Saturday, November 17, 2007

Democrat Debate Dinner Theater

[Tags: Democrats, theater, debate, liberals, Hillary,

That's right. The latest CNN Democrat debate which occurred Nov. 14th on of course, CNN is getting blamed for "planting questions" in the audience - which leads me to believe two things:

1. CNN is a hypocrites dream
2. The Democrat debates are nothing more than bad dinner theater

I call CNN hypocritical since they jumped all over the planted question Hillary's handlers put out to another young woman at a supposed "Town Hall Meeting", called "Plant-Gate" by the Republicans. Yet, CNN now scripts and plants questions for their own viewers and basically does the same thing they reported Hillary doing. I guess CNN followed the Huffington Post citing "Plant-Gate" as a great idea. Everyday people are apparently way to stupid and lazy to understand actual questions and answers - the Democrat leadership must now hire the striking Hollywood writers on scab wages to script the media debates. The idea that spontaneous interaction of approval or disapproval from the audience and real actual questions thought up by and asked by real people at a political debate now seems preposterous. Maria Luisa, a UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton the now famous "Do you prefer diamonds or pearls" fluff question of the political century had this to say on her Myspace page after receiving tons of email criticizing her question:

"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was preplanned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."

"...every question from the audience was preplanned and censored."

So what is one to believe... that these debates are actual answers to actual questions that citizens who will be voting in approximately 1 year, believe are important to them? Hell no. This is dinner theater and bad dinner theater at that ... first there's no dinner. Strike one. The dinner theater that I'm familiar with, like a good "murder mystery" dinner theater does not inform the public what they are going to do via a script... that's what makes it a little edgy and fun... the audience member who gets pulled into the murder mystery has no idea what will happen. In the Democrat debate theater, apparently everyone had the script prior to taping. Strike two. Then what seems to have occurred, according to this UNLV student, not only was the audience informed and provided a script, they were also provided questions to ask the "debaters", and asked to make it seem like they are actually asking it for their own personal interest... Strike three. This isn't even "Survivor" type scripted... this is "Seinfeld" scripted but with no punch lines and very bad comedic timing.

So can we expect that all these supposed debates are scripted by the media, controlled by the media, and supported by the media? According to the Republicans - yes. John Gibson, Fox journalist and talking head accused Wolfie Blitzer of having to follow the Clinton script found on Media Matters' website about what to ask and what not to ask. Media Matters is, according to Hillary, her baby and was started by her and is funded by George Soros - billionaire socialist/communist who's prime wants are a changed U.S., repeal of the constitution, socialist/communist America.

George, George, George... money can't buy you love...

It seems like the softballs were flying at the CNN democrat debate and it certainly appears as though Wolfie decided not to get on the bad side of the Clinton's and the body bags that have plagued those who have crossed the Clinton's. Conspiracy... probably. Yet, there's a lot of circumstantial evidence which leads one to believe there's at least some smoke if not absolute fire there. The Clinton's have been in bed with very bad people for many decades and have mastered the art of the non-stick scandal. If the Bush/Rove group is getting away with not being impeached, the Clinton's have gotten away with multiple charges of serial murders in comparison.

So what's a moderate to do when watching "Debate theater"? View it like an episode of "House" or a geriatric "Grey's Anatomy" and realize that it's all a put up job. It's not real. Even if the questions were real, the audience wasn't scripted, the moderators weren't controlled, the answers from politicians certainly would be contrived bullshit 99% of the time. They'll say pretty much anything (in most any language ie. Dodd) to get a vote. Shake hands, kiss babies, knife their own grandmother - whatever. I personally got turned off from the YouTube debate with the hand-puppet and snowman questions... since then, it's all been a cartoon to me. The last thing I want is some hand puppet asking some fluff question and the left-loon pundits orgasming all over themselves for the next two weeks about how "progressive" they are. Gimme a break. The hand puppet isn't paying a pension, isn't fixing the tax code, isn't helping in Iraq... but it sure is a metaphor for politics isn't it? A made up puppet with controlled by someone's hand up it's ass - if that's not a metaphor for politics and the Democrat debates I don't know what is.

