Saturday, March 19, 2016

How the Right-Wing Media Machine Made My Dad Crazy - Jen Senko

The presentation by Jan Senko is immediately familiar in my own life and possibly familiar in yours as well.  How Fox News and the Right-Wing Media Machine Made My Dad Crazy

In my own situation, I have watched it eating my own brother and it would be concerning to see the rage Rush Limbaugh would elicit.  That grew and grew to a constant state of anger and willingness to react to an evil world.  The denial of the anger is immediate but the next consideration every time will be political or a general statement of the personal philosophy behind the political position.

This is in a guy who read Kierkegaard and Sartre simply for personal edification when he was a young 'un.


There is little anger here.  There is one singularly profane word, abhorrent to most Christians, which I rarely use and there's little which will provoke it.  Typically the thing to pull it will be something egregiously stupid which regrettably isn't too hard to find.

Mostly my take on the world isn't so much rage but rather when will people wise the fuck up.  It would be one hell of a lot cheaper and easier if people stopped wasting each other and there isn't a seriously good reason on the planet for doing it.

Wise up.  Stop shooting.  Go home.

It doesn't seem so difficult and it only saves trillions ... who cares about that, right?


My concern isn't simply tomfoolery as my brother has said he has blown up his heart at least a few times because they sure won't be placing stents around it unless something gets blocked up or some such.  If they can get you to the hospital and patched up enough for the street again, you probably have a decent chance so long as you follow the rules, etc.

However, getting blazing mad listening to Rush Limbaugh doesn't seem like such a hot prescription in the face of that.  Got to jet down, man.  Blowing a hole in your heart for some political point just ain't worth it in any tiny kind of way.

Sure it's all bullshit but life ain't and that means somethin' especially when there ain't so much left of it.

Before you got married you dropped with your Juliet and after that it was for life.  There was no anger in the hearts of either one of you, not when you have tripped together.  Flush the anger you have now and hold onto that bit, that's the part worth keeping.  Unlike many, you still have it.

Note: my heart has been scoped and doesn't seem to be much evidence of problems in the pipes, some but not much.  Unknown why a few in the family took a bite like this but others did not.  There's got to be a genetic bit to it but trying to sort it gets too scientific with it.  I expected mine must be plugged like an old city sewer line but it seems that's not true or not much.  I made up for that in other ways, tho.


The rage, the rage ... it gets all Marlon Brando ... so much rage all over the place.  Obama is the Anti-Christ.  Holy mackerel.

I don't hear anyone bitching too much about boosting the stock market ten thousand points during his watch, tho (shrug).

So many negative waves ...




Accumulated guns with this one for addressing close-quarter problems, this one for general urban problems, this one for ...

Madness.  Not just in my judgment but in anyone's.  There's home defense and then there's an arsenal and there's not much distance between them.  As soon as it includes an assault weapon, you're on your way.

So much anger everywhere and in people who are heavily-armed.  Jeebers.

They have so much ammunition stockpiled if it ever blew off at once there would be nothing left of their homes but smoking craters in the ground.  Yah, an exaggeration but there are squillions of rounds of ammunition in private hands nevertheless.


Sure would be a peach if everyone could just jet it down a wee bit.  So many negative waves, Moriarty.

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

The president has very little to do with the market. The market has been up for almost every 5 year period you select. The market will react to large events postively or negatively and then go on. The presidential effect really only happens around election time. And that is temporary.
I would comment further but why bother

Unknown said...

Sure, the general effect of the President is negligible but there's no downplaying the way it caved after Bush. The stock market has been ramping up steadily for eight years so try as you like to take that away from Obama, what's your pitch beyond the above which, frankly, doesn't amount to more than platitudes, really.

I'm not denying fundamental weakness such as record high credit card debt but the fact of the stock market performance is inescapable. The stock market is well over twice what it was when Bush was around and don't even think about telling me yer bankbook isn't loving it! (larfs)

The way Bush is given carte blanche absolution for even more incompetence than Obama is really stunning ... but not surprising in this political world.

Anonymous said...

My bank book loves the market because of the research that I do on companies in the market. I made money with every president in office.
Presidents take credit for an up market and blame someone else for a down market. They have nothing to do with the market. The most powerful tool the government has is the fed rate and it has been the same since he has been in office. And he has no control over the Fed.
So you are welcome to give praises to Obama for raising the market but he has nothing to do with it.
Again look at any 5 year period they are almost always up. And if you look at presidential term
The average is
year 1 about 6%
year 2 about 9%
year 3 about 19%
year 4 about 8%
These are ballpark numbers are I am old and going from memory.
You start your statement agreeing that the presidential effect is negligible then blame Bush for a down market and praise Obama for an up market.
The performance of the market is inescapable. It goes up. I first invested in the market at a Dow of about 300
If you look at the market
from 80s t0 the 90s it doubled
from 90s to the 00s it doubled
and so on
a down issue from 9/11
and then still doubled
Presidents have nothing to do with the market good or bad

Anonymous said...

Would not Obama be to blame for the large credit card debt. Or do banks get the blame since they lend it.
I know when I was in debt it was my fault. And when I got out it was because of me.
But I am not sure what fundemental weakness you speak of. Credit Card charge-off are fairly low. That might be because unemployment is down and the economy basically on the uptick
Or because the politicians made it harder to eliminate CC debt in bankruptcies when the uncorked interests rates on loans allowing legalized loansharking. But those who use them are idiots but are allowed to use them The government is meant to protect us from ourselves.
Unless you live in RI which is trying to pass a law against texting while walking

Unknown said...

