Monday, December 27, 2004

While here we timidly ask for recounts, not just Ukraine, but ROMANIA too asked and got a re-vote. In both cases the challenger - who accused the fraud, won, will take office.
A little cosmic joke on me.
Chrismas at the Durstleys - and f*ed up DU story
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1098057&mesg_id=1098057&page=
quaoar  (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 10:59 AM
Original message
Dad tries to sell Christmas gifts on eBay
http://newsobserver.com/24hour/weird/story/1953401p-993...
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
HOUSTON (AP) - The kids were naughty, Dad put the presents on eBay instead of under the tree - and Mom's been crying ever since. Now, even the tree's down.
Saturday morning was sure not to be very jolly for three brothers - 9, 11 and 15 - who didn't straighten up when their father told them Santa wasn't too pleased with their fighting, cuss words and obscene gestures.
Dad and Mom had warned their sons that the Nintendo DS video system - and the three games that go with it - were headed for the auction block if they didn't get their act together.
"No kidding. Three undeserving boys have crossed the line. Tonight we sat down and showed them what they WILL NOT get for Christmas this year. I'll be taking the tree down tomorrow," the man announced in his eBay posting.
Sat Dec-25-04 11:08 AM
Response to Original message
2. According to the father, the boys wereEdited on Sat Dec-25-04 11:13 AM by Rowdyboy
"flipping the bird", yelling, kicking, and using improper grammar. Thats really not outrageous behavior for boys ranging in age from 9-15. Actually, it seems pretty normal to me and a bit of an overreaction on the part of the father. JMO.
Instead, he's going to give the money he makes to his church for a new heater.
on edit: the information I gives comes not from the article, but from the list site on ebay which has since been withdrawn...
Sample responses

MichiganVote (1000+ posts) Sat Dec-25-04 11:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. Harsh but good for him. Too many kids are starved for limits nowadays.

InvisibleBallots (798 posts) Sat Dec-25-04 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #28
37. That is bad how?
Sounds like the kids learned a valuable lesson. They say you become an adult the first Christmas where the presents you buy cost more than the presents you receive. Next Christmas perhaps the kids will give the gift of peace and quiet to their parents.
"Problem is not whether or not to give it. It was already given, shown, then taken away, then the tree taken down, and now the proceeds go to the church heater!"
I bet if this family was not Christian, we'd all be cheering this creative disclipline. Since he's a Christian, we must hate him. GOP Culture War is working quite well - with the badly needed aid of so called "liberal" anti-Christian bigots.
"Actually, kids do have a right to expect their parents to not sell their stuff. "
What utter bullshit - it wasn't "their stuff" - it was Christmas gift the parents were going to give them.
"Why not just stuff an electrode up their asses? That'll surely make them better people."
Wow - how did you get from a parent returning the gifts they were going to give their children, to stuffing electrodes up kids' asses? You need help?
and the better ones:
48. No, I don't need help. I teach.
The first year I taught, I had a kid in class, 17 years old, who just talked a lot. According to school regs, after three warnings, I was to call his parents. I called his dad, who assured me that he would take care of it.
The boy missed three days of school and came back with his arm in a cast and his jaw wired with several teeth missing. His dad had taken care of it all right.
I've never called another parent since, but have had many call me. Like the one whose daughter "only" made a 97 in my class instead of all 100s and so lost her car for a semester and the right to go to the prom. Like the one who withdrew his child from school because I wouldn't agree to skip the Holocaust.
The truth is, parents have no training in most cases, and like most complex tasks, fuck it up. Their kids then do the same.
I teach 300 adolescents a year from ages 15-19, and in my tenth year now. I've had serious problems with 2 in all that time. Truth is, if you tell people (kids included) what you want and why you want it, they respond about 99% of the time.
But destroying a holiday, making a public spectacle of folks, ridicule and mental cruelty, while all-American, just doesn't work. Next year, these boys will be wholly justified in raising all kinds of hell because they know that some excuse will found for canceling anyway.
This whole behaviorism and reward-punishment binge we're on is outdated, ineffective, harmful, and just quite mean. Hasn't got a damn thing to do with religion, cause you can't find a verse one that will recommend the activity herein described to parents.
Mean assholes are just mean assholes. he brought the church into it, not me"
The crap was sold for $5300 on eBay.
My closing post:

robbedvoter  (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 11:38 PM
Response to Original message
167. A story fit for our times: Daddy dearest triumphs, gets applause from
scarred children, frustrated parents...
Few notice that presents should NEVER be used as either incentives or punishment. The entire scene is reminiscent of Dudley Durstley and his tantrum that he got less than 37 presents this birthday, only this time Vernon is applying the Harry treatment: locking in the cupboard & public humiliation.
And what about the a*hole paying 5,000+ for the "educational" gesture?
Well, the entire story, reaction to it is si sordid, it somehow makes sense people here don't give a damn about democracy. With lives as empty as those, why bother?

