Where Are The Tea Party Volunteer Firefighters?

[Texas] wildfires have ravaged more than 1,000 square miles of mostly rural terrain in the last week, prompting Gov. Rick Perry to ask President Barack Obama for federal help.

“Texas is reaching its capacity to respond to these emergencies and is in need of federal assistance,” Perry said in a statement Sunday. “I urge President Obama to approve our request quickly.”

Wildfires have spread across more than 700,000 acres — about the size of Rhode Island — in drought-stricken Texas. About half a dozen massive fires were still burning.

Calmer winds gave firefighters a chance to get a handle on a few massive fires Saturday, and some residents were able to return to their homes — or what was left of them. Winds intensified again Sunday to 20 to 25 mph from the south with gusts to 30 mph, giving new life to even some fires that had been declared fully contained, the Texas Forest Service said.  LINK.

Regarding the wildfires, Texas Liberal writes:

I’d also like to know when the Tea Party volunteer fire companies and the Tea Party disaster relief teams will be rushing to assist people impacted by the fire? Where are county Republican parties in Texas organizing teams of citizen-volunteers to help out our fellow Texans so that they will not have to turn to government?

Are we going to allow socialized fire companies of public employees team up with Washington to do the job that everyday Texas citizens should be doing?

Please read the entire post:  Rick Perry Asks For Help From Washington For Texas Wildfires—Where Are The Tea Party Volunteer Disaster Relief Teams?

Advertisements

A Middle Class of Contemptible Jerks?

I just ran across this article, which is upsetting to read in some ways, and horribly pessimistic, but may have hit the mark dead on in analyzing the complete lack of logic seen with U.S. voters time and time again:

Why don’t they vote in their own economic interests? Why don’t voters vote rationally, the way we were taught in grade school civics classes? In a rational world, with rational voters voting in their rational economic interests, Bush—who dragged America into two lost wars before destroying the entire financial system—would’ve been forced to resign before the first primary and exiled to Saudi Arabia; rationally, rational voters would have elected anyone or anything, John Kerry or a coconut crab, over that fuck-up of fuck-ups, George W. Bush….

If the left wants to understand American voters, it needs to once and for all stop sentimentalizing them as inherently decent, well-meaning people being duped by a tiny cabal of evil oligarchs—because the awful truth is that they’re mean, spiteful jerks being duped by a tiny cabal of evil oligarchs. The left’s naïve, sentimental, middle-class view of “the people” blinds them to all of the malice and spite that is a major premise of Middle American life.

Read the rest and see if you agree.

OK, I lied….

…about not posting.

If you aren’t aware, Geico fired their voice-over guy, Lance Baxter:

Baxter acknowledges that GEICO has fired him after it became known that he left a voice mail for the “tea party” organization Freedom Works that asked “what (are) the percentages of people that are mentally retarded who work for the organization and are members of it?” He also asked how Freedom Works will “spin it when one of your members does actually kill somebody?”

You can read more HERE.

Anyway – he’s back and I couldn’t resist posting this hilarious video.

A Little Advice

You Should Read This

Palin Urges her Followers to Confront People with Obama Stickers

Because it worked out so well the last time someone tried it, Sarah Palin is urging her followers to stop drivers with Obama bumper stickers on their vehicles and confront them (at 2:55):

“…that bumper sticker you see on the next Subaru driving by, an Obama bumper sticker. You should stop the driver and say, “So how is that hopey, changey thing working out for you?”

Hmmm…I guess personal rights only extend to the Right?  Because I guarantee if it was the other way around, there would be outrage, including threats of shooting any lib’rul that had the gall to accost them.  But I guess it’s ok to seek out, harass, and intimidate anyone who may have voted for Obama?  Hypocritical, much?  

In any event, I’m not exactly sure what she means by “stop them.”  I’m using my imagination and it’s not panning out too well for anyone.   Irresponsible, reckless, and downright creepy, one has to wonder what on earth she was thinking when she spoke…or whether she was thinking at all.   I think if she’s going to issue an edict such as this she should probably add specifically that they are not to run folks off the road to do this, because it’s not clear, and frankly, I don’t have a lot of faith in the intelligence of people who listen (voluntarily) to someone babble on and on about anything “hopey changey.”

Speaking of which, that hopey changey stuff is working out brilliantly for me – I’m glad you asked.  The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act was signed this week.  The Obama administration has set out some huge, promising changes to NCLB.  He unveiled a comprehensive energy plan just this morning.

