame them?" Miller continued. "American homes have let down our nation's youth time and again in almost every imaginable respect."

According to the report, children raised at home were less likely to receive individual adult attention, and were often subjected to ineffective and wildly inconsistent disciplinary measures. The study also found that many parents expressed concerns that, when at home, their children were being teased and bullied by those older than themselves.

In addition to providing better supervision and overall direction, school-homing has become popular among mothers and fathers who just want to be less involved in the day-to-day lives of their children.

"Parents are finding creative ways to make this increasingly common child-rearing track work," Miller said. "Whether it's over-relying on after-school programs and extracurricular activities, or simply gross neglect,† school-homing is becoming a widely accepted method of bringing children up."

Despite the trend's growing popularity, Miller said that school programs are often jeopardized or terminated because shortsighted individuals vote against tax increases intended to boost educational spending.

"The terrifying reality we're facing is that the worst-equipped people you could possibly imagine may actually be forced to take care of their children," Miller said.

Parents who have decided to school-home their children have echoed many of Miller's concerns. Most said that an alarming number of legal guardians such as themselves lack the most basic common sense required to give children the type of instruction they need during crucial developmental years.

"It's really a matter of who has more experience in dealing with my child," Cincinnati- resident Kevin Dufrense said of his decision to have his 10-year-old son Jake, who suffers from ADHD and dyslexia, school-homed. "These teachers are dealing with upwards of 40 students in their classrooms at a time, so obviously they know a lot more about children than someone like me, who only has one son and doesn't know where he is half the time anyway."

"Simply put, it's not the job of parents to raise these kids," Dufrense added.

Though school-homing has proven to be an ideal solution for millions of uninvolved parents, increasingly overburdened public schools have recently led to a steady upswing in the number of students being prison-homed.

[Jul 12, 2015] “An aggressor is anyone who attacks a country before the US does.”–Czech President Milos Zeman

Patient Observer, July 12, 2015 at 9:35 am
Had to share – almost lost my bowl of oatmeal on this:
“An aggressor is anyone who attacks a country before the US does.”–Czech President Milos Zeman
http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/07/russias-week-in-humor-for-july-10-2015.html

[Jul 10, 2015] Trump'd

"...This is bordering on hero worship with this guy and, frankly, I think that's dangerous. That's exactly how the Ds ended up shoving Obama down everyone's throat and look how lousy that turned out."
Jul 9, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Republican preferences of Presidential candidates ;-)

1st choice 2nd choice
Donald Trump

15%

12%

Jeb Bush 11% 7%
Rand Paul 11% 7%

nmewn

Trump filed for bankruptcy protection in 1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009. I have zero interest in putting him in charge of anything remotely connected to my prosperity or posterity.

But I will say this, with Hillary! the current frontrunner, fully 98% of democrats are insane ;-)

Paveway IV

Witht that kind of experience, we should make him president of Puerto Rico.

Not My Real Name

Trump is too much of an ego maniac to have that kind of power.

You mean like Obama?

Gold...Bitches

Wrong. The popularity of Trump and Sanders is they are actually talking reality versus the papsmear crapola that comes out of the mouths of the corporate polititcians from both sides. They also actually have policies that appeal to the majority of the people in their respective parties. Most people oppose the crony trade deals that get signed that do nothing for the people yet enrich the CEO and the politician that passes the bill after they are out and get massive "speaking" fees. Not the corporatists such as Bush and Hillary - never met a trade deal favorable to corporations they didnt like. Quid, meet Pro and Quo.

Southpark said it best regarding voting and elections: But Stan, don't you know, it's always between a giant douche and a turd sandwich. Nearly every election since the beginning of time has been between some douche and some turd. They're the only people who suck up enough to make it that far in politics."

chosen

Thanks for the heads up. Is there any candidate that is not in AIPAC's pocket?

[Jul 10, 2015] You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?

Warren, July 9, 2015 at 4:47 pm

You mean George Bush sends our soldiers into combat, they are severely wounded, and then he wants $120,000 to make a boring speech to them?

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 9, 2015

[May 31, 2015] You better be nice to America

[May 30, 2015] Creator Of Infamous Hope Poster Lashes Out At Obama, Calls Americans Ignorant And Lazy

May 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge

Creator Of Infamous Hope Poster Lashes Out At Obama, Calls Americans Ignorant And Lazy Zero Hedge

Before the people realized that behind the "most transparent administration ever" there was nothing but double seasonal adjustments, drones and an impenetrable layer of propaganda and lies, there was...

And change, of course.

Sadly, at some point over the past six years the hope died, first for the people (if not the bankers), and then for the creator of the infamous "Hope" poster himself, Shepard Fairey who told Esquire magazine in an interview that Obama has not come even close to embodying the break with the past administration that Fairey and so many voters hoped he would.

"I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he'd support]."

But support them he did while crushing the much promised transparency and freedom for the masses, for one simple reason: money, the same reason why Fairey is almost willing to give Obama a pass, again. Money, and of course, power and control of the masses by the select few.

Still, the confused artist still isn't fully ready to throw away all his idealism just yet:

I've met Obama a few times, and I think Obama's a quality human being, but I think that he finds himself in a position where your actions are largely dictated by things out of your control.

A "quality human being" he may be, but when it comes to personal motives, money always wins. Just ask the Clinton Foundation. Even Fairey, who says he "agrees with Hilary on most issues" finally grasps that now:

... campaign finance structure makes me very angry, because it means that politicians are going to have to raise a huge amount of money, which narrows the field dramatically. There are only certain kinds of people that either have the preexisting resources or the willingness to work in way that will get them a lot of money from donors. That narrows the field right there. Then there's the idea that the people who you are going to have to listen to are the people that are going to give you the biggest donation. That means lobbyists, special interest groups, and corporations are going to have politicians eager, disproportionally.

He adds: "I'm not giving him a pass for not being more courageous, but I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step."

A systemic overhaul by whom? The same politicians who are nothing but "whores" to corporate lobby interests?

Or maybe the infamous artist should just blame the American public for agreeing to be swindled and manipulated by one liar after another, all of whom promise change yet end up merely perpetuating the broken, corrupt system they inherit from their predecessor and make it even worse.

Actually, that's precisely what Fairey did. This is what he told Esquire:

We also need a public that isn't so uneducated and complacent. I hate to say Americans are ignorant and lazy, but a lot of them are ignorant and lazy.... When you live in a place that has a lot of good things that make life easier, it's easier to take them for granted. But what frustrates me to no end are people who want to blame Obama or blame anything that is something that if they were actually doing anything as simple as voting, it might not be as bad as it is. There's a lot of finger pointing and very little action and very little research into the dynamics that created the situation that they're unhappy about.

Actually, about that he's quite accurate

However his message will be diluted and ignored, and the media will do is what it always does when facing a threat to the status quo: crush the messenger.

And conveniently, Fairey made it very easy for them: after all, and quite amusingly, his Hope poster itself was a fraud.

The artist was recently sentenced to two years of probation and fined $250,000 in 2012 for destroying documents and concealing others in an attempt to hide that he had used an Associated Press photograph as the basis for his "Hope" poster. And even more ironic, as Gawker wrote in 2009, Fairey himself was "lawsuit happy to artists who ape or parody his stuff."

Unfortunately, in retrospect Fairey's story is one of "tidiest little package" summaries of the banana republic status the US, and its leadership, has devolved to.

[May 30, 2015] More than 10,000 websites 'blackout' Congress in protest of NSA surveillance laws

EdChamp -> elaine layabout 29 May 2015 17:22

Please, tell me that porn sites are involved in this. Cut off Congress's porn access and they will be putty in our hands.

Congratulations! You win the award of the day for that one gleaming guardian comment that truly made me smile.

[May 29, 2015] cCain urges military strikes against FIFA

dh | May 29, 2015 8:52:46 AM | 6

McCain is on the case...

