Those Ka-Way-Zee Lefties and What They're Crying About Now

What follows is, without a doubt, the most pathetic collection of thoughts and ideas I have ever had the displeasure of reading. This is akin to being "inflicted" with the PEST syndrome now so prevalent (and chic) with the Lefties.

My God! What is wrong with these people? From the article, "First, admit you're a victim." What? Isn't that curling up into a ball and letting life happen to you? Where's the spunk? Where's the get-up-and-go? Where's the take life by the horns? Where's the risk-taking? Where's the adventure? Where's the accepting personal responsibility for the choices you make in your life?

It's all dreary and gloomy and constantly dark skies for the Lefties. They need to have their umbrellas to hold on to for security. Something to shield them from life and reality. And, of course, someone or something on which to blame everything wrong with the world today; even down to their personal problems. They can't seem to grasp the concept of personal responsibility. Entitlement is their mantra. And it's getting pretty damn tiresome.

From where does this kind of "give up" thinking spring? It's pure fear. With a touch of arrogance thrown in for good measure. That "if looks could kill" gleam in the Lefties' eyes. Repeating it in disbelief... "First, admit you're a victim."

When you see and believe yourself to be a "victim", you are looking to lay blame. That's the only purpose in such thinking or such a belief system.

They are afraid of who and what they are, so, they discard their ownership in any thought, idea, situation, or circumstance. If they'd stop for a moment, take a breath, see and understand how they actually did contribute to the "catastrophy" to which they're all pointing instead of immediately jumping to "Who can we blame for this?" perhaps sincere and meaningful dialogue would result.

Those who have suffered an act of personal violence will say they are a victim. That's understood. Through the healing process. However; if one continues to label themselves a victim, they are inviting more violence against themselves. They have not changed their thinking. Like animals, those that seek to inflict violence can "smell" fear. Shirking the label of "victim" is the first step.

Good God in Heaven! And these people want to have a prominent place in politics?

I'll keep the post updated as the Lefties reply. This is gonna be a riot! And wholly pathetic.

Mon Nov 29 22:24
Subject: Mel Gilles: The Politics of Victimization (posted by popular demand)

Lethal said:

From http://mathewgross.com/blog/, link here:

The Politics of Victimization

[Mel Gilles, who has worked for many years as an advocate for victims of domestic abuse, draws some parallels between her work and the reaction of many Democrats to the election.-- Mathew Gross]

Watch Dan Rather apologize for not getting his facts straight, humiliated before the eyes of America, voluntarily undermining his credibility and career of over thirty years. Observe Donna Brazille squirm as she is ridiculed by Bay Buchanan, and pronounced irrelevant and nearly non-existent. Listen as Donna and Nancy Pelosi and Senator Charles Schumer take to the airwaves saying that they have to go back to the drawing board and learn from their mistakes and try to be better, more likeable, more appealing, have a stronger message, speak to morality. Watch them awkwardly quote the bible, trying to speak the new language of America. Surf the blogs, and read the comments of dismayed, discombobulated, confused individuals trying to figure out what they did wrong. Hear the cacophony of voices, crying out, 'Why did they beat me?'

And then ask anyone who has ever worked in a domestic violence shelter if they have heard this before.

They will tell you, every single day.

The answer is quite simple. They beat us because they are abusers. We can call it hate. We can call it fear. We can say it is unfair. But we are looped into the cycle of violence, and we need to start calling the dominating side what they are: abusive. And we need to recognize that we are the victims of verbal, mental, and even, in the case of Iraq, physical violence.

As victims we can't stop asking ourselves what we did wrong. We can't seem to grasp that they will keep hitting us and beating us as long as we keep sticking around and asking ourselves what we are doing to deserve the beating.

Listen to George Bush say that the will of God excuses his behavior. Listen, as he refuses to take responsibility, or express remorse, or even once, admit a mistake. Watch him strut, and tell us that he will only work with those who agree with him, and that each of us is only allowed one question (soon, it will be none at all; abusers hit hard when questioned; the press corps can tell you that). See him surround himself with only those who pledge oaths of allegiance. Hear him tell us that if we will only listen and do as he says and agree with his every utterance, all will go well for us (it won't; we will never be worthy).

And watch the Democratic Party leadership walk on eggshells, try to meet him, please him, wash the windows better, get out that spot, distance themselves from gays and civil rights. See them cry for the attention and affection and approval of the President and his followers. Watch us squirm. Watch us descend into a world of crazy-making, where logic does not work and the other side tells us we are nuts when we rely on facts. A world where, worst of all, we begin to believe we are crazy.

How to break free? Again, the answer is quite simple.