Ed. note:

(Yes, I use the word "Democrat" instead of "Democratic" in this piece - the reason is, those who call themselves DEMOCRATS and are running for the Presidency in 2008 are not "Democratic" or "Democrats" by any means, so I feel it's misguiding readers who may stumble upon this blog and actually read it - all 2 of them in the next decade - and I'd hate to have mislead two people out of 300 million by calling a democrat debate democratic.)

Friday, September 14, 2007

A Rose by any other name...

[Tags: Democrats, neocon, linguistics, liberals, Iraq,

As complex and intricate as the English language is, as time passes, it always becomes more so. I am in no stretch of the imagination, a linguist or even a wannabe. I use words to try and express in a hopefully calm and logical way, my thoughts such as the wanted meaning is conveyed successfully. That is to say, I say what I mean and mean what I say so ya'll can understand.. dig? Yet, as time goes by, language changes as do the meanings of words. What was once used in the past to convey an emotion or illicit an emotion is discarded over time such that either it is not used at all, or if the word is used, it's meaning has sometimes drastically changed. For example, the word “swell” in the past (read: 1920's – 1950's) was used to convey the meaning “Great!”. We have since stopped using that word as it has fallen out of favor by the popular culture through the 1960's and to today, and have adopted other words – more words, that convey and illicit the same feeling, without the word “swell” being used. “Awesome” and “Excellent” are two of the most common of my generation.

That brings us back to the politics of the world. Politics has an effect on our language as well. Little known words such as “jingoism”, first coined in 1878 (according to Websters Dictionary) was vastly lost to time until drudged up post in the 21st century post 9/11, and used by the Democratic party as an epithet hurled at those “flag waving” American's who some feel to have too much pride in their country called the United States of America. One can only hope “swell” makes a comeback real real soon.

In fact, the Democratic Party has been very creative in their use of language as I have pointed out in the past few years on this very blog. Intensive use of idiosyncratic words, coupled with adjectives and adverbs meant to degrade, flame and otherwise insult the government, the military, those unfortunate “jingoists”, and anyone else who dared stand opposed to these “New Liberals” way of thinking were fodder for the linguistic grinder of “The Daily Kos”, “Smirking Chimp” as well as the pseudo-pundits calling themselves “political comedians” on television and cable shows nation wide. This isn't to be confused with "neoliberalism" which is very very different (and deserves a post all by itself). Democrats have found that the written word when used as a weapon, and when honed either by adding not-so-well-known adjectives and descriptions as well as long-dead words that have fallen out of favor with the population cause people to “sit up and take notice”. This notice may be in violent agreement, or in violent protest – both of which are irrelevant as the purpose was and is, to illicit a response... ANY response, and they have been very successful at it. Therefore, the 1959 coined word “neoconservative” first used by a journalist to describe a new type of conservative was not that popular at the time. In fact, until the 21st century, very few people even knew such word existed until the media and then the blogs-sphere started using a shortened version of the word neoconservative; neocon. Like jingoism (jingoist), it's new form and new meaning was meant as a slur against conservatives who as Websters defines it as:

2. a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

Primarily, this is used to describe any and all (regardless of actual political leanings or thoughts) who supported the Iraq War and removal of Saddam Hussein from power. Like jingoist, neocon again has a negative use and is used as an accusation or attack. Calling someone a neocon was supposed to illicit the response: “No, I'm not a neocon”. Since no-one liked the word, and the people enmasse did not stand up and start support groups like “I'm a neocon and proud” of “NFWD” (Neocons for World Domination - I totally made those up btw), etc... the word stuck as a slur against Republicans when a Democrat needed a good zinger to throw out there. While very little of America, then or now, would espouse to actually fitting the definition of a neocon, I think it's time an accurate definition of some more colorful of the Democratic party be identified with some new terminology. The New Liberals are not like the old liberals like JFK, Truman, FDR, etc. Those Democrats would, in todays world, be Republicans. While the media and various PolySci organizations and Universities squabble over when and how much the Democratic party slid left, and the Republican Party slid right leaving the moderates alone and naked wondering where their clothes have gone – we're all left in the swamp of words hurled as arrows from one side of the political spectrum to the other by the politicians and the parroting and biased media. Until now, I believe the Democrats have had the upper hand in that, they are much more creative with language and have kept the Republicans either on the defensive or stuck in a library looking up definitions like “jingoism”. Republicans need a word that encompasses the New Liberals... the Code Pinks, the Dennis Kucinich's of the world who's views are, well, far from progressive or contemporary but very much radical and a very effing kooky. How can language possibly define a moderate liberal the same as a kooky liberal? Sure, Republican's have up until this point, been trying to be as creative with words but failing miserably. Moonbat is a favorite, but has little to describe in political terminology what a Moonbat actually stands for. Are there degrees of moon-bat or are they all clumped into one? “Liberal” and “Lefty” are sometimes used – the old standby “Commie-Pinko” doesn't really encompass the correct definition any longer as most of the worlds Communist countries have gone the way of the Dodo. “Socialists”? Meh... it hardly has zing! to it and you can't abbreviate it in a way that's got sting or that could possibly put an elitist Democrat on back on their heels in defense. No, there needs to be another word, a combination of words. Something that has some “POP” to it, something that will illicit a strong opinion one way or another but ultimately, will illicit SOME response. It's got to be catching, have some zing – be easy to say, easy to remember and most of all, based in reality. So far there is no such word and we all know what that means... we have to make up a word that can encompass the meaning.

In the spirit of being bi-partisan and to allow the Republican's the opportunity to think of and perhaps get the creative juices flowing, I created a new word that probably will not stick, that no-one will like or use, but which MAY get the Republican's back in the game here with a word of their own to describe the ever left-leaning rabid and moderate liberals of today and the future. What I call the “New Liberals” are really Zealo-libs. Z-libs for short. What's it mean? Well... let me provide you with a definition or two that may help explain:


Two entries found.

Main Entry:
1 : A liberal who expresses and advocates mostly negative and critical extremist positions without need or want of a better suggestion or plan.
2 : To provide an “anti-anything” stance.
3 : Repetition of rhetoric or slander without providing evidence to the contrary.
4 : Denouncement and criticism for criticism's sake or for political aspirations only.
— zealoliberalism \-və-ˌti-zəm\ noun
— zealoliberal adjective
See also Zlib

While one term is fine, there are thresholds of Zeloliberalism that one term simply cannot fully encompass. The diversity of Zelolibs are such that, can one really lump in Richardson with Code Pink? I don't think I could live with myself making that vast of a generalization – and besides – Zelolibs and Moderate Liberals just won't take such a ludicrous comparison seriously and I don't blame them. While I chalk up the “neo-con” as slander BECAUSE it doesn't provide the layers and depth of difference between a Rush Limbaugh and a Ron Paul, that does not mean that I, the creator of the Zelolib term, would want to stoop as low and only create one word to encompass what is ... a vast array of crazies and moderates. Therefore, I must now delve into the picture that hopefully will provide some explaination of it all. To varying degrees, a Zelolib could be a Zelo-Com or a Zelo-Hipster. In order to further define what each of these things are and what they include, it will be necessary (I”m sorry to say) to further refine this at a future date. As I said in the beginning, the terminology changes as do the politics... while we can chalk up little change to “neoconservative” over the past 60 years, Republicans have a need to be accurate and factual – therefore, these definition's may NOT be accurate next year or the year after that.

New Liberals Graphic  Photobucket

From bad to better Examples in pictures




Zealolib (not the generic kind, but the specific kind)


Now that there is a definition of what a Zealolib is, further layers of detail on the types of definitions to the word, pronunciation, descriptors and variants, as well as MORE depth as to different levels of a Zealolib as well as specific examples of who and what each one would be, I'm hoping this will serve as a starting point for a word easier to use than mine, more specific and one that will rrrrrrroooll off the tongue without hesitation. Republicans are in dire need of this word to accurately and figuratively describe the self loathing, cynicism, hate, rabidness, slander, and utter rubbish some Democrats are spewing each and every day in hopes they can win a political erection... err... election. Democrats have and are now pandering to the lowest denominator with "Petraeus Betray Us" ads by in the NYT, as well as utter denial of the consequences of an Iraq failure not just for America, but for the entire world. While that may be our future given a Democrat in the White House in 2008 - what they are not talking about are the consequences. THAT is why we need a new term for these people - such that blame can be levied on each and every headstone when the terrorist come home to America to roost.