Sunday, December 26, 2004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2868666
Is the fundies' God like Tinkerbell?
I raise the question because it seems to me that the fundies are extraordinarily defensive about how and to what extent God and Jesus are acknowledged and worshipped publicly. DildO'Reilly got his panties in a bunch about people saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," as if this practice somehow would actually do harm to God. So -- is their God so weak that he can't handle any reduction in public adulation? I think of an analogy to "Peter Pan," in which a fairy would die every time a child said she didn't believe in fairies, and Tinker Bell was brought back to life when the children clapped. If God is real, I should think he exists regardless of whether we believe in him or not. If Jesus is divine, he will remain so even if nobody says "Merry Christmas" and nobody puts nativity scenes on courthouse lawns. Do the fundies have such a feeble God that he will die if all the children don't clap?

gmoney  (1000+ posts) Sun Dec-26-04 07:59 PM
Response to Original message
5. Without faith I am nothing
The argument goes something like this: ‘I refuse to prove that I exist,’ says God, ‘for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.’ 'But,’ says Man, ‘the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn’t it? It could not have evolved by chance, it proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don’t QED.’ 'Oh dear,’ says God, ‘I hadn’t thought of that,’ and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic, “’Oh, that was easy,” says Man...
Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Saturday, December 18, 2004

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174463&page=
m berst  (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 10:00 PM
Response to Original message
109. perpetrator or victim? a different view
Is Bev Harris a perpetrator or a victim? I think that she is both, and I want to tie this into my earlier posts about the haves and have-nots as well as the damage that the Reagan administration did to our society.
One side says she is out there on her lonesome fighting heroically for us and we should cut her some slack. She is under pressure and attacks and we need to stand by her.
The other side says that she is a grandstanding fraud only interested in herself and has taken advantage of her supporters. There is no excuse for her irresponsible behavior.
I think that there is truth in both positions, and that both miss the important truth. There is a very powerful lesson that we can take from this situation, one that will allow everyone to win - or at least not take a hideous loss -including Bev.
Bev is grandstanding and taking advantage of her supporters, but not maliciously necessarily, and before we cast aspersions on her it might be wise to see the context within which she is operating. Is she a have or a have-not in my outline of the two world views in the other post, and how does that shed light on the arguments about her.
Bev has bought into the great Reagan myth of self-actualization - as so many of us have - and she is striving to be one of the "haves" and so make a difference in life. Not financially rich necessarily, but one with status and influence. Much of her failure recently may have more to do with her using a bad model for her activities than it does with any evil intent on her part. In the Reagan model, each individual can become all that they can be and so gain status, wealth and success. This ethic led many people down a path of greed and money, while others went down a path of applying this model to various political and social causes, and the thinking has also permeated the Democratic party. The problem arises when the inevitable clash comes between an approach to life that is self-centered and attempting to use that approach to advance causes that are community oriented and supported.
Bev is a have-not striving to be a have, and so gets a lot of sympathy from others who are have-nots. She is Cinderella at the ball, a lone fighter against tremendous odds, the mouse that roared. She didn't so much manipulate people into thinking this, because it is probably how she sees herself, there is some truth in it, and plenty of people are desperate for it to be true and will foster and promote the myth for her.
Bev's rumored sloppy bookkeeping and poor financial accountability leads me to believe that money is not her goal, so the charges of her being a con artist are probably false. If she were interested primarily in feathering her own nest, she would have made sure that no hint of impropriety skipped into public view.
Bev seems to be interested in being the "star" - the celebrity of the election fraud issue - yes, but that doesn't mean that this is her prime motivation, either, or she wouldn't make so many sloppy mistakes with her image.
Bev is trapped in the Reagan mythology and in that way a victim. Reagan changed people's thinking from community to individual, from team to cog, and this was somewhat under the radar. "If you believe you can achieve" self-realization and individual initiative were translated in left wing circles as "personal beliefs" and "life style alternatives" and "making the right choices" and "being the change you want to see." While the supposed goals are different then those who took Reagan's green light on selfishness as an invitation to pursue greed, the underlying premises are the same.
I can well imagine Bev justifying how she has gone about things, and before we throw her to the wolves we might want to consider all of the ways in which we are making the same mistakes. One can take a look at how to approach the election fraud situation and come to the conclusion that fame - celebrity hood - and status and finances are needed before anyone can have any impact on society or even get attention. So flamboyance and the cultivation of an image are tools to help get the job done. Then she might think in the very Reagan era terms of "what you believe you can achieve" and other semi-mystical beliefs and formulas for succeeding in any endeavor.
Yet we watch her seemingly working against herself. Why is this? I would say that she is making the same understandable mistake that so many of us make. The Reagan formula for how to live your life and achieve things will not work for social causes because the goal and the means contradict each other.
Let's compare the career of the current President of the United States with the career of Bev Harris. These two extreme examples illustrate the point very well. How is it that no matter how badly George Bush screws up he wins and no matter how hard Bev tries she loses? I think it is because the Reagan approach to life only works when it is used in the interests of greed and selfishness. When someone with a self-actualization background such as Bev tries to apply these "winning strategies" to a community cause it sets up a dissonance that eventually will either turn the movement into a co-opted hand maiden to the powers-that-be - as some say the entire Democratic party has become - or will shake and rattle the organization to pieces.
Now this is not to defend Bev's lapses and errors in judgment, nor to say that there may not be some personality flaws involved. It also not to dismiss those who have been hurt by her behavior.
Many on the left are not pursuing wealth, but yet they have embraced the Reagan philosophy. They are pursuing status or security and congratulate themselves on their cleverness or superiority as measured by what they do for themselves, not what they are doing for others or for the society. Even doing "good things" is primarily so that they can tell themselves that they have rounded out their personalities and is entirely disconnected from any actual results their do-gooding may be having on the root causes of the problems. Sooner or later the beneficiaries of the do-gooding are resented, and we have Democrats talking about people as "stupid" or defective or doing arm chair analysis of people's mental health.
Or, some on the left take Bev's approach and use the same tactics that the Religious Right, and multi-level marketing businesses, and other types of hucksterism have used - building a cult of personality, creating a "buzz," encouraging hero-worshiping loyal "true believers," and playing into people's fantasies of being the underdog or being persecuted.
The great lesson here is that the Reagan philosophy of self-centeredness in its many permutations has expanded into all areas of our society and into our thinking, and it does not workfor achieving community goals. It can only lead to selfishness, greed and destruction.
As Democrats, we once started with the notion that we as a society can rise no higher than the least among us. Now, the have-nots don't count for most Democrats.
All of the failures, all of the problems, the arguments, the divisions in the Democratic party can be solved by one simple thing. Reject the entire package of celebrity, wealth and status as the model for everything. Focus on the needs of the least among us first, and always, and build from that solid foundation. Then watch all of the problems start being resolved as if by a miracle.
m berst  (1000+ posts) Fri Dec-17-04 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #37
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=171696&mesg_id=174010&page=
98. great post Sydnie
I would mention something else that people invested - their hopes.
Hopes, dreams, and time are not seen as valuable by far too many people. For those who are already at risk and are willing to be aware of the fact that they are at risk, hopes, dreams and time are all that they have left to give, short of giving their lives.
I think that we can gain a better understanding of the Bev feuds here - as well as the Kerry feuds that have arisen here because of Bev's comments about him - and all of the feuds at DU if we consider that the battle may be between the haves and the have-nots. I offer this for consideration in the quest for understanding and better communication, not as an assertion to be violently argued over as is to often the case.
Haves and have-nots don't so much disagree on positions and ideology as they have different views of reality. When I say "have" I don't just mean that they have money - it also includes having a sense of security and having a sense that they have a place in the society.
I think that behind all of the Fundamentalist moral values rhetoric, all of the liberal bashing and all of the right wing ideology is a have versus have-not battle. Unfortunately, many people who by any rational measure are have-nots are voting for the Republican party because they can believe that they are haves. And, unfortunately, many haves are in the Democratic party and bring all of the prejudices and world view of the ruling class into the discussion here masquerading as something else.
Whether one is a have or a have-not, then, partly depends upon what one actually has and partly upon what one thinks they have or wants to have. Part mindset, part bank account, in other words.
Both parties have become parties that represent haves. The Republican party represents those who may have money, and who have their religion, their jingoism, and their membership in the all-white all-Jesus club. The Democratic party has become the party of those who may have money, and who have position, status, security and membership in the elite, academic, and intellectual club.
Haves in the Democratic party will argue in favor of caution, patience, moderation, compromise, realism, intellectualism, practicality, meritocracy, status, qualifications and individual responsibility and blame.
All of that is anathema for the have-nots.
Have-nots in the Democratic party argue for solidarity, compassion, alertness to danger, creativity, suspicion of those with wealth, power and status, fairness, and collective action, responsibility and blame.
I think these two world views are what animates the two sides of almost every discussion at DU, and among liberals and Democrats in general as well. I saw a thread yesterday that highlighted this for me, and I may not have the facts exactly right about the particular debate, but it will serve as an example.
A poster said he had a problem with his driver's license and asked for help and advice. Now, you wouldn't think that this would be controversial, but sure enough two antagonistic camps started to form.
The one camp berated the poster for his irresponsibility, and chided him for wanting something for nothing by asking for advice at DU.
Now, a have-not might say hey, wait a minute, the guy made a minor error in forgetting about a traffic ticket, and got into a little jam here. The result is a draconian and arbitrary decision by the state to suspend his driving privileges (ironically the original offense was unknowingly driving on a suspended license as a result of a neglected or forgotten ticket for a minor traffic infraction). A have not would say that the fines and punishments are excessive - they are for most people. A have-not would say that this has more to do with whom the police pull over than it does anything else. A have-not would say that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a certain race or a certain economic status or in certain neighborhoods.
Yet, a have would argue that it is all the poster's own fault. Some said that he was stupid for not doing the obvious and enlightened thing - hiring an attorney. Think about that one. The poster said that had the court and the DMV informed him of all of the facts, he would have opted for the alternative - 5 days in jail - rather than agreeing to a huge fine that also included (unknown to him when he made the decision)losing his license for 6 months. This was met with more ridicule - what kind of idiot would agree to spend 5 days in jail seemed to be the unspoken implication.
There are people in this country for whom the situation is already a dire emergency. They are already falling behind, they are already fighting off the wolves, living in fear and poverty, suffering from diminished opportunity and hostility from those around them. They were promised by various haves to put their faith and trust and hopes and dreams - and for many of them dollars and hours they could ill afford - into various people and ideas, from the Democratic party, to Kerry to Bev. They don't have the luxury of sitting back and giving Bev, or Kerry, or the Democratic party chance after chance after chance.
It is shocking to me to see every day Democrats speak with no compassion whatsoever for the people who are going under and going under fast as they are told what is wrong with them, how they are too emotional, too alarmist, how they should get over it and move on, or what famous or wealthy person they should pledge their undying loyalty to.
I would argue that their is a great unseen army of have=nots out there, and that army is growing every day. There are many who are have-nots but are vigorously resisting facing the truth and clinging to nay shred of evidence that things will be ok, and those are the ones who most vociferously argue the point of view of the haves. Soon, I predict that the majority of people in the country will be have-nots and will realize that they are.
Yet so many Democrats see the forgotten people as losers, defectives, stupid, emotionally disturbed, irresponsible, and as an irritant and an annoyance.
Look at every argument you see at DU again and tell me if you see an underlying dynamic at work - the haves versus the have-nots.

Friday, December 17, 2004

I started this on DU
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1436519
Fri Dec-17-04 08:53 AM
Original message
Discrimination against the poor by the Dems - how acceptable to you?
While I wasn't looking the Democratic party dec;ared itself "the middle class party. I suppose this would be like an income Goldilocks litmus test: we represent people who don't have too much or too little - but juuuust right.
I used to consider the "lomousine liberals" and "liberal elite" total BS, but now I realize that there is a grain of truth in it: if you don't reach a certain tax bracket, you ain't in our club.
GOP may work for the richest at the expense of everyone else and may discriminate against anything in sight, but they are clever enough to not exclude the poor from their target demographic. Very clever indeed, as they intend to increase this demographic with their policies.
Think of it: if you are unemployed, or too poor to pay taxes, DNC is not paying any attention to you (most of their economic incentives are in the form of tax credits). But the GOP which chennels your tax money in faith based crap, will reach these people in the soup line and bamboozle them.
When Wes Clark proposed a tax program that eliminated taxes for families up to 50,000, Kerry said: "but how are they going to share their part of the burden?" "By sending their sons and daughters in wars" Clark answered Faux bimbo who, interestingly enough asked the same question. Kerry promissed with a straight face that in 3 years the minimum wage will go up all the way to...$7...Oh, glory!
I am not asking for acceptance in the middle class party - I left voluntarily as soon as I saw the income litmus test.
But as an outsider , I have a bit of advice: you may want to rethink your platform/base - because by the time BFEE is done with this country, there won't be any Goldilocks economic base left for ya. That's the one area in which I suspect they'll be competent enough to accomplish their goal.

Wednesday, December 15, 2004

"Not one cable "News" show breaks the top 40....."
Author WC Green    
  http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=2&topic_id=343058&mesg_id=343058&page=

        


For the first time since the election, not a single Fox, CNN or MSNBC show has garnered enough viewers to qualify as a top forty basic cable show....
BO, Fox networks "biggest" star, was the last "personality" to drop out of the top 40 ratings list as he slipped into oblivion after hitting 38 in last weeks Nielsen compilation.
What does this mean? Even with all the hoopla surrounding the Scott Peterson case, the continued bad news from Iraq, the mounting threats against Iran and the still disputed election, no one much cares what BO or SH or and of the rest of the Fox loudmouths have to say...
Remember, more people listen to NPR than watch Fox. More people watch PBS newscasts than watch any Fox show, More people read the NYT than watch any show on Fox........
http://www.top5s.com/tvcable.htm

"I was trying to forget and you reminded me"