First, you must admit you are a victim. Then, you must declare the state of affairs unacceptable. Next, you must promise to protect yourself and everyone around you that is being victimized. You don't do this by responding to their demands, or becoming more like them, or engaging in logical conversation, or trying to persuade them that you are right. You also don't do this by going catatonic and resigned, by closing up your ears and eyes and covering your head and submitting to the blows, figuring its over faster and hurts less is you don't resist and fight back. Instead, you walk away. You find other folks like yourself, 56 million of them, who are hurting, broken, and beating themselves up. You tell them what you've learned, and that you aren't going to take it anymore. You stand tall, with 56 million people at your side and behind you, and you look right into the eyes of the abuser and you tell him to go to hell. Then you walk out the door, taking the kids and gays and minorities with you, and you start a new life. The new life is hard. But it's better than the abuse.

We have a mandate to be as radical and liberal and steadfast as we need to be. The progressive beliefs and social justice we stand for, our core, must not be altered. We are 56 million strong. We are building from the bottom up. We are meeting, on the net, in church basements, at work, in small groups, and right now, we are crying, because we are trying to break free and we don't know how.

Any battered woman in America, any oppressed person around the globe who has defied her oppressor will tell you this: There is nothing wrong with you. You are in good company. You are safe. You are not alone. You are strong. You must change only one thing: stop responding to the abuser. Don't let him dictate the terms or frame the debate (he'll win, not because he's right, but because force works). Sure, we can build a better grassroots campaign, cultivate and raise up better leaders, reform the election system to make it failproof, stick to our message, learn from the strategy of the other side. But we absolutely must dispense with the notion that we are weak, godless, cowardly, disorganized, crazy, too liberal, naive, amoral, 'loose', irrelevant, outmoded, stupid and soon to be extinct. We have the mandate of the world to back us, and the legacy of oppressed people throughout history.

Even if you do everything right, they'll hit you anyway. Look at the poor souls who voted for this nonsense. They are working for six dollars an hour if they are working at all, their children are dying overseas and suffering from lack of health care and a depleted environment and a shoddy education. And they don't even know they are being hit.

Tue Nov 30 00:08 ~ - Subject: * - 0 reaction(s)
Director's Starlet said:
;-)

Over the Top

Over the Top
John Leo
November 29, 2004

It’s time for the 2004 awards for over-the-top rhetoric.

Cameron Diaz said that if you think rape should be legal, you should not vote on November 2.

Alan Keyes, Republican Senate candidate in Illinois, said Catholics who voted for his opponent, Barack Obama, would be committing a mortal sin.

Comedian John Leguizamo said that Hispanics who pulled the lever for Bush would be like roaches voting for Raid.

According to Sen. John Edwards, “I’d say if you live in the United States of America and you vote for George Bush, you’ve lost your mind.”

So, according to these four sages, on Election Day 44 percent of Hispanics revealed themselves as roaches who favor Raid, 1.3 million Illinois Catholics committed a mortal sin, 80 million nonvoters may have endorsed rape and 60 million Americans lost their minds.

In the narrow category of people who used the “H” word (Hitler) and were not referring to George Bush, the winner is Roseanne, who said the person who reminds her of Hitler is TV’s Dr. Phil. In the even smaller category of Hollywood people who used the “F” word but weren’t talking about the president, the winner is Tim Robbins for “F - - - compassionate conservatives!” In the animal-waste category, honors go to actor Billy Bob Thornton, who said that all of Shakespeare’s work is bulls - - -. Previous winner: Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who said in Iowa that large-scale hog farms are a bigger threat to America than Osama bin Laden and his terrorists.

In the sour-grapes department, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann said “Fox News is hated because they’re elitist and the worst winners television’s ever seen.” Also referring to Fox News, he said “Shallow, phony patriotism will always draw a crowd, like dogs humping in the street.” Bill Moyers, who said in 2003 that the Republicans were planning the “deliberate, intentional destruction of the United States of America,” said this year that the Republicans would end democracy in America by staging a coup if Kerry won, because “the right wing is not going to accept it.” Perhaps inspired by Moyers, Village Voice theater critic Michael Feingold said Republicans “should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.”

Some people blamed Bush for personal setbacks or natural disasters. Palm Beach Post ombudsman C. B. Hanif thought Bush produced Florida’s hurricanes by irritating God. Sharon Stone blamed Bush for preventing her from planting a lesbian kiss on Halle Berry in the movie Catwoman. Others thought Karl Rove was the primary villain. Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite said he is inclined to think that Rove “probably set up bin Laden” to deliver his latest tape. Maybe he set up Florida’s hurricanes, too.

In the category of saying nice things about terrorists, Michael Moore wins for comparing the insurgents in Iraq to the American Minutemen (one difference being that the Minutemen did not rape women or hack their arms, legs, and heads off). Julian Bond, head of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said at his group’s 2003 convention that Republicans’ “idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side.” Bond liked it so much that he repeated it in 2004. Elsewhere, a St. Louis conservative sold anti-Hillary “Osama bin Rodham” T-shirts and mugs featuring a composite picture of Senator Clinton and bin Laden.

