Melissa Harris-Perry: Latest Character Assassination Target of the Far Right

Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh make a terrific living through diversion, demonizing, and the use of techniques with a goal of destroying policy or oftentimes with character assassination.  Their writing and punditry like Glenn Beck and others skilled to excite and influence their loyal legions is most assuredly a template used on every policy or individual attack. 

They do not always use the entire strategy or structure each time but do implement an argument structure designed to persuade using techniques associated with brainwashing.  Dr. Cynthia Boaz is an assistant professor of political science at Sonoma State University. Among her areas of expertise includes political communication and media. From various pundits she has identified fourteen techniques that effectively brainwash their followers.

My experience is that many of my Conservative friends use these argumentative structures oftentimes unknowingly while others seemed to understand them purposely and are in step with the talking points necessary to forward the agenda.  Folks we refer to as trolls often use this very same structure with their arguments. Read a variety of postings and you will observe the bullying technique, character assassination, flipping, and attempts to confuse the issue, policy, or personal attack.

These are similar to those Rovian Techniques devised by Karl Rove and once the target is identified; the techniques listed above are put in motion. They attack the individual or policy and then saturate that message via blogs, Facebook,  Google groups, radio, television, and newspapers. The idea is to divert followers from facts and focus on readers or listeners preconceived notions and fears to perpetuate the attack.

I have identified several "attack" techniques in the past but those who have not read my blogs the following sources will assist you in understanding why Progressives and Liberals need to start not only "Leaning Forward" but getting off their shiny bottoms and start doing something about the arguments and techniques being employed by several far right "journalists", bloggers, pundits and entertainer news anchors like Rush, O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck. If you see similar techniques on the fringe left; call them out too! You can saturate messages of truth as well as fiction!

http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/08/1141830/-Karl-Rove-s-Handbook
http://www.drw.utexas.edu/roberts-miller/handouts/demagoguery

I have others; but these sources whether you the reader like the sources or not are links to the people who analyzed and wrote them. Everything we do is definable and each of us may not agree with the operational definitions these people identify as the techniques employed to distract and brainwash but it can be observed and the patterns identified.

Why am I bringing this up? One name: Melissa Harris-Perry. She has an MSNBC commercial that the right is demonizing about Children being part of the Community and that we should all be concerned about them; not just the Children's parents. Move a few words around and fail to report the entire sentiment with the purpose of diverting, demonizing, and destroying the character suggesting nonsense of communism, socialism, and fascism. 

Do you really believe your children are only your concern? Do you not want teachers, clergy, police, neighbors, and even strangers to be aware of unsafe situations and step up or step in? They are trying to make this another "you did not build this" attack they used when they diverted, demonized and attempted to destroy President Obama.

How can I prove this? I will provide two links and from these you decide:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/04/08/how-the-right-is-distorting-melissa-harris-perr/193532

https://www.google.com/webhp?source=search_app#hl=en&gs_rn=8&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=melissa%20harris%20perry%20MSNBC%20C&tok=oWqmcNVulDbR1YfMw7qfdw&pq=melissa%20harris%20perry&cp=62&gs_id=bo&xhr=t&q=melissa%20harris%20perry%20MSNBC%20Commercial%20Kids%20are%20the%20Communities&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=melissa+harris+perry+MSNBC+Commercial+Kids+are+the+Communities&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44990110,bs.1,d.aWM&fp=e9443ae8fe5a8991&biw=1366&bih=643

Remember this....To push forward their right wing character assassination of Melissa Harris-Perry they need to saturate Google Search and they have accomplished this with over 500,000 orchestrated links. The Heritage Foundation has people who use the Google Analytics to post and re-post so the only information is their right wing character assassination of this MSNBC pundit and others. My question is----What are they really concerned about? Her rising popularity?  Perhaps it is that her weekend un-rehearsed shows are analysis and discussion with a variety of viewpoints....Even viewpoints that don't always agree with hers. Imagine what that might look like on the daily rehearsed Bill O'Reilly show!

