A Strong Case for Palin's "Quitter" Status

So Rachel Maddow basically says in the most eloquent terms what I feel about Sarah Palin's desire to resign/quit. This vid is from Monday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And today, Palin got slammed with her 18th ethics complaint! Regardless what she says, what Levi says, or even John McCain, the circumstances surrounding her resignation give way more light.

Plain and simple, Palin is too dim to handle a politician's life that went from a small town, to a small state, then a huge leap to the national stage. Pride is the worst of all the seven deadly sins (speaking on her "Christian" level), and she has way too much hubris.

Rachel's last summation was right on point, saying that she has the "inability to judge the difference between what bugs her as a person and what's an appropriate use of an elected official's time and the public's resources."

Let's hope she doesn't run again, because I don't know if my brilliance can stand being sucked out of me when all the news channels keep airing her speeches. I know I harp on her a lot, but her being the focus of my first blog post, you gotta wonder how I feel about her.

Barack Obama Spoken Backwards is Satan

So, I'm sure you've all heard about reverse speech found in music and spoken words. It is something that is made fun of by comedians and anyone with a brain. It is used by fear mongers to advance an agenda to the unwitting public. But it actually has some psychological underpinnings. It can be studied, and it has been studied by cognitive psychologists. But first a little taste:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

So Barack tells us to serve Satan, and all that jazz, just by reversing his phrases. You would totally be surprised at how many words int he English language when reversed sound like Satan. Now, I used the word "sound like" because no one can be totally sure the reversed audio is actually saying "Satan".

The term used for reversed audio is backmasking, which basically means hiding a message purposefully in reversed music or speech, for a dastardly agenda, like telling people to subconsciously serve Satan. However, if one is not told what to listen for, then most of the time you won't hear what is purported to be said. The main problem with the Rachel Maddow clip is that she shows us what is being said, written on the screen, so your brain doesn't hear the audio without any previously gained knowledge. It is the main difference for top-down and bottom-up processing of information. Bottom-up processing is what your brain would have to do to the reversed audio if you never heard it before and weren't given any cues as to what is being said. Top-down is what the clip did. You read the information presented on the screen, and the more times the audio was played the better you "heard" what it was saying. You were given the knowledge beforehand, which makes it top-down processing.

Not to bore you, but the research I have done, and hope to continue to do, is instead of presenting the actual words of the phrases of the backmasked audio, I presented visual stimuli, i.e. pictures, of what the main item of the phrases were. The majority of the people could not decipher the reversed audio. Which means that the visual stimuli did not present the information necessary to make the processing top-down. Thus, it can be said that backmasking may not be real if one is not told what to listen for.

There are people that are huge proponents of backmasking, essentially with the evil messages of Satan and telling kids to kill people or smoke stuff. Now, I have a test for you:

Listen to the first video/audio for the forward music. Then listen to the second one for the reversed audio. Comment what you think the reversed one is saying. NO cheating either!

The Beatles - I Am Tired Forward

The Beatles - I Am Tired Reversed

(They are links to .mp3 files; they should play automatically in your browser depending on what you're using.)

If you can't get it, I'll tell you later, but you have to work it out for yourself. It is gonna be hard, just a fair warning. However, if you've heard it before and know the answer, it will be as apparent as forward speech. I've heard it so many times, I cannot get it out of my head unless somebody hits me really hard, and even then, who knows if it will be gone.

So the moral of the story is: don't believe everything you hear. Just support Obama and Satan.

Just a quick edit: Here's a site that has a good amount of backmasked audio from famous music sources: BackmaskOnline

Michael Steele is a Toole

I was just reading about Michael Steele's latest CNN interview and he said he was 'done' with reaching out to Obama.

I've been watching his media circus rounds with an amazement that only rivals what I thought of Sarah Palin. He is a tool like no other. First he says the government doesn't make jobs only work, then he says that Rush Limbaugh is a monster (or something like that), then he apologizes to Rush a day later because he's afraid he's going to lose electors, then he says he plans everything, including all of his squabbles, and now he is acting like a child toward Obama.

I'm with Rachel Maddow on this. I hope he stays around, constantly putting his foot in his mouth so the stupid conservatives keep up the in-fighting and petty squabbling instead of actually showing the voters they can get shit done. Steele looks goofy, acts goofy and is downright retarded. I think as a person not of the media there's a catch-22. I don't care for what he says but I can't get enough of his idiocy.

I'm going to keep watching him contradict himself right and left, on things like abortion rights, the role of the Republicans in national and regional politics, and the Obama administration. Because there is nothing better than a politician being constantly reminded that he remains a populist, never holding to a set of core beliefs.

McCain's Chief Strategist Comes Out In Support Of Gay Marriage (LINK)

McCain's Chief Strategist Comes Out In Support Of Gay Marriage

I am pleased to read that the guy classed as "Rove's protégé" is saying such things about gay marriage and that he voted 'no' on Prop 8. It is extremely unexpected, and it means that Conservatives aren't a total loss. I also heard on Rachel Maddow this evening that his sister is a lesbian, which makes him similar to Dick Cheney, but unlike Cheney, he is actually acting on the beliefs and implications of having a loved one directly affected by discriminatory legislation. I applaud him for this. 

Unfortunately, I did not see much of him during the campaign, so I don't really have an opinion on this guy, and what I do was soured by the fact that he was said to be using Rovian tactics when routing the discussion about the campaign. And so, my opinion got that much better reading this story. We'll see what he does next.

(Posted using ShareThis.)

In other news, I've removed the second part of my blog title, as I felt the joke made its point and all of you reading understand why I named my blog "The Swan Doctrine" now. I think Charlie Gibson gets it and explained his respects.

I much like the forceful "Swan Doctrine," and I hope my worldview is apparent to make it such a doctrine.

And lastly in blog news, I've added "ShareThis" to my blog, and so at the end of each blog post is a little rotating "ShareThis" icon. I hope it gets used. You can pretty much post my blog anywhere online with ShareThis, and I'm so glad serendipity keeps knocking on my door. USE IT!

Who Guarantees Money in the US?

You know what's funny? People not understanding the similarity of stimulus and spending. You know what's even funnier? People using tax cuts as a means to stimulate the economy. I give you a great example:

Jim makes $500 a month after taxes like Social Security, Medicare, and this withholding junk. So Senator Bob wants to give tax cuts to stimulate the economy because it will give Jim more money in his pocket each month and the company he works for more liquidity to either create a job or give Jim a raise. Here's the thing: It doesn't work out that way. Jim will most likely see that he's getting more money, let's say $550 a month. He's gonna use that new $50 a month and save it, or keep it for a rainy day, because he's been getting by for $500. Sure he could use it for other things, like a special dinner or something, but most likely he'll keep it. The buck stops in his pocket, literally. Now his company will most likely not give Jim a raise and will most likely not create a job with the extra money after it pays it's taxes. If it were me, I'd use it for the bottom line, as basically as a means to increase that bottom line. Why spend more money in payroll when I can use the tax breaks to increase my monthly, quarterly and annual profits? See where tax cuts are taking us? Relatively nowhere. Have we spent or created a job? No, we haven't, and we've lessened the revenue of the country and programs that definitely need funding.

Now to the all important title of the post. Who guarantee's the money in the United States? Well, that'd be the government! So, if we give the government the right to use that money, we can be sure it's going to be spent, right? Right, because it's is guaranteed. It may be slow, but the money will be spent. Some sooner than later, but if it is things like INFRASTRUCTURE, then jobs will be most definitely created, even if they aren't skilled jobs. We've got enough building requirements and codes to make it possible for unskilled labor to lend a hand in roads, bridges, and levies. Lets' go back to Jim. Lets' say he works for a construction company. His company wins a bid to upgrade the nearby bridge, but the job is too big for the company's current workforce. So what do they do? Bring in a bunch of new workers for an extended period of time. And the government won't fuck around paying the construction company because it was guaranteed payment.

Simple demand side economics. Something is wanted and needed, and therefore stimulating. It requires spending and not cutting, which would be supply side economics. If consumers are consuming, why should producers produce? And if producers are producing, workers aren't working. What do we have now? Massive layoffs from all sectors of the economy. It doesn't seem like supply side economics are working. Spending is the answer in this case, I promise. If it doesn't work, then you can come by and say "I told you so".

Tax cuts haven't worked for years, the last 8 to be exact, and so we must do something different. The only thing left is spending, and albeit there is some spending in the current bill that's weird and ridiculous, but it is NEEDED.

Here's Rachel Maddow using clips from the Senate from the last couple of days explaining exactly what I've said above, but perhaps a little more eloquently:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And then a great motivational picture on the need for infrastructure spending: