Free Flight New Media

This is DEEP, SCARY, UTTERLY FASCINATING and should be required reading in towns and schools: Tea Party Berserkergang

Savage berserks roaring mad,
And champions fierce in wolf-skins clad,
Howling like wolves;

-          The skald Hornklofe

In the Viking Age a type of warrior established their reputation by way of seemingly mindless attacks on their enemies: the Norse berserker. Once the berserker rage was upon them, these were men immune to reason, their only goal to kill and destroy.

We still talk today about people “going berserk” but with little understanding of the ancient condition. What we do know was that a berserker was not a mindless animal and it was not a permanent condition. Perhaps if it was not a sudden adrenaline rush or consumption of a certain mushroom, it was an early form of neuro-linguistic programming which works with the connection between the neurological processes and learned behavior. Perhaps the warriors worked themselves into a frenzy through such techniques. In many ways, the GOP and its members seem to have fallen prey to a similar sort of rage, one which, while they have “talked themselves” into it, however, seems to have no end.They may not be on mushrooms, but they certainly act like it.

The meaning the word has come to have is familiar to all English speakers even if the origin is muddled and the  etymology problematic. Old Norse berserkr comes either from “bear-sark,” literally, “bear shirt,” (berfjall meaning bearskin), or from bera, a verb meaning to “make bare,” and therefore meaning one without a shirt. In a sense, the point is moot as the evidence demonstrates that some berserks wore bearskins and some wolf. The term beserkergang (ON: berserkagangr) is used to describe the state of fury a berserk enters into. It was a frightening thing.

We get a glimpse of berserker behavior from the Icelandic story known as Egil’s Saga:

It is said of shape-strong men, or men with a fit of Berserk fury on them, that while the fit lasted they were so strong that nought could withstand them; but when it passed off, then they were weaker than their wont. Even so it was with Kveldulf. When the shape-strong fit went from him, then he felt exhaustion from the onset he had made, and became so utterly weak that he lay in bed.

The beserkers while their rage lasted were fearsome opponents. We learn from other sagas that they would howl like dogs or wolves, bite the rims of their shields and scowl over their edges like madmen. Not a face of reasonableness; clearly, negotiation was not a possibility, and compromise the most distant of dreams. Facing these men, you fought, or you died. Again, this reminds us of the behavior of certain Tea Party extremists in the House of Representatives. We have seen a great deal of shield chewing and dog-howling since 2010, and very little desire to talk except to build themselves into another rage. They don’t want to talk. They want only to destroy.

The reason might be obvious: It was also said of berserks that while in that state they could not be harmed. In his account of the Battle of Hrafr’s Fjord, Egil tells us that in that battle the king had aboard his ship twelve berserkers and that when the killing was done not “a man unwounded in the king’s ship before the mast, except those whom iron bit not—to wit the Berserks.”

via www.politicususa.com

Please follow the link above for the post is continued there. Very big HAT TIP to Politicusua.

What do you think of the comparison?

HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION: The Dangerous Reagan Cult (otherwise known as the Tea Party)

Possibly never in history has a 'populist' movement been as protective of the interests of the rich as the Tea Party is. But that is because it is really a political cult dedicated to the most extreme rendering of Ronald Reagan’s anti-government philosophy.

A MUST READ to understand what is going on in Congress down to City Hall. HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION.

In the debt-ceiling debate, both Republicans and Democrats wanted Ronald Reagan on their side. Republicans embraced the 40^th president’s disdain for government and fondness for tax cuts, while Democrats noted that “even Reagan” raised the debt limit many times and accepted some tax increases.

But Reagan – possibly more than any political leader – deserves the blame for the economic/political mess that the United States now finds itself in. He was the patriarch for virtually every major miscalculation that the country has made over the past three decades.

It was Reagan who slashed taxes on the rich to roughly their current level; he opened the flood gates on deficit spending; he accelerated the decline of the middle class by busting unions and slashing support for local communities; he disparaged the value of government regulations; he squandered money on the Pentagon; he pushed more militaristic strategies abroad; and he rejected any thoughtful criticism of past U.S. foreign policies.

Reagan also created what amounted to a “populist” right-wing cult that targeted the federal government as the source of nearly all evil. In his First Inaugural Address, he famously declared that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

It is that contempt for government that today is driving the Tea Party extremists in the Republican Party. Yet, as with many cults, the founder of this one was somewhat more practical in dealing with the world around him, thus explaining some of Reagan’s compromises on the debt ceiling and taxes.

But once the founder is gone, his teachings can become definitive truth to the disciples. Flexibility disappears. No deviation is permitted. No compromise is tolerated.

So, at a time when government intervention is desperately needed to address a host of national problems, members of this Reagan cult apply the teachings of the leader in the most extreme ways. Since “government is the problem,” the only answer is to remove government from the equation and let the corporations, the rich and the magical “market” dictate national solutions.

It is an ironic testament to Ronald Reagan’s enduring influence that America’s most notable “populist” movement, the Tea Party, insists that tax cuts for the wealthy must be protected, even minor ones like tax loopholes for corporate jets. Inside the Tea Party, any suggestion that billionaire hedge-fund managers should pay a tax rate equal to that of their secretaries is anathema.

Possibly never in history has a “populist” movement been as protective of the interests of the rich as the Tea Party is. But that is because it is really a political cult dedicated to the most extreme rendering of Ronald Reagan’s anti-government philosophy.

FULL ARTICLE AT:

 www.readersupportednews.org OR http://www.readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/72-72/7071-the-dangerous-reagan-cult#

 

Analysis Tea Party People - Just Who Are They And What Do They Believe

I want to start of by a big H/T to CBS News.
Lots of links at the end lead to really interesting stuff.

 Tea Party Supporters:


 Who They Are and What They Believe

CBS News Poll analysis by the CBS News Polling Unit: Sarah Dutton, 
Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus and Anthony Salvanto.


(Credit: AP)

*They're white. They're older. And they're angry.*

CBS News and the New York Times surveyed 1,580 adults, including 881 
self-identified Tea Party supporters, to get a snapshot of the Tea Party 
movement. There is a lot of information to unpack; let's begin with the 
demographics.

Eighteen percent of Americans identify as Tea Party supporters.

 The vast majority of them -- 89 percent -- are white. Just one percent is black.

They tend to skew older: Three in four are 45 years old or older, 
including 29 percent who are 65 plus. They are also more likely to be 
men (59 percent) than women (41 percent).
More than one in three (36 percent) hails from the South, far more than 
any other region. Twenty-five percent come from the West, 22 percent 
from the Midwest, and 18 percent from the northeast.
(Credit: CBS)

They are better educated than most Americans: 37 percent are college 
graduates, compared to 25 percent of Americans overall. They also have a 
higher-than-average household income, with 56 percent making more than 
$50,000 per year. More than half (54 percent) identify as Republicans, 
and another 41 percent say they are independents. Just five percent call 
themselves Democrats, compared to 31 percent of adults nationwide.
Nearly three in four describe themselves as conservative, and 39 percent 
call themselves very conservative. Sixty percent say they always or 
usually vote Republican. Forty percent say the United States needs a 
third party, while 52 percent say it does not.
They are more likely than American adults overall to attend religious 
services weekly (38 percent do so) and to call themselves evangelical 
(39 percent). Sixty-one percent are Protestant, and another 22 percent 
are Catholic.
More than half -- 58 percent -- keep a gun in the household.

More than three in four Tea Party supporters (78 percent) have never 
attended a rally or donated to a group; most have also not visited a Tea 
Party Web site.

 
For the purposes of the poll, those who have attended a rally or donated 
to a group have been deemed Tea Party "activists."

Four percent of 
Americans fall into this category.

Tea Party activists tend to be even angrier, more pessimistic about the 
country and more negative about President Obama than other Americans who 
identify as part of the Tea Party movement.