Melissa Harris-Perry Blog Response: 

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/04/09/why-caring-for-children-is-not-just-a-parents-job/

The Race For 44th District Seat, Democrat Primary Heats Up

by Lucy Faraday

With only two weeks to go until the election for the hotly contested 44th District Assembly seat for Wisconsin, the race to the finish line is beginning to heat up.  With four Democrats standing for election against, unopposed Republican Primary Joe Knilans, the result on August 14th, looks like it will be a close thing.  Key issues in the campaign include unemployment, women’s rights and education, all matters close to the hearts of Janesville people and Wisconsin people as a whole.

Candidate Profiles

So who is standing in the 44th District Assembly race and what sets them apart from each other? As with many elections personalities will no doubt play a key role, but it is issues that will probably win the day. This year the Democrats are looking at four candidates to choose from; Yuri Rashkin, Sam Liebert, Kevin Murray and Deb Kolste all hoping to gain the Primary position and then go on to topple Joe Knilans on the 6th of November. Lets take a quick refresh of the candidates and what they aim to achieve.

Yuri Rashkin

Yuri Rashkin, 37 moved to the USA from the Soviet Union in 1988. He previously held a seat on the City Council for the last 4 years from which he stepped down in April 2012 in order to concentrate on his campaign for the District Assembly.

Yuri is a keen follower of women’s rights and the arts. Creatively minded himself, he has pursued a successful music career alongside his political ambitions. Yuri has built his election campaign platform around core ideas such as improving women’s rights, helping small businesses grow and expand, protecting the elderly, the importance of public education, protecting the environment and encouraging more transparency in government. He has gained strong support from women’s, environmental and art based groups and seems to be a strong contender in the primary race.

Sam Liebert

Wisconsin born and bred, Sam Liebert has been living in Janesville since the age of 5 when he moved there with his single mom and younger sister.  Sam has actively worked for several progressive Democratic campaigns locally and nationally including the campaign for President Barak Obama and has a considerable interest in grassroots politics.  He has a clear vision of community improvement and working towards making the Janesville community more prosperous, both economically and spiritually.

Sam believes in working from the bottom in order to achieve true social change and has been famous for campaigning for such issues as women’s rights and a stronger investment in the public school system.  However Sam’s key issue is providing people with jobs; specifically good, well paid, family supporting jobs, and it is around this that he has built his platform for the election on 14th August.

Deb Kolste

Debra (Deb) Kolste is another candidate with a clear community focus. Deb has been working in community-focused roles for the last 18 years and has been a Janesville School Board member for the last 9 years.  Her key focuses for her platform are centred on education, women’s rights, transparency in government, workers rights, job creation and the provision of healthcare to support poorer families in the community.

Kevin Murray

Another born and bred Wisconsin boy, Kevin Murray seems to be particularly focused on getting to know all of his potential constituents and has been focusing on door knocking as a key part of his campaign, so that the people of Janesville can really get to know him and what he is about. He is centred on core issues such as improving public education and transparency in government, but in addition to this Kevin is keenly interested in public services such as the Fire, Hospital and Police departments, in order to make Janesville a safer place to live.

Wisconsin Deserves The Best

All of the Democrat candidates are in agreement that Janesville and Wisconsin deserves better than the current incumbent Joe Knilans, although clearly they all believe that they will be the best replacement for the position on the assembly. It is certainly true that the beautiful city of Janesville with it’s amazing architecture (20 % of our buildings are on the National Register of Historic Places), honest decent people, beautiful parks and access to inspiring scenery and countryside ideal for experience days and family gatherings, definitely deserves to be looked after. The community of Janesville deserves to be heard and it is up to you, on August 14th, to decide who is going to stand against Joe and hopefully make Wisconsin a place to be even more proud of.

Defend Wisconsin News Round Up

by Lucy Faraday

Total Expensive Recall: Walker Recall Cost $81 Million

You read that right. It’s been reported in a number of newspapers that the Wisconsin recall of Governor Scott Walker has so far cost donors a staggering $81 million. To put that in context, it is the most amount of money spent on any election or political campaign in Wisconsin, ever. This is even twice, yes, twice the amount of money spent by Walker and Barrett in their 2010 election duel.

The Poll

The financial survey was conducted by the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign group, who are a non-partisan group in the state.  Based in Madison, they crunched the data provided from campaign reports and advertising buys  to see how much each campaign spent. In the end it was determined that Walker spent $58.7 million while Barrett spent $22 million. Walker won the recall election in June by 7 points.