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mccain-urges-military-strikes-against-fifa?mbid=social_facebook

[May 28, 2015] Neocons The Men of Dementia By William R. Polk

May 27, 2015 | Consortiumnews
In the classic novel Don Quixote de la Mancha, the great Spanish writer Cervantes explored the danger of mixing delusions of grandeur with adventurous combat. Yet, today instead of the man of la Mancha, we have the neocons playing the men (and some women) of dementia, as ex-diplomat William R. Polk describes.

It was over half a century ago that I first read Cervantes’ marvelous novel, Don Quixote de la Mancha. I was then studying at the University of Chile, trying to learn Spanish, and Don Quixote was the first novel I remember reading. Or, to be honest, “reading at” because my Spanish was still weak and the text is full of unfamiliar expressions. Also, I was very young and did not know enough about the world to understand fully what Cervantes was saying.

But he had a remarkable gift of writing on different levels. His tale could be enjoyed as just a good story or more profoundly. So, despite my shortcomings, he caught me in his magical web. A few years later, somewhat better equipped, I dipped into Don Quixote again in a delightful course on satire I was taking as an undergraduate at Harvard.

So now I have gone back. Or not quite back. Not quite, because I now can put both of those early ventures into a new perspective from experiences I have had and observations I have made over the last half century. I now realize that what Cervantes wrote about his own times could be applied to ours.

Cervantes was writing about themes that recur often and are particularly apposite today. Indeed, the auguries suggest that they may be virtually a prediction. His “Ingenious Hidalgo Don Quixote” can be read as an amalgam of several of our own “knights errant,” and his accounts of his hidalgo’s adventures foreshadowed some of the wilder forays into combat of our own warriors.

A terrifying thought at least to me is that the hints and themes we can read into his story may be played out in the aftermath of the next election. So, laugh with Cervantes — or shudder with me — over a few pages of his fable.

He begins by anchoring us in place, En un lugar de la Mancha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme (“in a place on the Plain whose name I don’t wish to remember”). As I now transpose it to Washington D.C., he might have written, “at little town in Foggy Bottom whose name I don’t wish to remember.”

Then he introduces the target of his satire, Don Quixote: no ha much tiempo que vivía un hidalgo de los de lanza en astillero, adarga antigua, rocín flaco y galgo corredor (“not much time has passed since there lived one of those gentlemen of the sort who keeps a lance hanging on the wall, an ancient shield, a bony mare and a greyhound”),

At this point, one stops. Who in our times might fit such a description? Are there such eccentric would-be warriors holed up in government offices, think tanks or war colleges with the symbols of warfare and the hunt flaunted above their desks?

A memory pops into my mind: yes, I remember when it was quite fashionable to festoon the walls of offices in the Executive Office Building, the old State and War Departments, of the White House, with the modern equivalents of Quixote’s lance. Battle-scarred weapons fashioned by the Vietcong were particularly favored. Some of us even brought our hounds (but not our nags) into our offices.

But in those far-off days, knights errant were few even in Foggy Bottom. Now, they seem to have multiplied beyond counting. So, could we single out anyone as our Don Quixote? Names of candidates flow past my inner eye. Indeed, even Cervantes puzzled over the name of his hero. He offers several alternatives.

We might do the same. The character we need to fit his story is an arm-chair warrior who is carried away by his occult reading to the point that he is prepared to embark (or at least to send others to embark) on great (and disastrous) adventures in faraway lands, and whose grip on reality is, like Don Quixote’s, to say the least, faulty.

We have a legion of candidates who fit that bill. So it is hard to pick a single name. Never mind. As Cervantes wrote, the name “matters little for our account; it is enough that the narrative does not depart a single point from the truth.” (esto importa poco a nuestro cuento; basta que en la narracíon dél no se salga un punto de la verdad.)

Being accurate or at least suggestive within reasonable bounds was very important for Cervantes and is also important for us because the tale we — the combination of Cervantes classically and I in modern terms — relate is hard to believe.

The Land of Neocons

As I say, many of our great statesmen come to mind, but the richest lode is to be found in the neoconservative movement. Whoa! I pull on the reins of my imagination. Could Cervantes have imagined a Dick Cheney? A Paul Wolfowitz? One of the Kristols? Surely such figures are to be seen only in our times?

Well, no. Not at all. History provides quite a few ancestors for them. However, as the text of the book makes clear, Cervantes’ hidalgo was a complex character who not only read and fantasized but actually himself also went out and fought. Doing both narrows the field rather drastically.

It is hard to find one of the great statesmen we read about, much less those we know in our times, who both proclaimed policy and themselves went into harm’s way. In the “leisure of the theory class,” as Veblen has been amended for our times, the armchair was found to be much more comfortable than the helicopter bucket seat. So, Cervantes would have had to invent a combination of something like Paul Wolfowitz and David Petraeus.

And, of course, he would have transposed Don Quixote’s lance, shield, bony mare and greyhound. They don’t quite do in our day. So consider our modern Don Quixote trading them in for a fighter-bomber, a Patriot missile system, an aircraft carrier and, although this may be stretching it even for Cervantes, a drone in place of the greyhound.

Never mind. Don’t quibble about the tools of the trade. Cervantes, himself, was less concerned with the artifacts than with the mind of his hero. As he tells us, Don Quixote had read so many romantic tales about the glorious adventures of knights errant that “the poor fellow lost his reason to such an extent that not even Aristotle could have untangled the wild imaginations that he believed, were he to be brought back to life just to do that job.” (Con estes razones perdía el pobre caballero el juicio y desvelábase por entendarlas y desestrañarles el sentido que no se sacara ni las entendiera el mesmo Aristóteles, si resucitara para solo ella.)

To try to understand what all the writings were about and what they told him to do, Don Quixote talked with the learned priest of his village. Just so, our modern Don Quixote, having imbibed and partly understood the neoconservative bizarre view of human affairs, consulted with the High Priest of neoconservatism, Leo Strauss, who held forth in his “village” as the President of the University of Chicago once referred to its department of political science. But, as we shall see, Don Quixote chose a rather better guide than did our policy makers.

Cervantes was not kind about the writings of such philosophers. He shows his poor hero dazzled by the intricacies and blind alleys of the outpouring of his version of the great myth peddler. Cervantes has his spinner of tales, a man known as Feliciano de Silva, leading his avid but disoriented devoté into a maze with “clarity of the prose and intricacy of reasoning” exemplified by such marvels as “the reason of unreason affects my reason to such a degree that my reason withers away…” (La razón de la sinrazón que a mi rasón se hace, de tal maner, mi razón enflaquence…)

That is, put rather more prosaically, logic and facts cease to matter. It is the vision of romantic action against demonic forces that give the necessary energy for wild endeavors. Thought becomes a banner to signal the grand campaign. And, as Cervantes said, razón enflaquence…reason withers away.

Finally, as Cervantes tells us, his Don Quixote became so immersed in such readings that he passed the nights from dusk to dawn and the days from dawn to dusk “until finally the brain dried up and he came to lose his mind. Having filled himself with the fantasies he had read in de Silva’s writings, imaginary happenings became actual for him [and] no other interpretation of the world was more real.”

“As a result, having lost his mind, he hit on the strangest plan that had ever occurred to a crazy person anywhere: it came to seem to him appropriate and necessary both to augment his own honor and to serve his republic to make himself a knight errant and take himself around the world with his weapons and on his mount to seek adventures and to put into practice all he had read… becoming a knight errant, going about the world with his arms and mount, seeking adventures, righting every manner of wrong and by putting himself in situations of great peril to make famous his name. The poor fellow imagined himself crowned for his valor, at the very least, with the empire of Trebizond; so with these agreeable thoughts in mind, he immediately set out to put into effect his plan.”

But he faced an immediate obstacle: having decided to venture into the dangerous world, Don Quixote realizes that he must be properly “entitled” — that is, he could not afford to be seen as an outlaw or a war criminal but must be recognized as a person legally or at least officially entitled to engage in combat to overthrow and to kill the wicked.

So he seeks someone to dub him a knight, which in contemporary terms would give him legitimacy. Just so, the neoconservatives realized that it was not enough simply to proclaim their doctrine in their journals even if that attracted to their cause real warriors who could put it into effect. Rather they must be vested with authority. Even intellectuals, after all, need to be “knighted” if they are to perform acts that when done unofficially or by ordinary citizens are crimes.