Janeane Garofalo said after Bush’s re-election that she wants the “Archie Bunkers in the cracker belt to feel pain.” Citing a quote from Thomas Jefferson, Hollywood political analyst Barbra Streisand called the Bush era a “reign of witches.” Playwright Tony Kushner (Angels in America) wrote a one-act anti-Bush play for the campaign featuring Laura Bush reading the works of Dostoevski to a group of Iraqi children, all of them dead.

Eve Ensler, genitally oriented author of The Vagina Monologues, said at a feminist concert and rally for Kerry in New York that women should “Step into your vaginas” on November 2, an unusual approach to voting and one that sounds just plain uncomfortable. At another New York rally, John Mellencamp called Bush “a cheap thug,” and Whoopi Goldberg offered some obscene reflections on Bush’s name. John Kerry said that the entertainers who spoke at the rally reflected the “heart and soul of our country.”

Natalie Maines, apparently surprised that many Dixie Chicks fans hated her famous anti-Bush comments of 2003, said “I realize that I’m just supposed to sing and look cute so our fans won’t have anything to upset them while they’re cheating on their wives or driving around in their pickup trucks shooting small animals.” Then she complained that the political climate is “so the opposite of me as a person and what I believe in.” It’s just about opposite my personhood too, Natalie.

France's American Problem

France's American Problem
Robert Novak
November 29, 2004

PARIS -- U.S. diplomats here respond to Jacques Chirac's continued Yankee-bashing following George W. Bush's re-election by saying the French president is out of step with his people, who are not nearly that anti-American. But thoughtful Frenchmen believe President Chirac is mining a deep vein of sentiment among fellow citizens that transcends President Bush.

During a week in Paris, I encountered none of the rudeness I had been warned to expect because of my nationality. However, the question goes beyond amenities to visitors. One French intellectual described anti-Americanism to me as "a cancer that is sweeping across the country." It may not be as deadly as cancer, but it surely is not healthy for France.

The chronic nature of French hostility toward the United States contradicts claims by Bush's domestic critics that his unilateral policies caused deterioration of Franco-American relations. It is less the U.S. with a French problem than France burdened with a serious American problem.

On his recent visit to London, Chirac pressed for "multipolarity": a return to international rivalries that produced the carnage of the 20th century. He also suggested there was no point trying to repair his country's difficulties with Washington and taunted British Prime Minister Tony Blair because "our American friends" do not "pay back favors." Mocking Donald Rumsfeld's designation of France as "Old Europe," he pretended not to remember the secretary of defense's name and referred to him, sarcastically, as "that nice guy of America."

State Department officials thought Chirac would reach out to Washington once Bush was re-elected, and U.S. diplomats here say he has misread French opinion. On the contrary, playing the anti-American card is seen in political circles here as Chirac's strongest position as he prepares to run for a third five-year term in 2007. He is unpopular, detested by the Left and considered an apostate on the Right, but may survive by bashing Uncle Sam.

The impression by U.S. officials that Chirac is going too far in chiding the Americans may be based on anecdotal evidence, such as my encounter with a Paris kiosk owner from whom I bought a newspaper. "Oh, we just love Americans," he beamed as he gave me a free piece of chocolate candy to go with the International Herald Tribune, "it's Bush we hate."

However, the problem goes much deeper than Bush or the 80 percent election preference for John Kerry in French polls. A writer here told me of his 19-year-old daughter attending a one-day French army briefing, mandatory after conscription was abolished. The last four hours consisted of a harangue on U.S. foreign policy, especially in Iraq. That war was described as a plot by American capitalists to cheat Iraqis out of their oil in a lecture that would have done justice to a conspiracy-minded Internet blogger.

U.S. officials say Charles DeGaulle at least gave the U.S. help when needed and so is unlike the latter-day Gaullist Chirac. Actually, DeGaulle was an inconstant ally in the Cold War who often sided with the Soviet Union in return for soft treatment by the then powerful French Communist Party.

Yet, the attitude Chirac reflects cannot be blamed on DeGaulle. The U.S. may have replaced Britain, which for centuries was "Perfidious Albion" to the French. Jean-Claude Casanova, editor of Commentaire (France's leading intellectual quarterly) sees France's "naive superiority" toward the Americans.

France is burdened with problems distant from American shores. The economy is stagnant, and the replacement of the franc by the euro has meant higher prices but not higher wages. Last Thursday, some 50,000 railroad employees poured into Paris to protest insufficient new hiring. The civil service dominates the government, which suffocates the powerless National Assembly. Michel Gurfinkel, editor of a small newsweekly, told me the press is "free but not independent" of the government.

The lone potential breath of fresh air viewed by internal critics is flamboyant populist Nicolas Sarkozy, who is resigning as finance minister to seek leadership of France's governing party and then perhaps run for president. Although Sarkozy is unabashedly pro-American, it has not hurt him so far. But his opponent is likely to be Jacques Chirac, still waving the bloody American shirt and still hard to beat.