The campaign group revealed a few surprises in terms of Walker’s campaign funding. Naturally, the big hitters were there ploughing money in as is often associated with a Republican financing campaign. For example, Tamko Building Products’ David Humphreys gave $260,000, while ABC Supply’s Dian Hendricks gave half a million. What might surprise is that 77 percent of donations were valued at $50 or less, showing that Walker managed to motivate his grassroots support for the recall election.

At the same time and during the previous year there were 15 recall motions in the state. During these elections the Republican party was able to outspend the Democrats in every contest. Total spending including the non-governor recall elections totaled $137 million. Republicans accounted for $84.5 million, while the Democrats spent $52.6 million. As money seems to determine the outcome of elections (as in who spends the most gets the most votes), perhaps it is not surprising that the Democrats only succeeded in removing three state senators. On the other hand it could be argued that getting three out was a triumph of voter power over finance.

Polling Day Problems

It seems many people were upset with the recall election for more reasons than others. Naturally those being recalled resented the fact they were having to re-justify their elections, but that is just the nature of democracy.  The Wisconsin League of Women Voters complained after the election that many constituents found polling booths confusing and that adequate help was not given at the time. 150 volunteers made observations around the state and 420 polls were conducted at the time and afterwards. The most confusing aspect was documentation, as in what was needed and what was not. As a result, the League called for polling booth staff to be better trained for future elections.

Democrats Breaking Up

The result of the election was a narrow 17-16 majority in the senate for the Democrats. This state of affairs lasted barely a month before Tim Cullen threatened to quit the Democrats and go solo. What was a narrow victory in an overall disappointment for the Democrats was caused by Majority Leader Mark Miller, who apparently only offered Cullen chairmanship of a minor committee and nothing more important. The whole debacle raises questions about the effectiveness of the senate. The only good news for Miller is that Rich Zipperer, a Republican senator, is likely to become Walker’s new Deputy Chief of Staff, removing his vote from the senate until the next election. Still, Cullen now has the ability to use his vote as a weapon against the Democrats unless placated. That is a dangerous game to play.

Campaign Funding

The amount of money spent, the confusion at the polls and the power plays of elected officials makes you wonder about democracy. If the biggest spender always wins, is there really an element of choice and thought in the election? Can freedom of thought be linked to money in that way? After all, in a free economy a person is able to change financial service providers if they so choose. For example, if you can find cheaper mortgage rates abroad, you will go and take them. By the same token, companies and wealthy investors are moving their money to whichever candidate best represents their needs, but what about the needs of the voters?

The individual voted into office should win the argument of what to do about the needs of the people as a whole and also as individuals. These are not just finance. They should not be based on patronage, on deals and favors.  Still, the alternative is to give each candidate equal funding from the state and that will just cost taxpayers even more of their hard earned money.

Don't Let Walker Steal This Recall

Don't Let Walker Steal This Recall----

Start with the students and make sure grandma and grandpa realize this is not the Republican Party they used to support. Scott Walker is not a small government conservative....He is an Authoritarian Corporatist who is enabling the very rich to reduce everyone to serfdom except those wealthy enough and nasty enough to take away rights from WE THE PEOPLE. We have marched and canvassed and we must persist. Do not stop now! He is using every dirty trick in the book and those of you still on the fence...Get out there and drive the votes into the voting booths. Everyone needs to participate this time. Don't cry about who is not in the race....Don't cry about how the DNC did not do their part....Get out the vote and make sure you remember why and how we got here! Now get moving!!!!!!  FORWARD  

The Karl Rove Playbook as executed by the Walker Campaign

Tactic #1:   Take the Offensive

Tactic #2:   Attack Your Opponent’s Strengths

Tactic #3:   Accuse Your Opponent of what they will Accuse You Of and then keep attacking. Example: Walker is covering up the reason for his legal defense fund with the aid of poorly researched Wisconsin Journal Sentinel Milwaukee Crime Statistics….

Tactic #4:   Go Negative, and then Cry foul….This has been an everyday event in “Walkerville”.