Seeking Authority

So, after an agonized delay in which he found no proper authority to knight him, Don Quixote comes upon an inn whose keeper emerges to welcome him. To our would-be knight errant the inn is a castle and the keeper is its lord just as our Don Quixote found his authority to be the lord of the White House. Cervantes has his Don Quixote say – and we can be sure that our Wolfowitz-Petraeus spoke similarly — these magic words,

“My adornments are my arms,

My leisure is to fight.”

Then, before the proprietor of the house, Don Quixote falls on his knees, saying “I will never raise myself from where I am, Illustrious Lord, until you have given me what I seek, that which will spread your fame and do good to all humanity …. that I may go forth equipped with the necessary credentials as an armed knight such as never before was to be found in the world.”

One can only imagine how the modern bond was forged. However it was done, we know that our modern hero-to-be was welcomed into the “House” by its Great Lord who proceeded to anoint him with the signs of high office. Neither would have been put off by the earlier hero’s expectations:

“Who could doubt that in the coming times, when my glorious deeds emerge in the light of true history … my brave deeds will deserve to be cast in bronze, carved in marble and painted on canvasses to be seen for all time. Ah you! Wise enchanter of the future! Whoever you may be. To you will fall the honor of chronicling my great crusade!”

He also admonished the future historian not to forget his warhorse.

And so, in our marvelous age of instant history, it happened as predicted — or requested. It was not long before that very chronicle appeared. Written not about Don Quixote, of course, but about his modern and only partial successor, Paul Wolfowitz, under the title Visionary Intellectual, Policymaker and Strategist. The author was so fulsome that he certainly did not forget the “warhorse,” the great weapons of war.

Back to the Inn/Castle/White House, the keeper/lord/president mentions that although he had not read — he was not noted for his reading– the marvelous accounts that had so affected both the old and the new Don Quixotes, while still a young man he too had wandered the world, seeking adventures.

In place of Seville, Malaga, Cordoba and Toledo, in the earlier account, read New Haven, Cambridge, Austin and Dallas — and, after a number of shady enterprises, as we are told by Cervantes earlier and by the media in our times, they both had entered their “houses.”Castle lords or not, they both were empowered to dub anyone a knight “or at least as much a knight as anyone in the world was.” (y tan caballero, que no pudeiese más en el mundo.)

So empowered, Don Quixote sets out on his first venture, rushing to “regime change” a tyranny. It happened like this:

As Don Quixote was riding along, he heard moans coming from a forest he was passing. Looking for a cause for which to fight, he exclaimed “I give thanks to Heaven for giving me so soon a means to carry out my calling.” With that, he rode into the forest where he saw a “stout rustic” lashing a poor boy. Don Quixote exploded in anger and, thinking that the rustic was a knight, challenged him to a fight. The peasant tried to excuse himself by saying that the boy had been stealing from him and was not protecting his sheep. And “he says I am a miser who does not want to pay him what I owe him.”

Furious, our hero threatens the tyrant with his lance and orders him to pay the boy at once or “if not, by The God, I will make an end to you.” (Pagadle luego sín más réplica; si no, por el Dios que nos rige que os concluya y aniquile en este punto. Desatadlo luego.)

So it happened also that when our modern heroes rode through the deserts of the Middle East, they saw a robust fellow (Iraq) mistreating a little fellow (Kuwait). When our heroes accosted him, the big fellow said that the little fellow was stealing his oil and not helping him protect his flock (the Arab nations) from the advancing Iranians. So Iraq, who had no money “with him” as Cervantes says of the lout Don Quixote encountered, said he could not pay Kuwait what it owed it.

In Cervantes’ tale: the bully said he would take the little boy under his control and promised eventually to pay him the money. The boy was terrified and said that he would never trust the bully. But Don Quixote brushed his worries aside and said that he had given orders, which the peasant would obey. The boy need not worry; all would be well. And, if the peasant did not pay, he, Don Quixote would return and punish him.

Waiting until the valiant knight was out of sight, the peasant then tied the boy again to the tree and lashed him nearly to death.

So what happened in the story as it unfolded in our times? Our replacement of the peasant, the dictator of Iraq, consulted with the American ambassador who told him that we really took no position on what happened to the boy, Kuwait. The Americans apparently meant that the Saddam Hussein should be allowed a little “beating” of Kuwait, but not too much.

Saddam took that to give him permission, a “green light,” as America had flashed to another dictator in far-off Indonesia. So he grabbed Kuwait. The Americans were surprised by the ferocity of the attack because they thought he would not take all of the country. That is, not beat the “boy” nearly to death, as Cervantes’s rustic set about doing.

“And in this manner,” wrote Cervantes, “the valorous Don Quixote righted the wrong, being very happy that everything turned out so well according to the high ideals of knighthood.”

Wisely, Cervantes had his hero ride happily away. It was not so, as we know, in the modern version. Infuriated that Saddam went too far, the Americans returned to punish him. Then, having announced that they had imposed the high ideals of democracy, literally at the point of the lance, our modern heroes stayed on at the house of the cruel peasant, tore it apart and killed many of his family – and are still there.

As Cervantes makes clear and as we know from experience not only in Iraq but in a string of other countries, the intervention of the great warrior resulted in the total breakdown of social institutions, security, justice and protection of the weak.

Cervantes could not have imagined how many times and in how many places his parable would be reenacted! But already, he realized that “regime change” gives birth to chaos and misery.

When Don Quixote finally got back to his own house, having been severely beaten in another encounter on the way, his friends decided that it would be an act of mercy to demolish the fantasies that had driven him mad and had nearly gotten him killed.

The great man’s housekeeper thought that all that was necessary was to sprinkle Holy Water on the books in his library, but his friends thought that the ridiculous doctrine could be erased only by sterner action. They were too late. He was already infected by the ideas he had imbibed.

I leave it to the reader to draw the modern parallel. Is it too late for us and our valiant leaders to realize how pernicious are the delusions they have imbed, how many lives they have cost, how much treasure they have wasted? We cannot be sure, but the trends are against us.

Suffice it to say that the neoconservatives are again plugging their dangerous policies and myopic views of cultures and societies and urging more mummery despite the record of their past malpractice. Behind the buzzwords of counterinsurgency and “nation building,” they caused and then justified not only the great harm done to those who stood in their way but also violations of those principles that have guided our democracy.

Cervantes catches this violation neatly. Since one of the books Don Quixote had been reading was called The Knight of the Cross, Cervantes has the village priest remark that “behind the cross stands the devil.” (mas también se suele decir, “tras la cruz está el diablo.) Or, as we might transpose it to modern terms, behind the philosophical musings of Leo Strauss lurk the violent warmongering of the neoconservatives and the justifications for the rise of the “security state.”

These collections were both pernicious, but undoubtedly the results of the impact of Strauss were far worse. They were directly harmful to our liberty and well-being.

Sancho Panza

It is here where Cervantes introduces Sancho Panza whom some readers find to be an even more complex character than the great knight himself. Often a man of good sense, sometimes even noble and generous, he was also greedy and inconsistent. He was fair game for Don Quixote, and our wild warrior quickly brought Sancho into his court. Who was he?

As Cervantes describes him, he was “a working man, living nearby, a good man (if such a title could be given to a poor man) but not very bright; so after inveigling him with (soothing) words and (lavish) promises, he got the poor hick to agree to go with him and serve him as his squire.

Among other things Don Quixote argued was that he ought to be willing to go along because, if their venture succeeded, they would win some island of which he would become governor. With these promises and others, Sancho Panza, although himself a simple working man, gave up his fields, left his wife and children and signed on as squire.”

It is hard to avoid reading Barack Obama into the character of Sancho. Having listened to the brave words of the neoconservatives, Obama and many members of Jefferson’s, Jackson’s and Roosevelt’s Party of “the common man,” the Democrats, readily gave up their customary fields of concern, the well-being of their families and fellow citizens, said goodbye to their long-time partners and rushed off as followers of the new doctrine in pursuit some distant “island” where they could win both laurels and emoluments.

As they rode along together, Sancho (here the opportunistic Democrat) assured Don Quixote (here the Obama convert to Bush’s policies) that “if you give me that island you promised, I will rule it, no matter how big it is.”

But, as I have said, Sancho was a complex figure and another part of his personality – his innate common sense – comes out in the most famous of the great knight’s misadventures, the attack on the windmills.

As Cervantes tells the story, the great knight suddenly sighted some windmills and turning to his newly commissioned acolyte said, “luck has brought us even more than we could have desired; for there you see, Friend Sancho Panza, revealed before you 30 or a few more vicious giants with whom I think to do battle, deprive them of their lives [and] with whose spoils we will begin to enrich ourselves for this is a just war and is a great service to God to drive such vile species from the Earth.”

An astonished Sancho, blurted out, “What giants?”

“Those you see before you,” replied Don Quixote. “those with the long arms…”

“Look, Your Excellency,” Sancho replied, what you see there are not giants, only windmills and what seems to be long arms are just wings to catch the wind and make the millstone turn.”

“It is clear,” continued Don Quixote, that you do not understand such matters. Those are giants. And if you are fainthearted, stand aside and say your prayers while I engage them in fierce and unequal battle.” With that the valiant knight spurred his horse into battle. [I have condensed the beginning section of Chapter 8.]

We all have heard the story of what happened next: the windmill’s wings caught the knight’s lance, pulled him and his horse into the air and smashed them onto the ground. And, as Cervantes tells us, he was particularly grieved over the breaking of his lance.

To convert Cervantes to our times, imagine, I ask you, that the windmill was the little perceived, simple and otherwise engaged country of Afghanistan. Without much thought of the danger or the cost and no perceived consideration of alternative actions, we charged in and like him were caught in the whirling melee of its fiercely independent people.

Don Quixote was, of course, mad, but his action was unprecedented; we, in contrast, whether mad or not, had ample warnings from the experiences of the British and the Russians. Both the British and the Russians had lost their armies and their “lances” jousting there. Our Don Quixote, now multiplied by tens of thousands, paid a heavy price both for knowing no history and for having believed the wild dogmas of the neoconservatives.

Could this painful venture — and all our other escapades in Vietnam, Somalia, Libya (and now perhaps Syria and even Ukraine) have been avoided? An attempt to answer that question takes us back to Sancho Panza. Sancho was a realist and tried to dissuade the knight errant from some of his dementia, but he — like modern Democrats — also sought to profit from the dementia. Recognizing Sancho’s venality, Don Quixote promised him a kingdom if he obeyed.

In our times, the “kingdom” is not a faraway and imaginary island but victory at the polls, promotions and even the forges of “lances.” These rewards come about more easily and quicker from sound and fury than from careful and constructive action.

Cervantes got it right. Don Quixote’s flights of madness are addictive. Eventually, even Sancho was converted. And today, as we see almost daily the Obama administration has taken over the major aspects of the neoconservative creed. Looking to a future of the probable choice between a Hilary Clinton and a Jeb Bush, who will have the will to call a halt to madness?

Cervantes speaks to us all.

William R. Polk is a veteran foreign policy consultant, author and professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department’s Policy Planning Council where he served during the Cuban Missile Crisis. His books include: Violent Politics: Insurgency and Terrorism; Understanding Iraq; Understanding Iran; Personal History: Living in Interesting Times; Distant Thunder: Reflections on the Dangers of Our Times; and Humpty Dumpty: The Fate of Regime Change.

[May 15, 2015] JEB JR.

[May 15, 2015] JEB & JR.

The Burning Platform

[May 15, 2015] Fed-Up Employee Just About 14 Years Away From Walking Out Door

The Burning Platform

WALTHAM, MA—Frustrated with a growing list of unacceptable workplace indignities, fed-up Catamount Systems employee Marc Holden is just about 14 years away from walking out the front door of his office and never returning, sources confirmed Thursday. “I swear to God, if things don’t improve around here real fast, I am out of here in 14 years or so—I am not bluffing,” Holden said, noting that if he has to endure just a decade and a half more of company-wide incompetence and pointless micromanagement, he is gone for good. “Seriously, I don’t think I can take any more than 3,000 more days of this before I snap. Mark my words, if 2029 rolls around and it’s still the same old shit around here, I’m cleaning out my desk, getting on that elevator, and never coming back.” Holden added that if his boss belittled him in front of the entire staff just 200 more times, he would storm right into his office and tell him exactly where he can stick it.

[May 9, 2015] Putin Celebrates 70th Anniversary Of Victory Over Hitler, Warns Of Dangers From Unipolar World

Zero Hedge

Arnold

I completely endorse Hillary for POTUS 2016.

are we there yet

I endorse hillary for a jail term.

[May 03, 2015] Jon Stewart: why I quit The Daily Show by Hadley Freeman

Apr 18, 2015 | The Guardian

.... he describes his decision to quit The Daily Show, the American satirical news programme he has hosted for 16 years, as something closer to the end of a long-term relationship.

... ... ...

At 52, Stewart has the bouncy energy of a man half his age and, unlike most in the public eye, has an aversion to compliments. If I tell him I liked something about the film, he will immediately deflect the compliment and insist it was all down to Bahari, or the film’s star Gael García Bernal, or the crew. For all the claims of his detractors that Stewart is the epitome of East Coast elitism, there is more self-deprecating New Jersey grit here than arrogant Manhattan elan.

Much as he might wince to hear it, for the past 16 years Stewart has occupied a place in America’s cultural and political life far greater than the small audience of his cable show would suggest. The Daily Show’s simple format consists of a mix of reports from roving reporters (who have included Steve Carell, Stephen Colbert and John Oliver), monologues delivered by Stewart and an end-of-show interview. Over time, Stewart has evolved from a satirist to a broadcaster celebrated as the voice of US liberalism, the one who will give the definitive progressive take on a story.

His moving monologue after the Charlie Hebdo killings in January was widely shared; his frequent on-air support of Democrat senator Elizabeth Warren helped her evolve in the eyes of the public from Harvard professor to dream 2016 presidential candidate – particularly among those who find Hillary Clinton too centrist and hawkish. Stewart’s energetic campaigning on behalf of the 9/11 first responders (the emergency services who were first on the scene, many of whom later suffered debilitating illnesses), prompted the New York Times to compare him to Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow, the most revered newscasters in American history. It is a delicious irony that in the world of American TV news, one populated by raging egotists and self-aggrandisers, the person who is generally cited as the most influential is Stewart – a man so disinterested in his own celebrity, he often didn’t bother to collect his 18 Emmys, preferring to stay at home with his family.

When George Bush left office in 2008, some worried that Stewart would run out of material. This proved as shortsighted as the hope that Obama would be America’s grand salvation. Stewart, who describes himself as “a leftist”, has always hammered the Democrats with the vigour of a disappointed supporter, and subjected Obama to one of his most damaging interviews during his first term: the president admitted that his 2008 slogan probably should have been “Yes We Can, But...” At the time, Stewart laughed, but today he admits with a shrug, “It was heartbreaking. It’s generally heartbreaking – that’s what the gig is.”

Jon Stewart gave Barack Obama one of his toughest interviews, suggesting his 2008 election slogan should have been ‘Yes we can, but…’

His seemingly effortless interview with Tony Blair in 2008 cut through Blair’s crusader mentality in a mere six minutes, as Stewart calmly rejected Blair’s theory that any kind of military action can keep the west safe. As Blair stammered, huffed and shifted in his seat, Stewart concluded that: “19 people flew into the towers. It seems hard for me to imagine that we could go to war enough, to make the world safe enough, that 19 people wouldn’t want to do harm to us. So it seems like we have to rethink a strategy that is less military-based.” This was Stewart at his best; it’s also fair to say that some of the interviews, generally those with actors and authors, seem like mere puffery, a point with which Stewart agrees (he embraces criticism as eagerly as he deflects compliments).

... ... ...

Stewart likes to credit “the team”, but given that he has always been deeply involved in the script (unusually for a host), writing and rewriting drafts right up to the last minute, the show will be a pretty different beast without him. He has described his successor, the South African comedian Trevor Noah, as “incredibly thoughtful, considerate and funny”, and defended him when it was discovered, to widespread fury, that Noah had in the past tweeted offensive jokes about Jews, overweight women and transgender people.

The furore over Noah’s tweets reflects just how high Stewart has set the bar. There was such an outpouring of grief when he announced he was stepping down, that he mused on air the following day, “Did I die?” Even the normally dispassionate New Yorker magazine claimed, under the headline Jon Stewart, We Need You In 2016, “the last hope for bringing some rationality to the 2016 Presidential field died”. Not since Oprah Winfrey announced her retirement from network television has a US TV host’s departure received such international coverage, but Stewart bridles when I make the Winfrey comparison: “If Oprah can leave and the world still spins, I honestly think it will survive me.”

And it should be noted that not everyone was distraught. Fox News, displaying its mastery of making colour-based accusations about the kettle from its pot-based position, reported that Stewart was “not a force for good” and that his sustained criticisms of the right “had no foothold in the facts”. The Daily Show duly responded with a Vine of Fox News’ best factual distortions.

... ... ...

In 2010, Stewart hosted a Rally To Restore Sanity in Washington DC, attracting 215,000 people, who cheered him on as he berated the media, or “the country’s 24-hour politico–pundit-perpetual-panic-‘conflictinator’.”

... ... ...

My biggest objection to Fox News, I say, is not the scaremongering, it’s the way it’s reshaped the Republican party. It will misrepresent social and economic issues, and promote the more extreme elements of the party, politicians such as Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee, in a way that is hugely detrimental to American politics. (For the record, Rupert Murdoch disagrees, and last year claimed that Fox News “absolutely saved” the Republican party.) “Watching these channels all day is incredibly depressing,” says Stewart. “I live in a constant state of depression. I think of us as turd miners. I put on my helmet, I go and mine turds, hopefully I don’t get turd lung disease.”

... ... ...

Jon Stuart Leibowitz was born in New York and raised in New Jersey, the son of a teacher and a professor of physics. He grew up in the shadow of the Vietnam war and Watergate, events that left him, he has said in the past, “with a healthy scepticism towards official reports”. He jokingly recalls the time his older brother fired him from his first job at Woolworths as one of the defining, “scarring events” of his youth. But his parents’ divorce when he was 11 was clearly more so, prompting him to drop his surname and eventually legally change it to Stewart. He has described his relationship with his father as still “complicated”. “There was a thought of using my mother’s maiden name, but I thought that would be just too big a fuck you to my dad,” he says. “Did I have some problems with my father? Yes. Yet people always view it [changing his surname] through the prism of ethnic identity.”

So it was a family thing as opposed to a Jewish thing? “Right. So whenever I criticise Israel’s actions it’s [he puts on a Yiddishy accent] ‘He’s changed his name! He’s not a Jew! He hates himself!’ And I’m like, ‘I hate myself for a lot of reasons, but not because I’m Jewish.’”

After college, Stewart performed on the standup circuit in New York, landing his own talkshow on MTV in the 1990s. In 1999, he took over the then little-loved Daily Show on Comedy Central, turning it from hit-and-miss satire to the news- and politics-focused programme it is today. Coming to it at 38, he says, the job was so ideal, “I couldn’t have created one better”.

Since Stewart announced his departure, much has been written about him being the most trusted news source for young Americans. Stewart kiboshes this as “conventional wisdom. In the sea of information that surrounds people of that generation, I’d be truly surprised if their only news comes four days of the week, for a few minutes a night.” He laughs when I describe him as a celebrity (“I’m not Madonna!” he hoots, raising an eyebrow). The only restriction fame has put on his freedom, he says, is “I don’t hang out on the Upper West Side during Sukkot”. Isn’t he being a bit faux modest, I ask, especially when he insists that what he does is comedy and not news? That comes with a certain profile. He thinks about this for a few seconds. “It’s not that I… I mean, it’s satire, so it’s an expression of real feelings. So I don’t mean that in the sense of, ‘I don’t mean this.’ What I mean is, the tools of satire should not be confused with the tools of news. We use hyperbole, but the underlying sentiment has to feel ethically, intentionally correct, otherwise we wouldn’t do it.”

‘Would I watch Fox News? If it was a nuclear winter and it might help my family’

... ... ...

IMNonsuch Alyeska 18 Apr 2015 18:29

I would have gone for Tina Fey, or Amy Poehler, but preferably Tina. I think the show could do with a woman and her talent for absurdity dishep up with a straight face would fit the bill exactly.

IMNonsuch 18 Apr 2015 18:22

It's not possible that he doesn't realise why he is considered the most trusted news source by so many. Underneath the satire, there is a layer of perspective that he offers. And precisely because he offers it, but doesn't thrust it upon his viewers, that is why he is trusted by his audience. And as I wrote above, it's inconceivable that he is unaware of that.

fraac1 tankerton 18 Apr 2015 18:12

I've watched The Daily Show and, until it finished, The Colbert Report for several years by torrenting them as soon as they appeared (very quickly). Both far superior to news commentary we have in Britain.

Nicholas Rios 18 Apr 2015 18:08

Television icon. Modern philosopher. Thanks Mr. Stewart.

Alyeska bjammin187 18 Apr 2015 18:06

I'd offer Samantha Bee double to please please retire from television. She's not funny, she's just irritating.

John Oliver would have been the perfect choice - or, Tina Fey!

Nicholas Rios Wynters 18 Apr 2015 18:04

John Oliver was on Stewart's show. Even hosted it for 3 months. Are you daft?

Westy61 MsTeatime 18 Apr 2015 18:00

Every Iranian government post-revolution has abused the human rights of the people it finds threatening.

That would be every single Iranian government after the CIA/MI6 lead coup that overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddeq government and installed the despot Shah-an-Shah Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi whose CIA trained SAVAK secret police were notorious for torture and executions, wouldn't it?

Bluejil 18 Apr 2015 17:58

“the country’s 24-hour politico–pundit-perpetual-panic-‘conflictinator’.”

Hilarious and not something that only happens in the US, we have it here too and so very true!

I was living in the US during the first Bush term, after 9/11 it was quite frightening, the media pandering to Bush. Stewart was the only voice telling the truth and challenging the media. For sixteen years he continued to do so and he deserves high praise for that, a remarkable and very funny man.

George Silversurfer 18 Apr 2015 17:50

i used to feel Colbert was the right successor to David Letterman...but now i believe John Stewart might have been a better fit.

DCJ1987 18 Apr 2015 17:46

He has multi-millions of dollars, got tired of doing the same O same O, & needs a change in his mid-life. He'll play golf with friends like of Bill O'Reilly, Will Ferrell, Sean Hannity, Tavis Smiley, & Rush Limbaugh. Go on shows like Bill Maher's, Tonight with Jimmy Fallon, & the New Late Night with Stephen Colbert. He'll be paid $275,000.00 for speeches, too.

bjammin187 harpedonaptae 18 Apr 2015 17:38

Just wondering if you voted for G W Bush. If so, what did you confuse for leadership there?

bjammin187 reddan 18 Apr 2015 17:33

Nope. He made Blair squirm. What should he have done? Perform a citizens arrest?

Nicko Thime 18 Apr 2015 17:31

The world is a better place for John Stewart having done the yeoman work he has done for the past years. Those who are his audience have long been recognized as the most informed, mostly due to his efforts.

I am sad to see him leave, but look forward to new blood in the spot as well was wishing this great observer of the American condition the best of luck.

Thanks, Mr. Stewart.

Phil Smith 18 Apr 2015 17:16

I've just read this sentence: "The furore over Noah’s tweets reflects just how high Stewart has set the bar." ... which is of itself a reflection on how Twitter, currently, has the sway, as the lazy current affairs writer's Wikipedia, I think... mind you, I'm writing below the line and it is a little late.

goto100 18 Apr 2015 17:08

Someone who thinks Elizabeth Warren (ex-Republican, neo-liberal supporter of Israel above everything and frenemy of banks) is the solution to all the world's ills, is "left wing"? And the man who "headed off the real left wing at the pass" with his "rally to maintain the status quo at all costs, because, well...hell...I'm more tan alright, Jack", is on the side of the good guys?

