Friday, May 23, 2008

Back In The U.S.S.R.

"It appears that the 75,000 Obama worshipers in Portland over the weekend turned up in such numbers mostly to see a free concert by an uber-hip Portland band, the Decemberists. The eager MSM didn’t report this fact because it might dampen down the new and wonderful miracle from the book of Obamessiah they are now collectively writing. Most media reports were reminiscent of the style the Soviet poets used to glorify public appearances of the great Stalin."

-- Oleg Atbashian, pointing out the wonderfully unbiased job our journalists are doing, for Pajamas Media


  1. You are so right. A band that never pulled more than 10,000 fans in their careers not only pulled 7 times that number, but they were so incredibly good that those people stayed LONG after the band left in order to hear some guy give a political speech.

    The band had them so fired up that they just started chanting "Yes we can!" as a sort of musical affirmation, it was totally moving.

    Being a chump of the right is not a superior position to being a chump of the left, c-rack. Either way, you've lost the ability to think for yourself.

  2. Well, you made it. Good, now I think we're friends.

    As far as your comment on superior positions, I'll state what's become my standard answer:

    The Democrats have won 3 presidential elections in the last 40 years. Or, looked at the other way 'round, they've lost 7 out of the last 10.

    I'd say that's pretty superior, Seth, wouldn't you?

  3. I think you miss my point, c. I believe, after reading your blog, that you are a chump of the right. You seem to think that the only other choice is to be a chump of the left, so you congratulate yourself on not being on the "losing" side.

    But you're still a chump.

    Setting some arbitrary point in time and cherry picking your data points doesn't stop you from being a chump, it makes you more of a chump.

    Its a one party system. So you can choose to be a chump, or to hate BOTH their asses equally.

  4. No, Seth, once again you assume too much. Like you believing anything makes it true. What are you gonna tell me next? You believe you're King Midas? Fine, Seth, you're King fucking Midas. That's all it takes, right, is Seth to decide he believes shit and - whammo! - that makes it so? Good luck with that.

    And so cynical: this is a "one party system"? Then why hold elections, Seth? And why do you root for Obama? You lie to yourself - and to me. I swear, man, you don't know what you "believe". Give up "believing", Seth. That's my personal message to you today - just stop "believing" things:

    Learn how to "think".

  5. Good point. Belief is a word I tend to avoid, because it is a little fuzzy. Using it is a bad habit, because people might make the unwarranted assumption that I am speaking of some kind of faith, even when I explicitly stated what evidence I was basing my belief on.

    To reiterate, then.

    It is my considered opinion, after much thought, and thorough research of your blog, that you are a chump of the right.

    In this particular piece, for example, you regurgitated what some right wing blogger told you to think, without doing a modicum of even basic fact checking. The premise that 75,000 people stayed to hear Obama speak after the band that they had really come for had left--especially a band that has never pulled number anywhere in that neighborhood--is so incredibly poorly supported that only a total chump would buy it.

    The fact that you not only bought it, but bothered to repost this ridiculous fabrication to my blog, illustrates beyond a reasonable doubt that you are a chump.

    I support Obama for exactly three reasons:

    1) He has stated that he will rescind executive orders, made by Bush, that his attorney general and himself conclude are unconstitutional.

    2) John McCain has stated that he will appoint justices in the vein of Roberts and Scalia, men who support the deeply flawed theory of the Unary Executive.

    3) His organization is bitch-slapping the author of McCain/Feingold with his awesome fundraising power, and I appreciate the humor in that.

    But hey, if you want to make up some bullshit story about how I'm just wandering around without considering my thoughts and opinions, go ahead. I'll be happy to correct you when step out of line.

  6. Seth, my good man, I like you. You take a licking and keep on ticking - that's good. I'm glad I wrote you after all: you may be a knee-jerk liberal - and wrong on everything you think about me - but you've got a sense of humor, and a feistiness, that's truly appealing. I sincerely hope, at some point, we can come to some kind of political accommodation. I like to think, even in this partisan atmosphere, it's possible for disparate Americans to find agreement.

    Now, on to your points:

    First, I'm glad to hear that another atheist doesn't believe things. (A point of agreement!) If you use the word again, I'll consider it a slip of the tongue, or a turn of phrase, and give it a pass.

    Second, Pajamas Media isn't a Right-wing source. True, they're right of center, but hardly Right-wing. It's a problem, that the Left has gone so far Left that anything near the center looks Right-wing, but, fortunately, that's your problem not mine. I'd suggest you check them out, for some balance in your reading, because they've been known to break a decent story, now and then.

    Third, Barack Obama speaking with a band that opens with the Soviet National Anthem is a story. And, I'm sure, the two together - with the band playing for free - is why the crowd was so large. You can't uncouple them, because Obama hasn't spoken before a crowd of that size before or since. Nice try though.

    About your support for Obama:

    1) Exactly which executive orders are we discussing?

    2) The Unitary Executive is the way things are supposed to be. It re-sets things to the pre-Nixon position, meaning the way the Founding Fathers designed the office to be. It weakens our country if the office is weakened, and just because Nixon abused it is no reason to hurt every president that follows. Also, it presumes guilt, which is just plain wrong. Leave it alone, Seth: you're only hurting your guy, if he gets in, and neither of us wants that - and I don't even want your guy. You should want the full power of the presidency in play; that makes us a stronger nation. If he/she commits some dirt in office, we can kick 'em out. We did it to Nixon, we can do it again. But don't shackle us, just because. You probably forget: it's Congress where the crazy people are.

    3) LOL. Fine. Enjoy your moment in the sun. "Money is the mother's milk of politics." What problems it delivers will eventually be worked out, I'm sure. I got no beef with you there.

    Stay in touch - and I'll stop by to give you a roll as well.

    Take care,


  7. Well, the orders I have in mind are things like the military orders authorizing military tribunals for foreign citizens, suspension of habeas corpus for American citizens, 13315, 13350, the 2007 Executive order blocking property of certain persons who threaten stabilization efforts in Iraq, and any number of other cases where the president has taken extraordinary powers upon himself.

    The Unitary executive is a farcicial theory, in that it does not allow for sufficient whistle blowing power within the executive.

    But that's sort of a whatever issue... I have other issues with Roberts and huge issues with Scalia, and I'd hate to see more guys like them on the court. I think that Roberts can be a good Chief Justice, and Scalia is brilliant, but the guys around them have to balance them out a little. It would be nice to see Thomas get some more support on limiting the powers of the federal government on issues like eminent domain and medical marijuana. And it would be nice to see a little more balance in the style of O'Connor.

    I don't want to see Kennedy replaced with a clone, don't get me wrong, but the current court is a little quick to get imperial... I'd like to see them back up a step.

  8. Oh... and do you hear that sound? That's the sound of goalposts moving.

    Your original claim was that MOST of the crowd was there to see the band. Now you say that "the crowd was so large" because of the band AND Obama. This might be true, but it would be true if say, 3000 people showed up to see the band, and 72,000 showed up to see Obama, so it isn't equivalent to your original claim at all.

    To be blunt, you made an extraordinary claim: that the opening act was a bigger draw than the Headliner.

    You provided zero evidence.

    You allowed your own dislike of Obama to take over your critical thinking facilities.