Tactic #5:   The “Big Lie”---The Need to quickly pass AB 11 because we were broke.

Tactic #6:   Appeal to Moral Values: Walker---Son of a Preacher Man…Really?

Tactic #7    Sell your candidates persona even if it is not true…Walker the Family Man that cares about the poor and middle class….

Tactic # 8:  Sell an Adolescent Worldview so it appears big problems is really small even though they are very complex….The whole budget mess was due to greedy teachers, librarians, and state workers according to Walker. Authoritarians need to have someone to hate. These folks were convenient and happened to be Union Workers.

Tactic #9:   Exploit the Media…Especially those who support your worldview (Fox News…Wisconsin Journal Sentinel…Janesville Gazette) Fox News proved that news no longer has to be true and that is why they are not welcome in Canada.

Tactic #10: Create Straw Issues: Choose from many he and the Fitzgerald’s put forth. Wedge issues and Divide and Conquer…Lie to Congress and then spin it as being picked on. “One of the Republican Party's major successes over the last few decades has been to persuade many of the working poor to vote for tax breaks for billionaires.” And… “Republicans sell values. Consider the four G's: God, guns, gays and grizzlies.” They now have added…Attack Women’s Rights and take away fair pay and the right to choose medical procedures without interference by the state. Don’t forget Senator Glenn Grothman’s bills trying to arrest single parents or at least try to demonize single parents….

Tactic #11:  Employ Surrogates to do the dirty work: Americans For Prosperity for one and as we have been finding out through the John Doe probe….Others on Taxpayer’s time and doing things that are totally against the law and then claiming you are cooperating when you are stonewalling.

Tactic #12:  Use Emotional Appeals: Unions are to blame for everything wrong within the state and job creators need to be worshipped.

Tactic #13:  Rely on Expert Testimonials from those supported by your donors (Follow the Walker Money…and other biased think tanks) Bush Examples: “Often, these people have a financial stake in their positions (e.g., working for a tobacco company or as a lobbyist) or hold a like-minded ideological position (e.g., a member of a think tank, former member of an administration, or ex-government official). To illustrate, Bush has argued that global warming is a phenomenon that has not been proven by the scientific community. To support his point, he points to several scientists who hold this position. However, the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community points to scientific evidence of dramatic climatic shifts, in large measure as a result of human pollutants in the air.” Walker gets support from the Koch Brothers and Diane Hendricks.

Tactic #14:  Rhetorical Devices: “….campaign strategy taps into a wide range of fears and insecurities within the public that in turn controls their attitudes and—more importantly—their voting behavior.”

·         “Misrepresenting a person's position and presenting it in a form that people will reject”

·         “Take your opponent’s words out of context”

·         “Three Card Monte”---…” makes a false statement. He then qualifies it by admitting its falsehood, but then reiterates the first statement, reinforcing the idea in the mind of the public.”

^·          “Calls for privatization invariably begin with ominous warnings about Social Security’s financial future. When pressed, administration officials admit that private accounts would do nothing to improve that financial future. Yet in the next sentence, they once again link privatization to the problems posed by an aging population.”  Now substitute with Walker claims: ‘We are broke and we are forced to make these changes….’ Take away rights of workers, poor, suffrage, and seniors’ so we can give the tools necessary for local governments to destroy teachers, county, and municipal workers’.

·         Ignore/Downplay the Evidence ….It worked for George Bush…Why not Scott Walker: “When faced with incriminating evidence, one approach is to ignore it.” Example…His pending possible indictment…..

·         Substitute isolated facts and disguise them as truth to confuse the public. This is the Big Lie of Kleefisch’s Fat Wallet job creation in Beloit…The owner bought a home in Beloit and is renting a facility in Beloit subsidized by the citizens of Beloit…The workers mostly commute from Illinois…There was no job creation here because the income taxes except for possibly the owner have stayed in Illinois.

Tactic 15:    Use of Language: Read the rest of the cited work for more stuff:

http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy/journal/FINALKARLROVE.pdf

 Quotes paraphrased from the above source.