Yes there is still a lot to do and no, I don’t agree with everything he has done.  But I’m optimistic.  We’re getting there.  And we moving forward rather than continuing to stagnate, despite the economy and sad state of foreign affairs inherited from the prior administration, so yeah, I think it’s working out just fine.  Thanks for asking, Sarah!

Sarah Bin Laden?

What is a terrorist, exactly?

ter·ror·ist

[ter-er-ist]  –noun

1.  a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.  a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Alright, so we need to define terrorism to fully appreciate the first definition.  Here you go:

ter·ror·ism

[teruh-riz-uhm]  –noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

So a terrorist could be fairly defined as “one who uses or advocates the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”  The concept seems simple enough.

Apparently some people were so upset when they realized that 45,000 Americans annually were not going to needlessly die from a lack of health insurance due to the new legislation that they felt the need to throw a temper tantrum to protest healthy citizens.   I am aware that’s a run-on sentence.

Many of these tantrums involved all sorts of nasty, vindictive behavior, from publically praying for the deaths of those who supported healthcare reform (not likely to have any effect on anything, of course, but he thinks it might, which is key) to actually breaking into Democrats’ offices and vandalizing them, sending death threats, and vandalizing homes.   While none of this outrageous behavior is likely to get them what they want, it might land them in jail – many of the acts in protest of the new law are, of course criminal.

Are the acts actually terrorism?  The “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes?”  Of course.  It can’t be taken any other way.  No one has been killed yet, but the threat is there – and in response, security for lawmakers has been beefed up considerably because the threat is very very real. 

Will the terrorism get them what they want?  Of course not – terrorism is rarely effective, which, of course is the irony.  What was the mantra? 

“We do not negotiate with terrorists, we put them out of business.” Scott McClellen, of the Bush Administration,  January 2006

Besides which, as the parent of three small children, I can tell you what all effective parents know.  You never give in to tantrums unless you want to encourage them. 

I read last night (before my power went out for 4 hours – ugh) that Sarah “Palin’s Facebook page now carries a map featuring 20 gun sights, one for each of the Democrats targeted this year by her political action committee…”  Gun sights – those crosshairs you see when aiming a firearm at something …or someone. 

She also urged her Twitter followers,  “Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!”  Metaphorical, perhaps, but is this an appropriate time for violent figures of speech when many of her “followers” are either so misinformed, so misled, so unstable, and frankly, so unintelligent that they may well take her rhetoric on as their own personal mission to save America?

In the midst of ongoing threats of violence against supporters of the healthcare reform, even hinting at inciting violence in this manner is beyond irresponsible.  I think she knows that.

“….a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism”

Legal or not, if she were Muslim, she would be on the terror watch list by now. 

And she’s not alone – there are plenty of other Tea Partiers even more outspoken about the situation.

Most savvy Republicans are attempting to distance themselves from the criminal activity.  As I mentioned, oh, only about four days ago – it’s really too little too late; they’ve been riled up for months and months and have been successfully convinced by their media and leaders that their world is coming to an end. 

I’m a realist:  there are mindless, misinformed, and unstable people on all sides of the political spectrum, but those on the left don’t have cheerleaders encouraging potentially violent outbursts. 

Way to go, Sarah – it takes a true American leader to suggest anyone go out and whack the lawmakers that they are displeased with.  Even your fellow conservatives are backing off.  Is it that you are so wound up in your own self-importance that you don’t really care what happens to our legislators – fellow Americans with spouses, parents and children?  Or is it just outrageously terrible judgement? 

Whatever the reason, it’s a very poor quality in a leader, unless, naturally, you are the leader of a terrorist organization.  Which at this moment, I’m not entirely sure she’s not.

~~~

“Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.” — Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963

Another Good Christian Value?

Wait, I thought they were against terrorism? 

Or is terrorism by white folk perfectly acceptable now?

Seriously, I can’t wait for this bill to pass and all these neanderthals to crawl back into their caves.  Are we there yet?

From alan.com.

I just read that top Republicans are trying to distance themselves from racist, homophobic, and otherwise hate-filled  “isolated” demonstration incidents.  Yeah, you’ve only had what, a year and a half to speak against this type of behavior?  They’ve done nothing but encourage misinformation and hate until now and if you check their websites and facebook pages, it’s nothing new – certainly nothing “planted” by the government as some are alleging (apparently they think everyone is as gullible as they).

 My opinion is that the *only* reason Republicans they are saying anything now is to cover their own asses in the not unlikely event that violence breaks out – and then they can say “well we tried to stop it – we had nothing to do with it.”  Try a little harder, wontcha?

« Older entries

%d bloggers like this: