Caturday Reads: Dogma vs. Karma-Karma-Chameleon

Morning, news junkies! I’m gonna keep this simple and… catty:

Wonk sez: Animals can too haz morality! Which is why my atheisht, feminisht, socialisht kitties are not fans of Romney or Obama “dogma” (and can I just say how sad it is that our 2012 election cycle has been reduced to supporters of both empty suits defending the strapping of dogs to cars and the eating of dogmeat? Seriously… Honeybadger 2012!)

Wonk sez: We’ve been reduced to an idiocracy of empty acronyms… PBS, CTW (Children’s Television Workshop), NPR, PAC… less and less of it means anything of substance anymore.

Wonk sez: There’s still some hope left in public broadcasting media. Better hang your hat on what you can before it too gets subsumed by a SuperDuperPac.

Wonk sez: Not only is the life expectancy of American women lagging, but, in many U.S. counties, daughters are living shorter lives than their mothers. Please take the time to read and pass along to your friends. This is disturbing.

Wonk sez: You know what else we could do if GE paid its fair share? We could keep the U.S. postal mail going on Caturdays too.

What’s on your Read ‘n Rant list this morning? Rawr in the comments ;)

About these ads

51 Comments on “Caturday Reads: Dogma vs. Karma-Karma-Chameleon”

  1. Looking at the lead story on memeorandum right now…
    http://mrand.us/DS01

    It appears the “Obama earning record amounts of $$$ from SMALL donors” meme from 2008 is alive and well resurrected for 2012…

    Top Items:
    New York Times:
    Obama Campaign Faces Dropoff in Big Donations — President Obama’s re-election campaign is straining to raise the huge sums it is counting on to run against Mitt Romney, with sharp dropoffs in donations from nearly every major industry forcing it to rely more than ever on small contributions and a relative handful of major donors.
    Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask
    +
    Discussion: The Caucus, Politico, OpenSecrets.org and msnbc.com

    Discussion:
    Jada F. Smith / The Caucus: The Weekend Word: Cash
    Politico: Mitt Romney fundraising pace picks up
    Russ Choma / OpenSecrets.org: Obama Bundlers Pick Up The Super PAC Slack
    Michael O’Brien / msnbc.com: Obama ends March with 10x more cash than Romney

    • Pilgrim says:

      But he’s losing the big donors he had last time around. Maybe this time when he says his donors are mostly small ones, he’ll be saying what’s true.

      • RalphB says:

        There is virtually no doubt that Obama is no longer the candidate of Wall Street. This time they have one of their own to back for election.

      • They’re both the candidate of Wall Street this year IMHO… Wall Street is covered no matter who wins.

      • Pilgrim–if he’s actually losing big donors, that may make him a better president. I’m just not convinced yet… I feel like the Matt Taibbis will write the full, unabridged accounting of Obama’s 2008-2012 fundraising machine vs. the optics of it after the election. Or something. Maybe he really is losing Wall Street, though–again… I think that would be good (or at least not bad) if he was.

      • They’re both the candidate of Wall Street this year IMHO… Wall Street is covered no matter who wins.

        Agreed.

      • foxyladi14 says:

        :lol;

  2. And then there’s this…

    http://mrand.us/DRlG

    Holly Bailey / Yahoo! News:
    Mitt Romney raised nearly $12.6 million in March
    Link Search: IceRocket, Google, and Ask
    +
    Discussion: ABCNEWS

    Discussion:
    Holly Bailey / ABCNEWS: Karl Rove-linked super PACs raise $100 million for 2012 election

  3. ecocatwoman says:

    Thanks, Wonk, for the TED link. Just my 2 cents – nonhuman animals display morality more often than most humans. They certainly don’t need churches to dictate moral behavior to them. Makes one wonder, doesn’t it? Too bad the Mormon-in-Chief (Romney) & the Catholics-in-Chief (Santorum & Gingrich) don’t pay more attention to the “beasts” among us.

    • Agreed and you’re welcome. I’d also include President “consult your pastor” Obama in there with Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich.

      • ecocatwoman says:

        Actually, I was singling out the Holier Than Thou moral arbiters, although I guess Romney hasn’t preached in the same vein as Santorum/Gingrich. They are the “family values” guys, after all. Pont taken. Too many daddys & no one listens to mom!

      • “& no one listens to mom!”

        And how!

        Instead they wax poetic about how they want her to run “in 2016″…. after telling mom/that stupid bitch to quit in 2008.

  4. ecocatwoman says:

    And there’s this: http://billmoyers.com/segment/bill-moyers-essay-keep-political-ads-off-public-tv/ Bill Moyers is none too happy about the court ruling.

  5. I love the Wonk sez parts of you post! And the dogma image is priceless.

    The news about women’s mortality is disturbing, thanks for the link, I am going to read it now…

    • From the USAtoday link:

      Life expectancy stopped improving or reversed for women since 1999 in 661 U.S. counties and in 166 counties for men. The declining rates appear in 84% of Oklahoma counties, 58% of Tennessee counties and 33% of Georgia counties.
      A larger percentage of women than men are not adequately treating high blood pressure and high cholesterol, the researchers said.
      “Women aren’t as encouraged by their doctors to get medication to ward off heart disease,” says physician Gina Lundberg, national spokeswoman for the American Heart Association, who is not associated with the study. “And many doctors don’t treat their symptoms as aggressively as they do in men. They’ll say you have an upset stomach and send you home.”

      • bostonboomer says:

        Ugh. It really is true too that doctors will pat women on the head and ignore their symptoms. They used to give us tranquillizers. I’m not sure what they do instead these days, because I stay as far away from doctors as I possibly can.

      • quixote says:

        The war on women didn’t start this year, and it’s not a figure of speech. The dead and wounded just get filed under forgotten.

      • northwestrain says:

        Many Doc just don’t listen to women. Especially if you don’t fall into any specific category.

        The male attitude is — if you are female — you must be stupid. Women can tell a Doc their symptom and she Wilone’s ignored. Plus with the health insurance companies now playind doc as well as state legislatures — no sorprise that women’s life expectancy isn’t improving.

        Had I gone to the doctor often — I’d be dead. Simply because of their inability to listen. Turns out I listed my symptoms just like the text book. Oh well — I suppose this is a way of reducing the population???????

        I guess we know our bodies best. I talked to a nurse who figured out she had thyroid cancer — but she was ignored and dismissed — until she convinced a doctor who was a friend to cut into her neck and look. He did — and found the cancer and removed it. Otherwise
        she would have been dead in a very short time. Her symptoms were typical enough — but she had enough symptoms that she guessed correctly.

      • My dad had Grave’s disease and he went through a lot of wrong diagnoses and treatments too until one doctor finally listened to his symptoms and was like HELLO, thyroid!, ran the test, confirmed and then prescribed radiation treatment that saved his life… my dad also had a brain scan where they totally missed a brain aneurysm and it was only found by accident when the head radiologist who was a friend of the family got curious and went back and checked the film. Oh, and my uncle went into a 13 year coma from not getting enough oxygen to his brain during a bypass…and never came out. I think there is a lot of incompetence out there period. No doubt add gender discrimination of patients to that and the incompetence gets even worse….

    • Wonk sez: Thanks JJ :) :)

  6. bostonboomer says:

    Good morning, Wonk.

    I know (I think) you’re joking when you compare something Obama did when he was 6 years old at the behest of his parents to something Romney did as a full grown adult with five children who probably learned something very immoral from his example. I just hate to go along with that meme, because I think what Romney did was actually criminal and says something very significant about his character.

    • ecocatwoman says:

      Totally agree with you, bb. Not surprisingly, my RW employee made the “same thing” comparison in response to an email I sent her. Said email? Nothing to do with Obama or Romney. Aren’t “well-behaved” children supposed to eat what’s on the plate that their parent puts in front of them?