And just in: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/31/clinton-to-campaign-ahead-wisconsin-recall-vote/

http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/walkers-office-stonewalled-da-inquiry-record-shows-t65kbql-156065645.html

When Rock Co. business, bankers and Walker are behind the scenes working against YOUR rights, it's time YOU stand up to them!

Hendricks: - "...some issues we're just going to avoid a little bit ... so what we're going to do and talk about right now is just concerns that Mary (Willmer-Sheedy) and I have that we probably, are a little controversial to bring up upstairs. OK? I don't want to - because there's press up there."


http://m.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/a-transcript-of-the-walkerhendricks-union-discussion-805952v-151052965.html

The Age of Treason: Building a Secular Nation

by Anthony Nguyen

     Politics in America today, as is readily observable on almost any news channel, can be a very hyperbolic, partisan, and longwinded process. This aggravating process is only exacerbated by the religious ideologies that stand stalwart against nearly all opposing viewpoints. In the case of the United States of America, the religion “at fault” per se, is Christianity. This is not to say that Christianity itself or all of its followers are a hindrance to society; rather, the detriment is when Christian principles become entangled with the policies of lawmakers and inhibit progressive legislation. Whether it is the promotion of “intelligent design” in science curriculum, the outright denial of worldwide effects of human-induced climate change, or the exclusion of civil rights of counterculture groups, the combination of faith and politics very often leads to the widespread (and often accepted) promotion of dangerously antiquated beliefs. In short, American governmental policies that are based in religion foster an anti-intellectual environment, prevent adequate human rights, and inhibit rationalism and progressivism in the American society.

     Biological evolution is widely regarded in the scientific community as a valid theory, based on its wide array of comprehensive scientific evidence, which has resulted from decades of research in a variety of fields. Fossil records, radiometric dating, DNA sequencing, and genetic studies all attest to the authenticity of evolutionary science. However, the issue of importance in politics is not only the validity of biological evolution, but also the insistence of “intelligent design” as an equally valid alternative. The idea of intelligent design, in modern Christianity, postulates that the universe was created by a supreme being, or the Christian god. This idea would not be so harmful or even controversial if it were kept within the churches which supposed it. Alas, one of the fundamental tenets of faith is to spread ideology and dogma to all corners of the world. In the Bible, Mark 16:15 states,

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”  

     From this passage, one could see how determined and unyielding this religious goal can be. Of course, it was not long after the inception of biological evolutionary theory that the debate between evolution and creationism was brought into public and legal view. The highly publicized Scopes Trial in 1925 was the first trial that addressed these critical issues. The outcome of the trial saw the expansion of the teaching of evolution, as well as the devaluation of fundamentalist creationism in the public opinion. Multiple subsequent trials have dealt with the same issue, even as recent as the past decade. In 2005, the trial Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was the first intelligent design related trial to be brought to the U.S. Federal Courts. The findings, delivered by Judge John E. Jones, were as follows:

“Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States (and Article I, Section 3 of the Pennsylvania State Constitution) because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents. "” (Jones, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District)

     The Establishment Clause he refers to is the section of the U.S. Constitution denoting freedom of religion and separation of religion from government policies, otherwise known as the separation of church and state. Despite many similar rulings in favor of science and evolution, many American politicians continue to disregard the Establishment Clause and push for intelligent design taught in schools. In fact, a few current presidential candidates have even called for the abolition of the separation between church and state. These views are dangerous in that they encourage anti-intellectualism in what is a necessarily intellectual place of learning. The idea of intelligent design is not a testable hypothesis, is not based in any scientific method of inquiry, and – as stated in Judge Jones’ decision above – is therefore “not science.”

Many of the same proponents of intelligent design use the Bible as a justification for their beliefs. In turn, their beliefs are used as justification for their policies. In general, I believe it unwise and hazardous for personal religious belief to dictate policy. Take, for example, a leader who believes that his god has called him to war with another powerful militaristic nation (perhaps Russia, or China, or North Korea). His belief then becomes the basis for his action, and this action could hypothetically start a nuclear war. Thus, his beliefs no longer affect him individually, but they also adversely affect the lives of millions of others. However, a war need not be nuclear or even martial to impact the lives of people. The cultural war that occurs every day within the United States is as good of an example as any. A far-right wing of political leaders shouts out the tenets of “good faith” and would have their constituents believe that this country needs “restoring” and “fixing.” They point to their Bibles as undeniable fact and then formulate proposals for policy, checklist constitutions for a successful Christian nation. Homosexuals should never be allowed to marry, let alone serve in the military. Women should not have the right to choose abortion, and really should not even be able to use contraception at will. Children of all ages should be taught the word of the Christian god in public schools across the nation. Why would they take such stances? The Holy Bible, the infallible word of god, the basis of their beliefs has it explicitly written. The words on the pages told them so, or a voice in their head said that this is right and just. Such are the talking points of the right wing of politics as of late. Meanwhile, the aforementioned groups of interest watch the dialogue unfold. Gays, lesbians, women, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, generic non-believers, and many other minority groups can see very clearly that these policies infringe on their civil and human rights. It’s a politicized and televised display of unabashed bigotry. Much of this talk goes unchallenged in principle. The religion of these public figures has warped the political discourse into a very unsavory territory, that which disregards what were formerly known as “inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

There are many defining features of a progressive society. Insofar as technological modernization is concerned, America is a shining example of a successful industrial nation. However, progressivism has its realm well beyond the borders of industrialization. Much political talk in the modern age could be focused on preventing war, fighting hunger and poverty in third-world countries, and developing breakthrough technologies that might revolutionize communication or travel. But a large majority of political discussion is truly the antithesis of progressive. Instead of talks of diplomacy or charity or innovation, the discussion centers around those hot issues: “should Steve really be allowed to marry Charlie?” “Global warming is a hoax perpetuated by left-wing atheist scientists!” “Our president is a Marxist, Communist terrorist from Kenya hell-bent on destroying America! And just where is his birth certificate?” When the dialogue reaches such unimaginable levels of inanity, one wonders if there is any possible progressive force left in politics that can reverse the trend. Now, it’s altogether unreasonable to suggest that any single person or idea could solve poverty or bring world peace, but progressivism isn’t utopianism. For a functional political body, the views and ideas must first be rational, then practical. We’ve got a long way to go before rational discourse is the norm, and eliminating faith from politics is just the first step in a reformation process.

     In The End of Faith, Sam Harris also argues about the dangers of religion. However, Harris frames his argument very broadly. He asserts that religion as a whole is dangerous, irrational, and should be unnecessary in human society. Personally, I believe that the more specific and attainable goals of discussion should focus on the negative impact of religion on American politics. It is evident from a brief scan of American history that politics is a very volatile field. So, I find it more reasonable and realistic not to attack religion as a whole, but to begin with its underlying problems in politics – namely that the policies based in religion should no longer be tolerated. The perpetrators of these policies deny the sciences of climate change and evolution; they deny civil rights to minority groups while perpetuating intolerance; they frivolously rant and shift the national focus away from progressive issues; they base it all on their faith. The danger of these rants and proposed policies is essentially in the nature of the society that they cultivate. Through these religious-based ideas, our government faces the bleak possibility of becoming a war-hawked, totalitarian theocracy. I believe that the biggest implicit danger that the United States currently faces comes from the overlap between religion and politics, and that immediate action is necessary to revert the national attention to much more progressive issues. Intellectualism and rational thought must be regarded above faith in this respect. If action is not taken, it might not be long before Orwellian prophecies of 1984-ish proportions begin to materialize from the militaristic, anti-intellectual, oppressive propaganda. After all, the mottos of the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984 begin to seem hauntingly appropriate in this context: “WAR IS PEACE. FREEDOM IS SLAVERY. IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

Dear Anonymous Who Cannot Stick to the Topic

Dear Anonymous Who Cannot Stick to the Topic:

I am giving you a voice--but, I am trying to discuss the Circuit Court Judge election. If only you had a name? You are not the guy in the Guy Fawkes mask are you? I know you are one of the 99% -- even if you don’t. I want to prove I have a reader! My response is at the end. I reformatted a little to respond to your main points although I was still not sure what they were. V

AnonymousMar 20, 2012 09:08 PM

"Didn't you plead guilty/ no contest to "Fail/Display Vehicle License Plates" and "Operating motor vehicle w/o proof of insurance" in 2011? I suppose I see why you are so willing to defend Hogue's tickets and his blatantdisregardforthelaw.

I'm really surprised a woman takes such a strong stance against another woman for Judge.

McCory's "trial experience" is a matter of argument. She does put into action restraining orders, initial divorce preceding, visitation rights for parents and many other issues just as Willliam Rentz does who is another Court Commissioner. In fact I believe it is entirely possible to go through a divorce case and never once set foot inside a "Judge's courtroom." Now where has Jack Hoag ever done anything like what McCory does as part of her job?

Did you know in the State of Wisconsin it is not a requirement to pass the Bar Exam to practice law? If you don't believe me just ask Duffy Dillon who made this statement and who is also a supporter of Jack Hoag.

Your belief of the City Counsel being non-partisan is beyond naive.

Now Russ Steeber is an obviously liberal based individual that has the primary interest of Janesville at heart and executes it to the best of his ability.

Sam and Yuri are both extreme liberals looking for higher office and the City Counsel was just a stepping stone to boast their public service while riding on the anti-Walker train.

I couldn't help pointing this out since there is a "Yuri Rashkin link” on the side of this blog.

I used to consider myself a liberal voter but then came people like Sam Liebert, Yuri Rashkin, and many more that want everything for nothing. Welfare, WIC, Food stamps, Medicare, and many other programs’ spending are way out of control. I don't even want to hear the "big business hates the average Joe" argument because my whole line of work revolves around big business giving the average person breaks, deals, and even free items.

I unfortunately run into a lot of unintelligent people that do not take up these offers and then complain they are getting the short end of the stick in life. I have jokingly called it the “Lazy Liberal Syndrome.”

I have recently re-associated myself as an independent as I can no longer associate myself as a liberal that wants everything handed out on a silver platter.

I work hard at my job to be the best I can be and will put in more than my fair share to help my fellow employees and my company achieve success even when my company is obviously a conservative supporter as are almost all businesses. I have obtained more than most people ever will in their lifetime when I only graduated from high school and learned everything else in the journey through life which includes do not even bother to argue with a woman even when you and her both know she is wrong."


Dear Anonymous:

My goodness, you are a very good at distractions, arent' you?

But,I love distractions! And, I love you! I really, really do. Thank you for your kind letter. I don't know what it has to do with the Circuit Court Judge election, but I have a committee trying to decode it. On to those distractions!

DISTRACTION #1: My History of Traffic Violations

Really? We are talking about traffic violations! St. Vibiana! MY traffic violations! You may be confused--I am not running for public office. But, I confess! Please check other states—I travel a lot! Does this make me a criminal? That would be exciting! Well, let's see: we are coming out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. But, hey! Big news! Jack Hoag & I have had traffic violations!

This implies a blatant disregard for the law? Mmmmm? Don't think so! Now, Wall Street Banksters--those folks have a blatant disregard for the law. And, they didn’t even get tickets, or fines, or charges or… Why are people so worried about the compensation packages of public employees but not the Banksters? Oh, that was a distraction!

DISTRACTION #2: Voting According to Genitalia and Chromosome

My dear sir or madam, are you saying you vote for people who share the same genitalia and chromosomes as yourself? And, you therefore think I would do the same? You think I would vote for people BECAUSE they have vaginas? You are surprised that I am against a candidate because she has a vagina? Well, all I can say is that I find that shocking! Simply shocking! I am sending you a copy of "Miss Manners" forthwith!

My dear, I do, however vote for the candidate that I think will be best FOR women, and children, and men and families.

DISTRACTION #3 Experience in One Area Compensates for a Lack of Overall Vital Experience

No, it doesn’t. Ms. McCrory's "trial" experience is not up for debate or interpretation. She has no criminal court experience and has never tried a case before a jury at all. You are more than welcome to support her--but, I think you should do so on the facts. JMNHO.

DISTRACTION #4 Practicing Law Without Passing the Bar--a red herring my dear Anonymous. You are obviously trying to imply that Mr. Hoag hasn't passed the bar. Or, are you? I have no idea what you are saying or implying.

