Friday, March 25, 2011

Sociopaths amongst us and they call themselves dirty names...

Finishing up a book that you can get for free called “The Authoritarians” if you google it and had a few thoughts.

Fascists don't like democracy, it's mob rule after all. They don't like the mobs unless it's the mobs of dupes they have fooled to march for them, to anthropomorphize the corporation that's sucking the country dry. Corporations as people, fascists and Ted Bundy all have something in common, they're sociopaths.

So, for those of you true-believers who think the Koch Brothers, GE, Exxon, Goldman Sachs have the best intentions of the country at heart, best of luck to you as you are fed to the machine of your own making, just like the people of Wisconsin, Ohio and Florida. If you think you can appease your fascist masters to give you your jobs back with tax cuts and lowering wages and working conditions collectively to those of a third world nation I have no sympathy for you. You're a fool, a dupe, a follower and a coward and in the end the lowest level of fools pay the price.

You voted in the surrogate fools of fascism and they are bringing it in wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross. You will be left wondering where your country went and you’ll want it back and it will be too late. And it won’t be because of your inherent xenophobia or racism because your country will actually disappear as we become the United Corporatocracy of America with a ruling oligarchy. However, you will succumb to your master so long as he spouts the right language to appease you and gives you a “them” to hate and bomb. So, tell me Teabaggers, Republicans, Corporatists all followers of Randian objectivism who by any other names are fascists, are we at war with Eurasia or Eastasia?

Saturday, March 05, 2011

Pat Sajak is a moron

I saw this article from Pat Sajak posted on facebook and I found it laughable. I have not been able to confirm that it was actually written by Sajak since the right-wing likes to make up fake articles from celebrities and send them around the internet in spam style. It also wouldn’t be beyond Fox News to post it without verifying that it was, in fact, written by Pat Sajak. but I’m going to take a stab at responding too it after just waking up and pre-coffee.

At a dinner party in Washington the other night, I was asked a question I’m often asked. No, not, “Can I buy a vowel?” but, rather, “Why is Hollywood so uniformly made up of liberal Democrats?” 
There are a lot of theories on the subject, and I have a few of my own. First, I would strongly argue with the premise. My industry is certainly made up predominantly of liberal Democrats, but there is a surprising number found on the other side of the political spectrum. Lots of writers, producers, directors and performers are quite conservative in their views, but you don’t hear from them as much or as noisily as you do from the left. Part of it, sadly, is the fear that they’ll suffer professionally if they’re “outed”, and a number of them have stories to tell about being confronted on the issue.

[So money is more important than the country. We get it you’re conservatives, of course it is.]

But another factor is they’re far less comfortable lecturing their fellow citizens on how to live their lives.

[We all know conservatives don’t like telling people how to live their lives. You know I’ve never been told by a conservative that I need to accept Jesus as my lord and savior or I’m going to hell. Isn’t it conservatives that want to legislate abortion out of existence so they can tell women what to do with their bodies. And it’s a favorite past time of conservatives to tell gays they’re living their lives all wrong.]

You’re much more likely to see a liberal singer interrupt his performance with a global warming diatribe than you are to see a conservative singer praising the free enterprise system between songs.

[Because over the last 4 years we have learned 1) there is no such thing as a free enterprise system which 2) allows white collar criminals to collapse the economy and get away scott-free. It’s not something that’s easy to defend in modernity without sounding like a sociopathic brainwashed Randian ideologue.]

Another fact that might surprise you is that most of Hollywood—like most of America—isn’t really all that interested in politics except near election time. 
Most of the men and women who make their living in the entertainment field are much more focused on finding jobs and reading scripts and getting awards and going to events than they are on the intricacies of American politics. If you ask them about their views, they’re likely to spout a few liberal talking points because they’ve heard them so often, and it’s the safer position to take.

[It’s a safer position to take because unlike conservative positions you don’t sound like a sociopathic, Darwinist asshole. So being polite, people will take the position of caring about the plight of the less fortunate and the working class, a liberal position, over whether or not oil corporations get to make a few billion dollars more per year in profit.]

And that point leads me to my primary theory on why one side dominates the other. Putting aside the true believers and usual suspects (you know who they are on both sides), the liberal position provides the path of least resistance, especially for high-profile members of the Hollywood community. It’s hard to describe the bubble in which these folks live, but I’ll try. 
They are financially successful in ways most people can scarcely imagine

[as a conservative I can’t believe that you are begrudging them for making money in a capitalist, “free-enterprise system.];

their whims are treated as commands; outrageous or boorish behavior is condoned

[You mean outrageous or boorish behavior like: leaving your wife on her cancer bed for your third wife you’re having an affair with, or picking up men in an airport bathroom, or paying for hookers while on the House floor, or sending sexual explicit texts to teenage boys, or ordering a same sex hooker and meth, or escaping to Venezuela to see your mistress, or having a mistress and then paying her husband hush money, or is that not boorish just par for the course for conservatives as they lecture us on how to live.];

they travel in limos and fly (often privately) between their multiple homes

[much like McCain and his seven homes, or Sarah Palin and her private jet];

they hobnob with politicians who come to them for advice and input (and money); the glamour of their business rubs off on them and gives them access and a sense of importance and wisdom

[Isn’t that the same reason you’re writing this article? Seems a bit ironic.]. 

So how should one speak from such a lofty perch? Well, many have concluded that the smartest way to handle it is to claim to be “one of the people.” So, no matter how rarified the air, liberalism is a smart career move. 
Is it hypocritical to ask people to drive electric cars while you’re flying in a Gulfstream? Or to tell them to conserve energy while the cumulative square-footage of your homes is measured in the tens of thousands of square feet? Or to ask them to pay more taxes while your high-priced accounting firms are protecting your money

[Much like the corpoations, Wall Street Execs, and tycoons that the conservatives flock to for advice. Except they don’t care about people, they are sociopaths]?

Of course it is, but hypocrisy cannot penetrate the bubble

[Oh we know it can’t Pat, you’ve just proven it in your previous paragraphs about conservatives and yourself.]. 

They care. Not like the greedy businessmen (from whom they collect their salaries and perks), but like the genuine people they really are.
However, the truth is that most celebrity political talk is just noise. It’s fodder for the entertainment shows and publications. People listen, not because they particularly care about what these folks have to say, or to get advice about how to vote or how to live, but simply because it’s a celebrity speaking

[No I don’t care what a celebrity says about politics because I’m not a Fox News watcher I base my political beliefs on rational logical facts that I believe will lead the country in a better direction. You’re on the wrong network if you care about reasoned political debate sans celebrity sensationalism. Again ironic seeing you are a celebrity.] 

Personally, I try not to mix my political side with my entertainment side


And, frankly, I would be appalled if anyone made an important political or lifestyle decision based on the advice of a TV game show host

[WIN! So this was just mental masturbation].

Maybe that’s the best news about the bubble: it not only protects us, but it protects you from us.

[Look if you’re dumb enough to believe something just because a celebrity says it you’re more than likely old or a Fox News watcher or more than likely both because one begets the other. Much the same reason they have Wilford Brimley do the diabetes commericals because old people don’t like to be challenged and like familiarity, the reason they watch Fox News.]