      • eh. I’m getting tired of the defense of Obama on this, not saying that’s what you or BB are doing here, at least I don’t think you are, but there are Obama diehards who are actually seriously defending beyond just trying to point out the false moral equivalence. Yeah he was young and there’s a cultural issue… but the same Obama left that relentlessly wasted the national dialogue with tirades about the Palin family (not just Palin herself, but going after her kids…) because they eat mooseburgers and shoot wolves and yada yada really sounds phonier than ever and purely fan politics driven when on the other hand they exert the same kind of passion defending Obama for eating dogmeat on cultural grounds while simultaneously going after Romney for his treatment of animals. It’s just a really puerile level of discussion and there’s no sincerity in it. It will have no impact on the future of our country. I cannot even begin to understand the Romney mentality (and I laughed my ass off when you pointed out that detail about the Romney dog running away to the pound constantly in your post, BB)… I am glad I do not understand, and have no desire to understand. I’m not minimizing how disturbing, sick, and bizarre it is. But we are stuck with these awful choices and I think the policy records and platforms and political campaign purse strings and puppet strings are what we need to be investigating to this kind of extent. It just doesn’t seem like there is any ground to be broken…everyone who already hates Romney is latching onto the dog-strapped-to-car story and everyone who already hates Obama is now latching onto DogmeatGate as if its some kind of immoral equivalent. And, there’s really not any ground being broken… really its a diversion of energy into fan politics on both sides. More of the “ooh I know you’re a socialist, but what am I” … “Ewww! Teabagger!” tribalism keeping the 99% from pushing back on the oligarchy to fight for their rights together. The more time spent discussing Seamus and what Obama ate in Indonesia…the less time spent discussing the things that matter now… like… the future of our US Postal system!

      • bostonboomer says:

        I’m not defending Obama for eating dog meat. I don’t think 6-year-old children need to be defended for doing things their parents tell them to do. Children are not equivalent to adults period. Sorry to be humorless about it if that’s how I come across. This isn’t about Obama per se. It’s about the difference between a child and an adult.

      • RalphB says:

        If you’re tired of the defense, then stop using the attack. That’s simple enough.

      • Ralph, hi… :) I don’t know if the “stop the attack” is directed at me personally or was a general statement, but at any rate I did stop using the attack against Romney, insomuch as it was attack… and I never used the attack on Obama–I find it really weird that people even dug up that story, let alone as a counter to the Romney story.

        Anyhow, back in 2008, before this devolved into a Romney dog abuse story vs. Obama eating dogmeat story, I found it creepy and used to reference the Boston Globe story from ’08 cycle about Romney and the dog. A LOT–in that WTV-way of mine. Nobody really seemed to care much back then (not so much within the Hillary community, but elsewhere in the body politic) because Romney wasn’t necessarily the “probable” nominee back then. (Hating Palin was still the rage.) Even at the outset of this election cycle, I thought the Dogs Against Romney/I Ride Inside was hilarious and a stress-reliever and astutely pointed to Romney’s (any empty suit’s really) core flaw, which is that he does not really care about anything. I may have even linked to Dogs Against Romney in a roundup, if I’m not mistaken.

        But ever since this topic started taking a bizarre Romney vs. Obama turn (actually even a bit before, because I could sense it was getting weird), I’ve tried to step back from using that as a serious critique at this point. I just wanted to be clear here with BB and Connie/Ecocatwoman and others that I still find what Romney did creepy, even though I think the conversation has become unproductive.

        BB, I don’t think you’re humorless. I agree that adult vs. child isn’t the same. I hope I’ve explained my point of view sufficiently enough that you get where I’m coming from now.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Wonk–

        Yes, I said I get your point now. I still plan to keep blogging about it if I get more information, and you can just skip those posts if I end up writing them.

        IMO, since Romney refuses to state any specific policies he favors, his character is pretty much the issue. I don’t think much of Obama’s character either, but I don’t agree with the argument that there’s no difference between him and Romney.

      • BB, sorry, I’m catching up with the Romney dog comments in the order of how they appear on the post–

        Anyhow, I don’t really think there was anything wrong with your post/blogging on it–?? I didn’t say asking legit questions about it was the problem. I read your post and though I can’t say I “enjoyed” it because of the subject matter is sickening, I did appreciate it very much–and I laughed and laughed when you pointed out the part about Romney’s dog running away, even though in a lolsob kind of way. Poor dog, but smart dog!

        I was strictly talking about the Romney vs. Obama camps and the level of discussion in my brief comment in my Saturday post up top.

        I don’t think there is a meaningful difference between Romney and Obama… there are cosmetic differences… and that said, on a more strategic political level–Obama *may* (or may not) be more malleable now than he was in ’08 due to the shift in the political equation, whereas Romney’s gonna be completely beholden to whoever is bringing him to the dance. but the core of both politicians is still empty imho. I don’t know if you remember that post I wrote about trying to choose between Romney and Obama back in 2010… my (tortured) logic from then still applies. I think on balance we’d be slightly less worse off with Obama than Romney…but that the “less” there is not meaningful enough for me and that I find the lack of a REAL alternative depressing.

    • Well, I’ve been ranting about the Romney dog incident since ’08… I think it’s disturbing in and of itself and also disturbing that they self-disclosed this story as some sort of human interest angle?! However, my point was that the level of discussion has become inane–I would rather be spending the bulk of the campaign cycle discussing the lack of policy difference between HeritageCare 1 and HeritageCare 2 and putting some kind of a political pressure on whichever one of these dopes wins in 2012 than wasting time listening to or arguing with arguments that waste energy, attention, and focus on defending either strapping a dog to a car or eating dog meat. I’m not saying they’re equivalent, just that defending either one of them seems like a waste of time and a distraction.

      • quixote says:

        Honestly.

        And when it comes to being black holes of amorality who use every living thing around them for themselves, I don’t think there’s a dime’s worth of difference between them.

        George Soros said it. The difference between Romney and Obama is only in the crowd they bring with them. Which means the national conversation really ought to be focusing on that.

        What are the chances of that? The media have ads to sell. Gross discussions about dogs are way more interesting than a president’s likely Cabinet. (Not.)

      • bostonboomer says:

        OK, now I get it Wonk. I think the Romney dog story is demonstrative of his character and is a real issue worth discussing. I can see your point of view that it is a distraction. I just disagree.

      • RalphB says:

        Since when did George Soros become an arbiter of morality?

    • bostonboomer says:

      Here’s a meaningful difference for you, Wonk: Romney’s consultant on Supreme Court nominees is Robert Bork.

      There are plenty of other differences, but I won’t try to convince you or Quixote. You obviously have a right to your opinions, and I respect both of you very much!

  7. RalphB says:

    Just one of the many things wrong with the MSM.

    If It’s Sunday, It’s Meet The Republican White Men

    An exhaustive new study by media watchdog Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting shows that the Sunday morning talk shows have been dominated over the last eight months by white, Republican men.

    Between June 2011 and February of this year, 70 percent of all one-on-one interviewees on the four biggest political talk shows — NBC’s Meet the Press, ABC’s This Week, CBS’s Face the Nation and Fox News Sunday — were Republicans. The numbers were even more lopsided in favor of men and white guests:
    [...]
    Compared to other metrics though, the imbalance of political ideology seems almost insignificant. Across all four shows over the eight month period, there were just 36 appearances by women during one-on-one interviews compared to 228 men. And of those 36, 17 were Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Meanwhile, there 242 appearances by white guests, compared to just 15 by African-Americans (seven of those being Hermain Cain), four by Arab-Americans, and three by Latinos.

  8. Pilgrim says:

    OK, here goes, I’m herewith gonna nominate myself for pariah with, I guess, just about everybody.

    Dogs looooovvvve riding in cars. They especially love riding with most of their bodies out of the vehicle with their ears flapping in the wind. They love being all out in the back of a pick-up truck. It’s obvious to anyone with eyes.

    I believe Ann Romney when she says their dog loved riding in his specially constructed place on the car roof (even had its own windshield).

    Yeah, the dog got sick, that once. Children sometimes get sick in car journeys. My adult brother-in-law gets car-sick.

    I do not believe Mr. Romney is a bad man who is mean to his animals.

    Ann Romney said this howling that has gone on about the incident has been the “most wounding” thing they have experienced. I regret they must be constantly subjected to it. They would perhaps like to discuss things like the economy, but no, the baying talking-heads consider this long-ago incident to be the real touchstone to tell them of Mr. Romney’s suitability to run for office.

    And so it goes……

    • bostonboomer says:

      I sure wish they would discuss the economy in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, all Mitt does is talk about tax cuts and cuts in social programs. He never explains how he would create jobs (and since he failed to create jobs as Gov. of MA, that’s an important question) or how he would reduce the deficit (tax cuts and more wars won’t do that).

      I’m not sure why you think you’d be a pariah for a simple disagreement about something. You must have Sky Dancing mixed up with some other blog. Disagreements are our stock in trade.

      • Delphyne says:

        BB, I remember reading that about the no stops for kids, but whatever Ann wanted was fine. In order to be a successful parent, I think one has to be compassionate. Mitt hasn’t shown himself to be compassionate towards anyone but Ann – if it weren’t part of his religion, I wonder if he would have had a family at all. It seems to me that anything that isn’t about him specifically merits only the prerequisite minimum attention.

        I spent 3 entire summers in Nova Scotia at a camp for girls back in 1964-1966. We used to hitchhike in those small towns when we got tired of walking and were often picked up by people in pick up trucks. Riding in the beds was uncomfortable and never seemed safe to me – and hitting any big pot hole was torture!

        You don’t have to tell me about your tender heart as it’s been obvious since I started reading you over at that other place back in 2008!

      • Delphyne says:

        BB – my comment didn’t nest quite where I wanted it. I was responding to your last comment down below.

    • Delphyne says:

      Not a pariah. But not all dogs like to ride in the car. I have a border collie who doesn’t mind it, but because she’s so visual, the speeding cars on the parkway often make her nervous. She lies down in her crate for most of the trip. My other border collie liked the car even less.

      The dogs who enjoy riding with most of their bodies out of the car? Great risk for a bit of enjoyment. I do believe in crating or securing animals in cars for their safety and mine – I don’t want to stop short and have a 50 lb dog flying through the car. Keeping dogs in the back of pick ups without being restrained is dangerous for the dog. Many states regulate it.

      I don’t like the Romneys for many reasons and this is one of them. It shows a callous disregard for the welfare of their dog and that, in itself, doesn’t sit well with me.

      • ecocatwoman says:

        With you all the way Delphyne. My feelings are: if you wouldn’t put your kids or your grandma either on top of the car in a crate or loose in the back of a pick-up truck, why would you put a dog there? BTW – dogs don’t have hands to hold on with. I guess I take after my mom. My grandmother was about to feed a piece of green baloney to our dog. My mother grabbed it away and said, “if you won’t eat it, don’t give it to the dog.”

        Not a pariah, pilgrim, just some food for thought.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Actually, what Romney did back in 1983 was already illegal even when he did it. I’m guessing there had to be some reason for passing a law against pets riding on the roof of cars.

        I don’t think most reasonable people would let a dog ride in the back of a pickup truck for 12 hours when they are driving at highway speeds, but I could be wrong I guess. I think it’s illegal though, so they might get stopped by police.

        I saw a video taken of a the movement of a dog-cage tied to the roof of a car. It did look a lot like being on a roller coaster.

      • bostonboomer says:

        Delphyne,

        To show how softhearted I am I was totally turned off by Romney’s announcement to his kids that there would be no bathroom stops except scheduled gas fill-ups. And then one of the sons said that if Ann needed to stop, he would always do it–just not for the kids. I think he set a terrible example for his kids and from what I can see they turned out just like him, robotic and self-centered.

        BTW, I have ridden in the back of a pickup a few times and I didn’t like it one bit!

        • I think you are right about Romney setting a bad example for his kids…and they turned out like him…what kind of ass doesn’t stop for a kid who has to go to the bathroom. (Unless that story about the gas pit stops is taken a bit out of context…five kids wanting to stop every 10 miles would be annoying. I would stop for them, but I would also say to everyone, go now, whether you have to or not. )

    • foxyladi14 says:

      :mrgreen:

  9. SweetSue says:

    Wonk, as usual a great roundup.Your postings are the best.
    Thanks.

  10. ANonOMouse says:

    Thought everyone might enjoy this piece of news.

    Army cancels Nugent performance at Ft.Knox.

    http://entertainment.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/21/11324499-military-cancels-ted-nugent-show-citing-anti-obama-comments?lite

    NRA also scrubbed his veiled threat against POTUS, from it’s website.