Wow, that shark you jumped was big, Guardian.

Thomas19999 Sue Cormack 18 Apr 2015 16:44

Always assuming your intelligence intellect and interests are not restricted UK air space only, please watch a few days of the Daily Show

If you have an interest in US and world events and politics it will help you appreciate the show and laugh more often

SonOfTheDesert percy123 18 Apr 2015 16:42

The Guardian has more readers in the US than anywhere else.

Why is anyone still making a fuss about this?

1984farm 18 Apr 2015 16:37

Over the Iron Curtain, in Poland during the 70-s,the government allowed that kind of political satire on the state radio ( channel 3 ) as a safety valve.

Since I moved to the West ,Jon Stewart and old reruns of Monty Python helped me to adjust to the brave new world.

I hope , one day there will be people just like him.

Wynters Mike Resvit 18 Apr 2015 16:28

Kudos for the irony (although it's a bit too thick), but have you ever heard of John Oliver? I know he's a Brit and so he's probably not made it onto the the US circuit (and someone like Jon Stewart would never be seen dead on the same network, let alone in the same room) but he's pretty good.

RonnieHubbard tankerton 18 Apr 2015 16:12

there are many ways to watch the daily show in the uk

and there really aren't many better comedians than him, but to say he's a comedian is too simplistic. It's like saying Ricky Gervais is just a comedian. Like they are both comedians, but they're a different style of comedian to say Jack Whitehall or Jimmy Carr

There isn't really a British version, (unless you count John Oliver) of him. There isn't a British show anything like his.

Thomas Seymour LetThemSnortCoke 18 Apr 2015 16:11

I was ten when the US participation in the Vietnam war ended. It cast a shadow on US culture and politics for many years after that.

Mike Resvit tankerton 18 Apr 2015 16:09

Yeah, that's why so many Brit comedians are so well known over here...not. We know some of your actors, we know some of your politicians and your royals but pretty much none of your so-called comedians. It's because they're not funny. They simply can't cut it here. Some have tried, a few standup comedians, but they ended up running back to merry 'ol England with their metaphorical tales between their legs. You people wouldn't know funny if it smacked you in your face like a yob high on molly. Your Eurocentric existence precludes you from having much of a personality or a sense of humor.

It's an "American thing, you wouldn't understand" is appropriate here in that life in the US, when compared to every other nationality on earth, is so unique, so different, that foreigners cannot begin to comprehend. You simply have to "live here" to get it and you have to live here for years, if not decades. The rest of the world is like 1960's America when it comes to pretty much everything social. We honestly feel sorry for you guys for being so backwards.

PotholeKid easternCanada 18 Apr 2015 16:04

Yup.. he gives just a little taste of reality... but the truth, well Americans can't handle the truth.

Sue Cormack Eric Walker 18 Apr 2015 16:02

Exactly. I know we export a load of crap to the US and, good on you for rejecting a fair whack of it.

Thomas Seymour BlogAnarchist 18 Apr 2015 16:01

Should have cut off that last sentence at the dash - or maybe just a word shorter.

Tanvirnator Sue Cormack 18 Apr 2015 16:01

Because his integrity and sense of social justice is inspiring.

[Apr 04, 2015] Clintons Unveil Official 2016 Hillary Campaign Button

Apr 02, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Home

Clintons Unveil Official 2016 Hillary Campaign Button

Source: Townhall

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:34 | 5950655 tarpuranus

Abort is more like it

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:36 | 5950665 OldPhart

"CTRL"

Semi-Lady Fascist.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:39 | 5950677 philipat

Ctrl.Alt.Del.................

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:43 | 5950692 kaiserhoff

Time for Hillbilly to "punch out."

(fighter pilot's eject button, use with caution, spine contracts by one full inch, ouch...)

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:10 | 5950789 TruxtonSpangler

ALT-F4

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:33 | 5950847 1000 splendid suns

The Clinton timeline
http://prorev.com/connex.htm

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 21:29 | 5950951 Buckaroo Banzai

"Arkancide" kills emails too -- it's not just for people anymore!

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:40 | 5950680 kaiserhoff

I already feel Lewinskied.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxD-5z_xHBU

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:36 | 5950658 asiafinancenews

I'm ready for oligarchy!!!

/ sarc

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:25 | 5950820 Kirk2NCC1701

You must mean "Cli(n)tocracy".

Hillary: "I did NOT have sex with that woman!"

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:36 | 5950662 ebworthen

Ooof! Looks like the Clinton machine may have broken down.

Guess Wall Street might want Jeb Bush in this time; perpetuate the delusion.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:47 | 5950711 logicalman

It will never happen, but if everyone stayed home and played with themselves on election day, it would change America more than voting ever will.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:51 | 5950871 TheReplacement

Who here thinks that the POTUS has any control over the CIA?

Who here thinks that the CIA has any control over the POTUS?

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:44 | 5950697 The man with po...

The cold war never ended. Russia was pillaged and plundered in the 90s and of course the nukes are still pointing at Russia, the airbases surrounding the West of Russia remain, the missile shield...

You get the picture.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:36 | 5950667 Seasmoke

April's Fool Day is very very hard in 2015

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:45 | 5950699 logicalman

The world has become so fucking batshit crazy it's hard to spot an April fools joke, even when looking for 'em.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:37 | 5950671 venturen

Who said "I am not a crook"!

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:48 | 5950714 Bobportlandor

sen. Hillary Clinton finally has admitted she was not named for the famous conqueror of Mount Everest, Sir Edmund Hillary.

http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38409/

Why is this lying sack of shit anywhere near WDC?

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:11 | 5950793 Hohum

Because it's a prerequisite.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:50 | 5950718 nmewn

What is it with this lady and buttons?

She can easily push reset buttons, delete buttons, everyones button...lol...but she can't push simple phone buttons when her "good friend Chris" is under attack with RPG's, mortars & AK's?

Why, its almost like, she preferred him to die.

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 19:52 | 5950726 Miss Expectations

Peregruzka

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:02 | 5950758 Miss Expectations
Found another button:

http://www.homebuildinglessons.com/TDBlog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/dua...

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:08 | 5950783 Gold Dog

Monica Lewinsky's Ex-Boyfriend's Wife for President

Wed, 04/01/2015 - 20:25 | 5950825 kaiserhoff

nice.

How about "Remember the Monica!"

[Apr 3, 2015] David Michael Green Hey, Reagan Democrats!

Dec 23, 2008 | counterpunch.org

Sometime in the future...

“And now, ladies and gentlemen, if you’ll just follow me over in this direction, I’d like to show you one of our rarest and most reviled species here at The Human Zoo – it’s the proverbial ‘Reagan Democrat’.

“Most of your younger visitors here at the Zoo have no idea what a Reagan Democrat could be, so I always like to take the time to explain it to them. Indeed, most of them don’t even know what Reagan was, except that they keep hearing the people who wrecked Old America talk about this wrinkled prune faced guy with the Gumby hair as if he were some sort of deity. I get a lot of questions about how someone could actually have done things that don’t sound even remotely plausible, but I generally leave that for the historians to explain, other than to remind people that injecting religious dogma into politics doesn’t just mean stupidity only when it comes to policies related to sexuality, war, taxation, the economy or the environment.

“But already I digress... The Reagan Democrat (technically, Imbecelicus politici) was always the strangest and most contemptuous of species from the habitat of American politics, as you’ve perhaps already heard. Try to imagine another example from the animal kingdom that could be so readily counted upon to bring harm upon itself and others. There are some of course, but usually they are simply ignorant animals, often with very limited cranial capacity.

“The Reagan Democrat, on the other hand, was simply obnoxiously greedy, and took great pains to aggregate to itself as much stuff as was possible, including even meaningless psychological affirmations of its existential worth. It wasn’t very long, of course, before another animal in the jungle noticed this tendency, and established a parasitic relationship with the Reagan Democrat. These others were known as The Wealthy (Plutocratus illegitimi), and they got very rich – though they could still never seem to achieve happiness – by exploiting the opportunities provided to them by the Reagan Democrat. A very mean-spirited and deceitful group of marketing gurus like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove were generally the weapon of choice for accomplishing this.

“Anyhow, before we enter the exhibit, perhaps I should stop now and take any questions. Yes, you, young lady, what can I tell you?”

“Well, sir, you’ve never quite defined what a Reagan Democrat is. And, especially, why someone associated with Mr. Reagan would be a Democrat. Wasn’t he from that other party, the, uh..., the... Regressocans? ...the Degenocrats?”

“Ah, fine questions, indeed, and you’re quite right that I’ve been remiss in not explaining those fundamentals so far. It’s an occupational hazard, I suppose. We zoo curators get so caught up in admiring our own erudition that we sometimes we forget to do our jobs properly!

“Speaking of which, where were we...? Oh, yes, I was going to answer your questions about the meaning of this term. First of all, let’s get that political party name straight. Reagan was a Republican. That’s what makes the creature we’re about to see so interesting. It came from working class roots, often recently arrived just a generation earlier from some very poor Eastern European country or such. Its local social unit had only recently been elevated to the middle class, and this achievement had everything to do with the progressive policies the Democratic Party. For the first time ever, and because of these policies, it had a good job, a house in the suburbs, two cars, and it could send its offspring to institutions of higher education which had previously been reserved exclusively for elites, as represented by Mr. Reagan’s party.

“But it was very, very greedy, and thus differentiated itself off into a new species which was marked by the fact that it could have its underdeveloped psychology readily appealed to for purposes of exploitation by Republican operatives, representing the economic elite species. In fact, it was actually pretty easy to do. All they had to do was throw some line about an evil foreign bogeyman down to the Reagan Democrat, or perhaps a story about uppity darker skinned members of the genus, or some televised ruse about how very, very bad people were out to destroy Christmas, the silly religious holiday of yore... Anything like that would generally work.

“It really didn’t matter very much what ploy was chosen, though the more naked the appeal to greed or vanity, the better. For instance, a handful of elites could carve out for themselves massive chunks of the commonwealth’s (formerly) common wealth, but as long as they tossed a few pennies in the direction of the Reagan Democrat at the same time, the latter was sure to support what amounted to his or her own financial undoing, every time. Likewise, since the Reagan Democrat tended to be the most fearful and the most self-loathing of animals in the human sphere, the basest appeals to its vanity could also buy votes en masse, and on the cheap, too. You just had to make him feel a little bigger than someone else – women, foreigners, brown people, homosexuals – it didn’t really matter. Then you could get his vote and pick his pocket.”

[Mar 30, 2015] Congressman Knows Regular Lobbyist’s Order Without Even Having To Be Told

Mar 26, 2015 | The Onion

Noting that the Valero Energy representative had been coming to his office for more than a decade now, Sen. John Cornyn (R‑TX) told reporters Thursday that he now knows the regular lobbyist’s order without even having to be told.

“Pete always drops in Monday mornings around eight on his way to work—well, you see the same friendly face year after year and you just pick up on what he wants,”

said Cornyn, adding that he’s typically already preparing the lobbyist’s usual order of tax breaks and fossil fuel subsidies even as he’s taking off his coat.

“Every once in a while, he’ll throw me a curveball and ask for a rider slashing regulations on greenhouse gas emissions, but for the most part, he knows what he likes and sticks with it. The way I see it, folks will always come back if you treat them right.”

At press time, the lobbyist had arrived right on time and was getting settled in his usual seat.

[Mar 27, 2015] U.S. Worried About Living Up To Netanyahu Campaign Promises

Mar 18, 2015 | The Onion
WASHINGTON—Saying the Likud Party leader had set Israeli citizens’ expectations extremely high in the run up to his reelection Tuesday, top-level sources expressed their worry Wednesday about whether the United States would actually be able to live up to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s campaign promises.

“Given the ambitious list of security and spending initiatives that Netanyahu guaranteed Israeli voters on the campaign trail, I think it could be very difficult for the U.S. to come through on all of them; the pressure’s really going to be on America not to disappoint his constituents,” said U.S. State Department spokesman Eric Patel, explaining that, realistically, the U.S. would likely have trouble following through on Netanyahu’s repeated vows on the campaign trail to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon at any cost and continuing to thwart the creation of a Palestinian state.

“He made a bold personal pledge to every voter that Israel’s military capabilities would be considerably bolstered under his watch, which is going to be real tough for us to accomplish. I’m afraid we might end up having to eat his words.” With Netanyahu’s extensive agenda laid out before the U.S., Patel added that America would likely just have to increase its annual $3.1 billion in aid to Israel a little further and hope for the best.

[Mar 26, 2015] Netanyahu Assures Critics He Still Has Utmost Respect For U.S. Money

Mar 2, 2015 | The Onion

In a concerted effort to ease growing tensions between the two nations, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured his critics Monday that he still has the utmost respect for U.S. money. “Relations between our two countries have at times been strained, but I promise you all that the entire Israeli government, myself included, still holds a high opinion of the United States’ cash,” said Netanyahu, emphasizing that his speech to Congress was not intended to show any disrespect for American funding whatsoever. “I appreciate everything U.S. money has done for Israel.

Though we come at this issue from different perspectives, I have no doubt that we can overcome this disagreement and maintain positive relations between Israel and U.S. economic aid, as we always have.” Netanyahu added that he also maintained great respect for the U.S. military’s weapons.

[Mar 25, 2015] Hillary Clinton Hints At Presidential Ambitions By Concealing Information From American People

Mar 4, 2015 | The Onion

WASHINGTON—Fueling further speculation this week that she has her sights set on the Oval Office, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is said to have hinted at her presidential ambitions by concealing a vast trove of information from the American people. “By using a personal email account to keep records out of the hands of investigators and the U.S. populace, Clinton is making it resoundingly clear that she has presidential aspirations,” said political analyst Stuart Rothenberg, adding that Clinton’s efforts to obfuscate basic facts and hide thousands of documents from taxpayers for years on end demonstrate her capacity to successfully perform the duties of the commander-in-chief. “Clinton is showing voters that she’s ready and willing to circumvent regulations in order to keep Americans in the dark on important issues and prevent anyone from uncovering potentially incriminating evidence. This is definitely her most unambiguous declaration of her intentions at a presidential run.” Rothenberg added that Clinton’s flimsy justifications for her actions and her efforts to deflect blame further prove that she will handily win the Democratic nomination in 2016.

[Mar 08, 2015] Hillary email scandal

[Jan 31, 2015] Army sets up new brigade 'for information age'

BBC News

quietoaktree

Officer --" Corporal Jones !"

Corporal--" Yes SIR !"

Officer -- " 30 ´dislikes´on Facebook, 10 BBC
´Referrals´and 5 ´Removals´for breaking the House Rules --just isn´t good enough to protect this country on your 4 hour shift !"

Corporal --" Sorry sir, but 2 contributions WERE accepted."

[Jan 25, 2015] SATIRE 10 Reasons Why Victoria Nuland Should Be Seen as Stalin of Today

See also "Fuck the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place
Jan 25, 2015 | Russia Insider
10. Both use made up names. Stalin’s family name was Jugashvilli, Nuland’s ancestor’s name was Nudelman. The ancestors of both Nuland and Stalin came from the Russian empire, which probably gave them both the idea that they have a special knowledge of how to handle Russia.

9. Nuland’s right hand man happens to be her husband, Robert Kagan. Stalin’s right hand man was a fellow communist, named Lazar Kagan(ovich). Kagan co-authored “Project for a New American Century” and he obviously wants to realized his vision for Ukraine by implementing what might be called, “amerikanizatsiia,” that is, the process of bringing in the officials from US and other countries to run Ukraine along the American lines. In his turn, Kaganovich was the First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Ukrainian SSR from 1925-1928 and was expected to usher in “New Soviet Century” through the politics of "ukrainizatsiya": creating a new ruling Soviet elite for Ukraine, the elite brought in primarily from other places.

8. Both are clear ideologues: Nuland of “neocon movement”, Stalin of bolshevism. Both went to schooling with the masters and chief ideologues. Nuland worked closely with Rumsfeld and Cheney, starting as Vice President’s senior aide, and eventually serving as his deputy national security adviser. In his essay for Financial Times, Geoff Dyer quotes an former colleague in the Obama administration State Department , who observed that “I have no doubt that when she sits down for a family dinner, she is the biggest neocon at the table.” While Lenin’s widower, Krupskaia, joked that had Lenin re-appeared when Stalin was already in charge, he would have had Lenin put to jail for deviating from the party course.

7. Both are willing to see through numerous deaths in Ukraine to get the territory under their influence. Stalin together with Kaganovich unleashed forced collectivization upon Ukraine, resulting in mass death of peasants, known as Holodomor. Nuland’s and her fellow neocons’ forced “americanization” resulted in the civil war between Donbass and Kiev, that so far has claimed thousands of lives, destroyed infrastructure, and produced hundreds of thousands of refugees.

6. They both tend to be aggressive and demanding and refuse to take no for an answer. Consequently, they prefer to squeeze their opponents till they break. Geoff Dyer’s quotes Dimitri Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest in Washington DC who observed: “It is clear that her whole approach is to push Russia so hard that it has no choice but to accommodate the US.” Stalin’s ability to squeeze his opponents is, of course, proverbial.

5. According to Stalin’s critic, Abdurakhman Aftorkhanov, Stalin made two mistakes during the WWII. He showed Europe to Russians (soldiers who saw how prosperous it was and realized that they were duped). And he showed Russians to Europe – which got scared, and started NATO, and other programs. The fate of Russia and the rest of the world has changed as the result of these mistakes. Someday, Nuland’s critics will charge her with accomplishing a similar feat. She has fully exposed to the Western world Ukraine’s lawlessness, corruption, and neofascism. And she has amply demonstrated Western World to both Ukrainians and Russians, who will never trust it again: seeing its unscrupulous meddling into their affairs.

4. Both are too arrogant and impatient to waste their time of diplomacy, and prefer to cut to the chase. They dismiss the possible opposition or obstacles with the similar terms. “F..k EU,” famously observed Nuland, in response to the questions about EU attitude toward the regime change in Ukraine. Stalin never hesitated to resort to the foul language, calling Lenin’s wife, “syphilitic whore,” or bragging that in the course of WWII he managed to outsmart Great Britain: “Stalin could always raise a laugh from his courtiers by saying, as he often did: 'We f***ed England!'“

3. Both prefer to rule by decree and appoint the people to the offices. While Nuland boldly proclaimed from the comfort of her office that Yatseniuk will be the future leader of Ukraine: “Yats is the man,” Stalin, of course, went even further, not only assigning Kaganovich, Khrushchev, and others to run Ukraine, but threating Lenin’s widow, Krupskaia, that if she continues to challenge him, he’ll appoint another woman as Lenin’s widow.

2. Similarly to Stalin, who for the sake of strategic purposes made the deal with Nazis (Ribbentrop), Nuland held various meetings with Ukraine’s Right Sector and other ultra-nationalist, neo-fascist organizations; and seems to be very cozy with Svoboda leader, Oleh Tyahnybok.

1. And finally, both Stalin and Nuland tend to present themselves in stunning visual imagery as the good caring parents of the new nation, easily duping the gullible locals. Here is Stalin surrounded by admiring Soviet children who are forever grateful to him for their happy childhood, and here is Nuland, surrounded by happy Ukrainians, whom she feeds with pastry as they are ready to embark on the path toward the new statehood.

Stalin cookies vs Nuland cookies (or Ukrainians as clueless children)

[Jan 24, 2015] This Great Democratizer Kerry

Compare

[Jan 23, 2015] The president of the country that calls itself "democratic" praises the most absolutist monarchy ;-)

This is a good theme for Saturday Night or John Stuard show... I think US president reach level of contempt' of its citizens that was previous achieved only by the Secretary of CPUSU Brezhnev.
Zero Hedge

Just released by the White House:

Statement by the President on the Death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz

It is with deep respect that I express my personal condolences and the sympathies of the American people to the family of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz and to the people of Saudi Arabia.

King Abdullah’s life spanned from before the birth of modern Saudi Arabia through its emergence as a critical force within the global economy and a leader among Arab and Islamic nations. He took bold steps in advancing the Arab Peace Initiative, an endeavor that will outlive him as an enduring contribution to the search for peace in the region. At home, King Abdullah's vision was dedicated to the education of his people and to greater engagement with the world.

As our countries worked together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions. One of those convictions was his steadfast and passionate belief in the importance of the U.S.-Saudi relationship as a force for stability and security in the Middle East and beyond. The closeness and strength of the partnership between our two countries is part of King Abdullah’s legacy.

May God grant him peace.

And while Obama was impressed by Abdullah's vision to the "education of his people" he had no comment on the one US "ally" which has beheaded a record number of people in recent years making even ISIS blush by comarpison, as reported in US Ally, Saudi Arabia Beheads 87 In 2014, Up Over 10% From 2013 and also Record Beheadings And The Mass Arrest Of Christians.

Truthseeker2

The USA Supports A Fanatical Dictatorship In Saudi Arabia

Mike in GA

Isn't this the quickest Obama has ever put out a statement of condolence for anyone, ever? Just happens to be the Keeper of Mecca; the living guardian of the islamic "faith".

Barry's lettin his roots grow out again.

Thu, 01/22/2015 - 20:38 | 5694686 knukles

Good catch.
Hell, he's quicker here than Ferguson!

Well, after all, he did say in one of his books that when the chips were down, he'd side with his Muzzie brethren. In his own words. Well, maybe Bill Ayres..... but just as good.

[Jan 23, 2015] Britain ruling elite is king of hypocrisy

Actually Barry is a strong competitor as for level of hypocrisy

et Al says: , January 23, 2015 at 4:45 pm
Can’t buy me love

The Beatles.

So why are British flags on public buildings in the UK at half-mast?

I guess decades worth of Saudi Sponsored state terrorism is worth something after all.

https://news.yahoo.com/uk-decision-lower-flags-honour-saudi-king-stirs-155854181.html

He who pays the piper….

Artist's Impression Of President Obama's Thoughts During The State of The Union Speech

Zero Hedge

Selected Skeptical Comments

Playtime's Over

What "type"......the Barry type? Psychopath?

Grouchy Marx

Saw this on a bumper sticker today: If Obama stopped lying, he'd be mute!

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

Oldies But Goodies

[Nov 04, 2017] Who's Afraid of Corporate COINTELPRO by C. J. Hopkins

[Oct 13, 2017] Sympathy for the Corporatocracy by C. J. Hopkins

[Nov 23, 2018] Sitting on corruption hill

[Nov 14, 2018] Nationalism vs partiotism

[Oct 25, 2018] Putin jokes with Bolton: Did the eagle eaten all the olives

[Feb 13, 2019] Making Globalism Great Again by C.J. Hopkins

[Feb 10, 2019] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Exposes the Problem of Dark Money in Politics NowThis - YouTube

[Jan 29, 2019] After hiring Abrams the next logical step would be hiring Hillary or Wolfowitz. WTF Is Trump Thinking

[Jan 14, 2019] Nanci Pelosi and company at the helm of the the ship the Imperial USA

Sites



Etc

Society

Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

Quotes

War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

Bulletin:

Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

History:

Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

Classic books:

The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

Most popular humor pages:

Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


Copyright © 1996-2018 by Dr. Nikolai Bezroukov. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) in the author free time and without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

You can use PayPal to make a contribution, supporting development of this site and speed up access. In case softpanorama.org is down you can use the at softpanorama.info

Disclaimer:

The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the author present and former employers, SDNP or any other organization the author may be associated with. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose.

The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

Last modified: April, 30, 2019