For a breakdown of the beliefs of these activists, click here 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002536-503544.html>.

*What They Believe*
(Credit: AP)
Fifty-three percent of Tea Party supporters describe themselves as 
"angry" about the way things are going in Washington, compared to 19 
percent of Americans overall who say they are angry. Asked what they are 
most angry about, the top four answers among Tea Party supporters who 
identify as angry were the health care reform bill (16 percent), the 
government not representing the people (14 percent), government spending 
(11 percent) and unemployment and the economy (8 percent).

More than nine in ten (92 percent) say America is on the wrong track, 
while just six percent say the country is headed in the right direction. 
Fifty-nine percent of Americans overall say the country is on the wrong track.

Eighty-eight percent disapprove of President Obama's performance on the 
job, compared to 40 percent of Americans overall. While half of 
Americans approve of Mr. Obama's job performance, just seven percent of 
Tea Party supporters say he is doing a good job.

Asked to volunteer what they don't like about Mr. Obama, the top answer, 
offered by 19 percent of Tea Party supporters, was that they just don't 
like him. Eleven percent said he is turning the country more toward 
socialism, ten percent cited his health care reform efforts, and nine 
percent said he is dishonest.

Seventy-seven percent describe Mr. Obama as "very liberal," compared to 
31 percent of Americans overall. Fifty-six percent say the president's 
policies favor the poor, compared to 27 percent of Americans overall.
Sixty-four percent believe that the president has increased taxes for 
most Americans, despite the fact that the vast majority of Americans got 
a tax cut under the Obama administration 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6201911-503544.html>. 
Thirty-four percent of the general public says the president has raised 
taxes on most Americans.

While most Americans (58 percent) say the president understands their 
needs and problems, just 24 percent of Tea Party supporters agree. Just 
one in five say the president shares the values of most Americans.
Only one percent of Tea Party supporters approve of the job Congress is 
doing, compared to 17 percent of Americans overall.
Twenty-four percent of Tea Party supporters say it is sometimes 
justified to take violent action against the government. That compares 
to 16 percent of Americans overall who say violence against the 
government is sometimes justified.

(Credit: CBS)
Sixty-three percent say they get the majority of their political and 
current events news on television from the Fox News Channel, compared to 
23 percent of Americans overall. Forty-seven percent say television is 
their main source of Tea Party information, the top source; another 24 
percent say they get Tea Party information from the internet. Nearly 
half say the main goal of the movement is to reduce the role of the 
federal government, far outdistancing any other consideration. Just 
seven percent say the goal of the movement is to elect Tea Party 
candidates.

An overwhelming majority of Tea Party supporters, 84 percent, say the 
views of the Tea Party movement reflect the views of most Americans. But 
Americans overall disagree: Just 25 percent say the Tea Party movement 
reflects their beliefs, while 36 percent say it does not.
*Socialism, The Birther Movement, and Tea Party Leaders*
Ninety-two percent of Tea Party supporters believe President Obama's 
policies are moving the country toward socialism. Fifty-two percent of 
Americans overall share that belief.

Asked what socialism means, roughly half of Tea Party supporters 
volunteered government ownership or control, far more than any other 
answer. Eleven percent cited taking away rights or limiting freedom, and 
eight percent said it means the redistribution of wealth.
Thirty percent of Tea Party supporters believe Mr. Obama was born in 
another country, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Another 29 
percent say they don't know. Twenty percent of Americans overall, one in 
five, believe the president was not born in the United States. (More on 
this part of the poll here 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002539-503544.html>.)

Tea Party supporters were asked in the poll what they thought of a few 
notable figures. The most popular was Sarah Palin, who is viewed 
favorably by 66 percent of people in the movement. Only 40 percent, 
however, believe she would be an effective president, a smaller 
percentage than Republicans overall.
Fifty-nine percent of Tea Party supporters have a favorable impression 
of Glenn Beck. Nearly as many, 57 percent, have a favorable impression 
of former President George W. Bush, despite his role in raising the 
deficit and overseeing TARP bailout of the financial sector.
Just 35 percent view John McCain favorably, and 28 percent view Ron Paul 
favorably. (More on this part of the poll here 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002534-503544.html>.)

(Credit: CBS)
*Tea Party Supporters on the Issues*
Tea Party supporters are more concerned with economic than social 
issues. Seventy-eight percent say economic issues are a bigger concern, 
while 14 percent point to social issues.

They are more likely than Republicans and Americans overall to see 
illegal immigration as a serious problem (82 percent), doubt the impact 
of global warming (66 percent) and call the bank bailout unnecessary (74 
percent).


Fifty-three percent say the Roe v. Wade decision was a bad thing 
(compared to 34 percent of Americans overall), 40 percent oppose 
same-sex marriage and civil unions (compared to 30 percent overall) and 
30 percent want gun control laws eased (compared to 16 percent overall).
/(At left, watch CBS News correspondent Dean Reynolds' report on the tea 
party and the poll.)/ Ninety-three percent describe the economy as at 
least somewhat bad, and 42 percent say it is getting worse. Fifty-eight 
percent believe America's best years are behind us when it comes to good 
jobs, compared to 45 percent of Americans overall.
Just ten percent say the stimulus package had a positive effect on the 
economy (compared to 32 percent of Americans overall), while 36 percent 
say it actually made things worse. More than half say it had no impact.
Eighty-nine percent say the president has expanded the role of 
government too much. More than three in four say lowering the federal 
government is more important than government spending to create jobs.
And while the vast majority opposes the health care reform bill, 62 
percent say programs like Social Security and Medicare are worth the 
costs to taxpayers. (The figure is even higher among Americans overall, 
at 76 percent.)

*Views on Race*
Tea Party supporters are less likely than Americans overall to believe 
whites have more opportunities to get ahead than blacks.
Just 16 percent of Tea Party supporters say whites have more 
opportunities to get ahead, compared to 31 percent of all Americans. 
Seventy-three percent say both have equal opportunity, compared to 60 
percent of Americans overall.

Fifty-two percent believe too much has been made of the problems facing 
black people. Far fewer Americans overall -- 28 percent -- believe as 
much. Among non-Tea Party whites, the percentage who say too much 
attention has been paid to the problems of black people is 23 percent.
A majority of Tea Party suppers believe the Obama administration treats 
both blacks and whites the same way. But one in four believe the 
administration favors blacks over whites, an opinion shared by just 11 
percent of Americans overall and seven percent of non-Tea Party whites.

*More on the Poll:* Most Tea Partiers Believe Too Much Made of Problems 
Facing Blacks <http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002538-503544.html>
Tea Partiers View Palin, Beck and Bush Favorably 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002534-503544.html>
Tea Party Activists Small but Passionate Group 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002536-503544.html>
"Birther" Myth Persists Among Tea Partiers, All Americans 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002539-503544.html>
Most Tea Party Supporters Say Their Taxes Are Fair 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002487-503544.html>
Bob Schieffer: Tea Partiers Not Just "A Bunch of Yahoos" 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20002568-503544.html>
CBS Evening News: Tea Party Steeped in Fury 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6396755n>
Read the Complete Poll on Who They Are (PDF) 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_tea_party_who_they_are_041410.pdf>
Read the Complete Poll on What They Believe (PDF) 
<http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_tea_party_041410.pdf>

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This poll was conducted among a random sample of 1,580 adults 
nationwide, interviewed by telephone April 5-12, 2010. Phone numbers 
were dialed from RDD samples of both standard land-lines and cell 
phones. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample 
could be plus or minus three percentage points. The error for subgroups 
is higher. 

An oversample of people who describe themselves as supporters of the 
Tea Party movement were interviewed, for a total of 881 interviews. The 
results were then weighted in proportion to the adult population. The 
margin of error for the sample of Tea Party supporters is three points. 
This poll release conforms to the Standards of Disclosure of the 
National Council on Public Polls.

 

Soooo, what do you think?

Why Won't McClintock Debate In The Company Of Folks Who Actually, Unlike Tom, Live In Congressional District CA-04 - Another No Show For Plumas County Debate (From Auburn Journal)

B

The League of Women Voters invited all the candidates for the CA-04 district's seat to their debate on Wednesday evening, Oct 13th, in Quincy, Plumas County.

 

The Republican Tea Party incumbent, Tom McClintock, bagged out on it and didn't bother to show up.

 

The other two candidates, Democrat Clint Curtis and "independent/Green" Ben Emery, did show up and engaged the voter constituents and each other.

Plumas County presently has a 16% unemployment rate.

 

The Tea Party Republican incumbent has told the main stream media in Sacramento interviews that he feels California does not deserve Federal money be brought back to the district. Currently the state of CA gets 78¢ per dollar sent to Washington DC, while other states such as Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, West Virginia, North and South Dakota, Arkansas, and Oklahoma get back $1.36 to over $2.00 per dollar sent. What do these states have in common? They are all either oil states bordering offshore drilling or coal/gas producers, and many of them rank lowest on the quality of life scales such as level of public education achieved or the percentage of people living in poverty or lacking access to health insurance. 

Tea Party Republican Tom McClintock recently released his list of oppositions to the state propositions on the November ballot that would at least make a start at changing the money dynamic, allowing the state, local, and county residents to exert more local control. Not surprisingly, McClintock is opposed to all the ballot measures that would do that. This is completely inconsistent with his past libertarian- lite philosophies.

 

If the Federal government is setting a criteria (leftover from the Bush administration) that a certain thing must happen in order to receive Federal dollars, the first thing that must be asked, is it a reasonable criteria that results in a good or product or service being produced that benefits the people being taxed, or is it just make- work for the Security Paranoia state? And kickback graft for the energy companies or the Casino interests and their associated liquor, wine, and beer distributors ? Look at all the beer and wine money fighting against Prop 19. And now we have the answer- McClintock just doesn't "get" it.

 

McClintock not only tells Northern CA he won't bring home needed Federal funding to keep our infrastructure functional, he's telling us if we decide to heck with the Feds and we'll keep the money here, he's opposed to that, too.

 

He defines himself by making himself a big a hindrance as possible to progress - unless you're a private DOD contractor seeking to feed off the gravy train heading over to the mid east. 

 

McClintock gets most of his individual donations from out of the district. He even does campaign events, those big quasi - entertainment events put on by the herds of Public Relations professionals, out of the district. McClintock will be speaking in front of a company next week that routinely SUES other states which have rules over financially disclosing its donors. It maintains it does not have to disclose sources of funding and tries to overturn state disclosure laws. A complaint has been filed against this company this week, for violating the charity law that says a non profit can not deliberately campaign directly for a candidate. (this time it's Fiorina) This same company was fined in 2008 by the CA Fair Political Practices Division for deliberately hiding donor sources to a state proposition that was heavily promoted by the McClintock campaign. One of McClintock's biggest out of district donors gave a million dollars to this proposition. It is a puzzlement as to why the voters have let this strange situation continue.

But it puts in perspective why incumbent McClintock won't dare show up at a local candidate debate.

A Hat Tip and Big Shout Out to: CanyonRat

Full, Unedited Version At The Link Below.

http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/161706.html

Comments worth a read, too!

This Is A HUGE, HUGE Big Deal - The Scandal of 2010 Followed By The Death of the USA

Washington - Imagine an election in a Third World nation where a small number of millionaires and billionaires spent massive sums to push the outcome in their preferred direction. Wouldn't many people here condescendingly tut-tut such a country's "poorly developed" sense of democracy and the inadequacy of its political system?

That, of course, is what is going on in our country as you read this. If you travel any place where there is a contested race for the House or Senate, you are bombarded with attack ads, almost all against Democrats, paid for by groups that do not have to reveal where their money comes from.

What we do know from enterprising journalism and the limited disclosure the law requires is that much of this money is donated in large sums from a rather small number of wealthy individuals.