DISTRACTION#5 City Council

Are you familiar with "sarcasm?" Sarcasm is "a sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt", usually conveyed through irony or understatement. I love Wikipedia, don’t you? Of course we all know that the city council is far from non-partisan. To be specific, I was making fun of the Janesville Gazette and an article they ran on the city council. We are discussing the judge's race. Russ Steeber? What's he doing in this conversation?

DISTRACTION #6 Emotional "Buzz Words" That Have Nothing to Do With the Judges Race

"Yuri and Sam" are EXTREME LIBERALS? Scary music. Cold chills. Terror in the heart. Are Sam and Yuri contestants for Rock County Judge? No. The correct answer is no.

Are they ~~Extreme Liberals~~? No. They are two very nice young men who are candidates for the 44th Assembly seat. Why is Anonymous discussing this?

Nothing to do with Jack Hoag. Unless the writer is implying Ms. McCrory is an extreme liberal?

Is Anonymous savvy enough to be telling my readers that people who just hate/fear/loathe liberals should vote for Ms. McCrory in this NON-PARTISAN election? Or against Ms. McCrory? Nah, I don’t think anonymous is that savvy.

More scary language? Can it get worse than EXTREME LIBERAL? Yes. STEPPING STONE! Yes. Dating is a STEPPING STONE TO MARRIAGE! WORSE YET: LIFE IS A STEPPING STONE TO DEATH. Who knew?

Nothing to do with the judges race--unless Anonymous is implying that the judges race is a STEPPING STONE for Ms. McCrory? Where to? Wisconsin Supreme Court? Who is Anonymous and where does he get his intel? I did not know this!

More shocking words meant to emotionally disable the reader: LAZY LIBERAL SYNDROME! People who want SOMETHING FOR NOTHING. ~~~~~Hands shaking on the keyboard!~~~~~

I have looked high and low for these evil looters--and, have never found one. Not. A. Single. One.

Is this a BUZZ WORD CONTEST? “Everything for nothing.” “Big business hates the average joe.” “Lazy Liberal Syndrome.” “Silver Platter.”

Wait a minute? Guess what I heard? I heard that YOU, Mr. Anonymous are on Joe Knilans Re-Election Campaign Committee and your post isn’t even about the judges race at all. I heard these crazy non-sequiturs are all about knocking 2 of Joe Knilans Democratic opponents for the 44th Assembly Seat: current Janesville City Council members Yuri Rashkin and Sam Liebert!

And, Christ on a cracker, Anonymous, no one who can read would believe that you have ever been a liberal voter or even an independent. Sheeeesh!

Anonymous, Wing Nuts, General Everyday Republicans—I love you all. It is easy to do. But, you are not special. We all work hard. Yes, shocked though you may be: Democrats. Work. Hard. At real jobs. Even in the private sector. We work to be the best that we can be. We believe in standing on our own 2 feet. We put in more than our fair share to help our fellow employees and our employers. We work at unskilled labor, skilled labor, management, professions, hair-styling, and even teaching. Many of us have obtained more and achieved more than we ever dreamed possible—and want the same opportunities for everyone.

None of this has anything to do with the Rock County Circuit Court Judge Election--and, nothing to do with my Love Letter! I think Anonymous wants his own blog—attention hog!

Or…Attention Deficit Disorder? Anonymous, you must learn to focus! Take your medication.

DISTRACTION #7 Your Personal Story.

Anonymous, while I am very happy for your accomplishments, for your very lucky conservative employers, for the fact that you are more intelligent than other people, for your superior wit and humor, for your obvious moral superiority over the less fortunate who need help in life, for the pain of arguing with a mere woman (who, of course, knows she is wrong when she argues with such a superior being as you), for your unique ability to have learned through your journey through life (because, God knows, female liberals never struggle or work for the private sector or learn from the journey through life)...

What are you saying and what does it have to do with the judges race?

There, that is all the attention you get! Get your own column! I want my own radio show!

I maintain that Jack Hoag is the most qualified candidate. I am not impressed by distractions. I only hope my support doesn't hurt his candidacy!

Now, honestly, I love everyone! I really, really do. Keep in touch.

Your friend, Vivian

PS Please message me. I want some free stuff from your employer as I am not one of the many unintelligent people who don't want free stuff. Thanks for reading!