Actually, I throw the credit card back to Clinton and in a more conceptual sense back to Reagan in terms of big spending is goodness. Clinton broke NAFTA, ongoing destruction of unions and dumbing down of jobs, and then he goes Glass-Steagall. Bush spends like Reagan and blows the debt to the Moon ... whammo ... all falls down.

Artificial props on banks through bail-outs, etc restored their original state of high-profit gluttony and it didn't stop the ongoing sub-prime loan corruption insofar as there is expectation of a collapse in subprime loans for automobiles, further indication of the lowering of the quality of jobs available in America.

As to a general economic flourishing just now, I don't see one but I see lots of people dancing in the street. I see a whole lot of reason for caution ... but they keep building submarines. Someone isn't listening. Right now that one is Obama.

The rising stock market is the empirical but reality is more than the numbers. There are signs of troubles all around and I'm sure you know them better than I.

Unknown said...

Are you seriously saying government spending has no effect on the market??? The market goes wild when there are military shopping sprees and every Country Joe leader on the planet has played that at one time or another. In fact, in my estimation, the GOP is playing it now, partly to boost defense stocks and partly to retain a ton of high-tech, tax-paying jobs.

Anonymous said...

Obama has spent more than all others.
Yes if the DOD funds a new weapon system a few stocks go up.
Just as if a new drug is approved that company's stock rises. But neither move the economy very much.
Obama has moved the economy much the same way as Reagan did. Government spending. Obama's is not as effective because as the debt limit dramaticallt increases the return on that spending decreases because the percentage of the budget that is applied to interest on that increases. That will be even more important and interest rates begin to rise as a the economy begins to gain momentum
Back to the original premise,
what did Obama do to send the market down by 20% last year or the beginning of this year. And what did he do to cause it to rebound several months later.
The answer nothing he can cause a small blip by sending tension to the Ukraine or another by backing down
He can posture in the middle east and cause oil speculation to move oil futures
But he or any other president can not move the market long term
As to Clinton, he was the last president to actuall pay for the government he ran with a surplus for either 3 or 4 of his years as president

Unknown said...

I'm not giving an Obama a free pass. Bush dropped the tax rate even below where Reagan dumped it but there was no attempt I saw to put it back. Obama made huge mistakes but it's been a travesty of incompetence back through the last administrations at least through Clinton. The first Bush was mostly inconsequential except for yet another ridiculous military excursion.

I know the writing sounds angry and in part that's a reaction to the tremendous anger I see everywhere. It breaks both ways as my response can amplify that anger so they can only crank out more of it but writing it soft only means they will pay no attention to it.

My displeasure and dissatisfaction with common occurrences of illegality, unfairness, and inhumanity is not feigned but the wording doesn't mean I want to go out cracking heads. I couldn't do it physically anyway and I don't have a gun. Some my view as cowardice in barking out of the darkness but, for me, it's simple: engaging in any physical fight, regardless of my condition to do it, only means I have already lost.

Unknown said...

It's conceivable Obama did nothing much about military spending because of the general economic boost if he leaves it alone with zooks highly-paid workers making submarines and F-35s, etc. That's highly thin, tho. The closest I saw to a government spend for the specific purpose of an economic boost was in the roadwork which took place relatively early in his game and is probably still taking place. I'd hardly call that any kind of a New Deal, tho. FDR he ain't.

Anonymous said...

He spends across the board.
Why does the tax rate need to go back up from Reagan. It doesnt just spend less Clinton balanced it So can anyone else.

Unknown said...

Because the Reagan bottom is probably the best compromise you will get. If it were me, I would push it up to FDR war-time percentage and make a WWIII on the debt. But you're thankful it's not me (larfs).

Balancing the budget is all very well but that's accepting the debt as it stands and consequently the quite large interest payments. That's still doing it like a VISA card and not acceptable. The country is as much owned by that debt as by the military and to whatever you like by social programs.

There has to be progress to knock the debt down or the progress isn't real because it's built on cards.

Anonymous said...

This is the first time that I have ever heard you say that the country needs to pay off the debt. Every other time you have commented that the debt is manageable
Balancing the budget is the first step to paying down the debt. You first stop the bleeding then heal the patient.

Unknown said...

I believe I've said before interest payments on it are unsustainable but no need to quibble over that as there's no change to it. I'll throw out the Bernie Budget later and that gives concrete talking points. Some may be regarded as unacceptable, others not so much (e.g. fast-buck speculation, etc).

Anonymous said...

I will try and find your posts stating that the debt was not an issue. As I have continually argued with you over it
I will bail on this discussion

Unknown said...

Good luck on that one as the only person I've ever heard say the debt doesn't matter was Kannafoot speaking in all seriousness for the GOP. I'm fairly sure I've been consistent on it.

Anonymous said...

Each time I mention paying off the debt your response is why eliminate the military and that funds everything

Unknown said...

Unclear where that idea comes as I've hammered military spending so many times people probably choke on it. Oh joy, another rant about the F-35.

Anonymous said...

place a comma after why and it makes sense

Unknown said...

No idea what that one means!

The only answer to Why? ... is invariably Because!

Anonymous said...

Anytime I suggest to you to eliminate the debt, you usually state Why. If the military is reduced it pays for everything.
But that is not true as even if you cut the DOD budget by half you will still run a deficit budget

Unknown said...

I seriously don't know what reference you use as I've said multiple times the interest on the debt is one of the largest sinkholes in the budget.

The constant references to the DoD are because the GOP, of which you are not one, never does anything to reduce it but instead it expands it and Democrats, of which I am not one, do nothing to stop them.

Social Security is the red-headed step-child for budget cutting but that only strikes me as cynical politicking when nothing else is selected unless it's NASA or low-budget spitefulness of that nature. Cruz has been playing that superficial crap since Day One.