And The New York Times reported last Friday that among the 10 top-spending organizations this year, five are Republican-oriented shadow groups. Another four are the formal party committees for House and Senate candidates. One is a union.

This is a huge, historic deal, yet many in the media have treated the spending avalanche as a normal political story and arguments about its dangers as partisan Democratic whining.

Some have even maintained that money doesn't really matter in elections, which makes you wonder why people who know quite a lot about politics (one thinks of Karl Rove) have spent so much energy organizing these fundraising and advertising efforts.

The outside money should be an issue for Democrats. They ought to be asking, even more forcefully than they have been, what these secret donors expect for their money. You can be sure that the benefactors will not keep their identities hidden from the members of Congress they help elect. Only the voters will be in the dark.

Nonetheless, the partisan dimension should not distract from the larger problem facing American democracy. Secret money is dangerous. Secret money corrupts. Secret money is antithetical to the transparency that democracy requires. And concentrated money, which is what we're talking about here, buys more influence and access than small contributions.

Candidates have limits on the size of the donations they can raise and must disclose them. They are accountable for the advertisements they put on the air. But the outside groups can say whatever they want without answering for it. Washington Post blogger Greg Sargent has been tireless in pointing out how many of the ads sponsored by these shadowy organizations are based on half-truths or outright lies.

It's often been said that what the Republican-leaning groups are doing now is no different from what some Democratic-friendly groups have done in the past. There's actually an important distinction. But first, let me say I didn't like it when Democrats took a step in this direction in 2004, and was critical when Harold Ickes, one of the party's seasoned operatives, organized outside money on John Kerry's behalf.

I called the move "shortsighted," and said then: "My hunch is that in the long run, the country -- and, yes, especially Democrats -- will regret opening a new loophole in the campaign money system." Republicans, I predicted, would "find more than enough rich people to finance groups on the Ickes model" and eventually outspend the Democrats.

via www.truth-out.org

Please select the link above for the complete piece.

It is up, not only to Democrats, but Republicans, Independent, and Tea Party folks -- ALL AMERICANS, to demand an end to this Nuclear $$$ explosion, or this USA is "Toast."

Rookie Republican Congressperson Tom McClintock - Don't Be A Hypocrite! YOU voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR-3590) - Now CANCEL Your OWN Government Run Federal Employees Health Benefits Enrollment.

We believe politicians should say what they mean and do what they say.

During this mid-term election, many politicians across the country have decried the evils of the “government takeover of the health care system” and Republicans have indicated they would repeal it if they have the votes after the election. 

To rid the system of hypocritical rhetoric, we are challenging every representative in Congress, House and Senate, who voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (HR-3590) to cancel their own Federal Employees Health Benefits enrollment.   The FEHB is administered by the federal Office of Personnel Management and covers approximately 4 million Federal Employees and every member of Congress.

Tom's response to his Government run health care when not supporting it for all Americans is: "I don't have Government Run Health Care - I have Kaiser. Snicker, Snicker, Snicker.

Your response above from one of your TELEPHONE TOWN HALLs is not funny.

Don't Be A Hypocrite!

Submit the cancellation before the election in November and let us know you are at least a Reformed Hypocrite.

Voters will be watching and waiting for your press release.

Take Action and a bit Shout Out To: http://dontbeahypocrite.org/

American Psychological Association (APA):

Hypocrite. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved October 25, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Hypocrite

hyp·o·crite

  [hip-uh-krit]  Show IPA

–noun

1.

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.

a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

Use hypocrite in a Sentence

See images of hypocrite

—Related forms

hyp·o·crit·i·cal, adjective

hyp·o·crit·i·cal·ly, adverb

su·per·hyp·o·crite, noun

un·hyp·o·crit·i·cal, adjective

un·hyp·o·crit·i·cal·ly, adverb

—Can be confused:  hypercritical, hypocritical .

—Synonyms 
deceiver, dissembler, pretender, pharisee.