Seen on the street in Kyiv.

Words of Advice:

"If Something Seems To Be Too Good To Be True, It's Best To Shoot It, Just In Case." -- Fiona Glenanne

“The Mob takes the Fifth. If you’re innocent, why are you taking the Fifth Amendment?” -- The TOFF *

"Foreign Relations Boil Down to Two Things: Talking With People or Killing Them." -- Unknown

“Speed is a poor substitute for accuracy.” -- Real, no-shit, fortune from a fortune cookie

"If you believe that you are talking to G-d, you can justify anything.” — my Dad

"Colt .45s; putting bad guys in the ground since 1873." -- Unknown

"Stay Strapped or Get Clapped." -- probably not Mr. Rogers

"The Dildo of Karma rarely comes lubed." -- Unknown

"Eck!" -- George the Cat

* "TOFF" = Treasonous Orange Fat Fuck, A/K/A Dolt-45,
A/K/A Commandante (or Cadet) Bone Spurs,
A/K/A El Caudillo de Mar-a-Lago, A/K/A the Asset., A/K/A P01135809

Wednesday, March 3, 2021

CPAC: Are They Nazis or Mentally Deficient?

When Hyatt built that stage and CPAC used it, they did Nazi any problems with it.

Hyatt got lambasted, of course:

Hyatt issued a press release that threw CPAC under the bus. They followed up with another press release, tossing CPAC further under the bus and also taking them to task for now following Hyatt's mask mandate.

Was this just a stupid error by CPAC? Or are they signaling who they truly are?


0_0 said...

Most folk on Twitter, when they learn who designed and built the stage, drop the rune bullshit and pivot straight to "well, they shouldn't do work for Nazis!"

dinthebeast said...

This should become the example of why it is a bad idea to do business with the folks who do CPAC.
Then, of course, what they previously lauded as the invisible hand of the market will all of the sudden become "cancel culture" with a quickness.

-Doug in Sugar Pine

Stewart Dean said...

CPAC: Are They Nazis or Mentally Deficient?
Charlie Pierce: the GOP has contracted prion disease

Frank Wilhoit said...

Liability insurance. It killed American manufacturing, it can kill anything. Use it to kill something that needs killing for a change.

w3ski said...

That was a fairly intricate design for a stage. People have a bad habit of falling off of raised portions like those 'bars'. Someone liked that design and some others built it. It was no accident that it came out in the shape of a nazi rune.
We've all had feelings about the nazis and the GQP being in bed together, but this seems to spell it out rather forcefully.
I for one strongly object to nazi artifacts and signals being used in our country. We had a war about that and they lost.

Ingersollman said...

Stephen fucking Miller's fingerprints are all over that stage design. Fucking Joseph Goebbels wannabe.

dinthebeast said...

"Charlie Pierce: the GOP has contracted prion disease"

Rovine spongiform encephalopathy.

-Doug in Sugar Pine

B said...

By that logic, Youtube is promoting Naziism :

Yer as loony as the religious whacko folks when I was a teen who spent hours playing records backwards to find words from Satan....If you look hard enough, you can find a message somewhere about anything.

If only you can hear the dog whisle....

Dark Avenger said...

We tend to find patterns where none are there,like poor folks being poor because of their lack of grit or laziness, despite all evidence to the contrary.

B said...

Poor people are poor (generally) because of bad decision they make, over and over. Most work very hard, but never get ahead because of their choices. Lack of industriousness is generally not the root cause.

B said...

Poor people are poor (generally) because of bad decision they make, over and over. Most work very hard, but never get ahead because of their choices. Lack of industriousness is generally not the root cause.

Dark Avenger said...

Pygmalion is not just about Eliza’s transformation from flower girl to apparent duchess. It’s about her father’s transformation from a disreputable chancer to the epitome of propriety. And in this morality tale is one of Bernard Shaw’s most important arguments: people are not poor because they are immoral; they’re immoral because they are poor. Or, to put it in the terms of today’s assumptions about poverty: the problem with the poor isn’t their “culture” or their want of character. It’s just that they don’t have enough money.


In the preface to Major Barbara, Shaw attacks “the stupid levity with which we tolerate poverty as if it were … a wholesome tonic for lazy people”. His great political impulse was to de-moralise poverty, and his most radical argument about poverty was that it simply doesn’t matter whether those who are poor “deserve” their condition or not – the dire social consequences are the same either way. He assails the absurdity of the notion implicit in so much rightwing thought, that poverty is somehow more tolerable if it is a punishment for moral failings: “If a man is indolent, let him be poor. If he is drunken, let him be poor. If he is not a gentleman, let him be poor. If he is addicted to the fine arts or to pure science instead of to trade and finance, let him be poor … Let nothing be done for ‘the undeserving’: let him be poor. Serve him right! Also – somewhat inconsistently – blessed are the poor!”

By the end of Shaw’s immensely long career, it seemed that these arguments had been won. They even seemed rather passé – what thinking person could ever revert to Victorian notions of poverty as a moral disease? But moralising about poverty returned with a vengeance. When, in January 1983, Margaret Thatcher declared in a television interview that “Victorian values were the values when our country became great”, it was clear that one of those values was the belief that poverty is fundamentally a question of character.

The rich are now as confident as they ever were that they deserve what they have. We have returned to what Shaw called the “absurdly unpractical notion that in some way a man’s income should be given to him, not to enable him to live, but as a sort of Sunday school prize for good behaviour … Was ever so idiotic a project mooted as the estimation of virtue in money?”

We live again in a world where, as Shaw wrote of his own times, “we have million-dollar babies side-by-side with paupers worn out by a long life of unremitted drudgery”. We live again in a world where that unremitting drudgery is, for millions of people, no guarantee of being able to afford a decent and dignified life.

We live again in a world of Victorian values risen from the graves in which Shaw and the other great anti-Victorians buried them. We live again in a world where the rich pleasure themselves with the belief that they don’t just have more money – they are better people. We live again in a world where people struggling to survive have to prove that they are “deserving” of the welfare payments they need to keep body and soul together. And in such a world, it seems right that Bernard Shaw should live again too.