So John Boehner has finally (finally?) caved to the Tea Party lunatic fringe. As the country heads for a federal government shutdown and another ludicrous showdown over its borrowing limit, the Speaker of the House has decided to cast his lot with the most extreme members of his party. Rather than try to work with Democrats and the less insane members of the GOP to craft a political solution to these impending train wrecks, Boehner has decided to accept a Tea-Party strategy of vowing to pass needed financial legislation if and only if the budget includes no funding to implement the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare).
Not content with holding meaningless votes to repeal the ACA, Congressional Republicans have now decided to hold the economic fate of the nation hostage, rather than fund a piece of legislation (passed, we should remember, by a majority of duly elected representatives) that they don't like. We could, perhaps, excuse this band of rabble-rousers, who, let's face it, represent the back end of the IQ Bell Curve (their caucus includes that diplomatic dream-team of Michele "Spells Her Name with One 'L' 'Cause the First Lady Spells Hers with Two" Bachmann, Louie "Don't Cast Aspersions on my Asparagus" Gohmert, and Steve "La Raza" King). But what's Boehner's excuse?
Whatever you may think of John Boehner, you know that he knows this is a terrible idea: Even if he believes in the cause--which I'm not at all sure he does--he knows that, politically, this is a disaster: The Senate won't back any bill that calls for defunding the ACA, and even if it did, Obama wouldn't sign it. I guess he's assuming that, somehow, when the government gets shut down, the public will blame the Democrats, but he should ask Newt "Moonbase Alpha" Gingrich how well that strategy tends to work.
But what could Boehner do, you ask? Well, how about show some leadership? How about he goes up to these Tea Party "rebels" and says something like, "Look, you may think you're standing on principle, but you're also going to destroy the country and probably take the Republican Party with it. So here's the deal: You can say whatever you want, but when it comes time to do the business of the country, you toe the line. And if you insist on this kamikaze shit, I will make it my mission in life to see that you end up just like those kamikaze pilots: You will be stripped of all committee assignments. You will get no support from the Republican Congressional Committee when you run for re-election; and your district can forget about receiving anything in the way of federal spending as long as you are its representative."
Maybe that would work. Then again, these are people who just slashed billions of dollars from the food stamps program--a program, incidentally, that puts a huge amount of money in the pockets of Tea Party constituents. So appeals to reason--or even threats--would likely fall on deaf ears.
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
I Can Haz 501(c)4 Status?
These past few days the news has focused obsessively on IRS-Gate: the apparent targeting of right-wing groups for intensive investigation by the IRS when these groups apply for tax-exempt status. Regarding the scandal, here are my two cents (which, since I am clearly unaffiliated with any Tea Party groups will never be taxed or audited): The thought of any government agency--but especially the dreaded IRS--selectively investigating groups based on those groups' political leanings is, to say the least, disturbing. Whoever made the decision to target Tea-Party groups should be sanctioned if not fired. Much as I dislike "Tea Party Patriots" and their ilk, I acknowledge their right to organize freely and without fear of government interference: Indeed, any untoward government interference only helps these groups to advance their overwrought conspiracy theories.
For my money, though, the worst part of this whole debacle is that these Tea Party groups probably should be investigated--along with any number of liberal interest groups. These groups that claim tax-exempt status--ostensibly as "social welfare" organizations--when in fact their primary purpose is to promote political agendas are abusing the system that grants deserved tax exemptions to legitimate charities. How much harder will it now become for the IRS to do its actual job?
For my money, though, the worst part of this whole debacle is that these Tea Party groups probably should be investigated--along with any number of liberal interest groups. These groups that claim tax-exempt status--ostensibly as "social welfare" organizations--when in fact their primary purpose is to promote political agendas are abusing the system that grants deserved tax exemptions to legitimate charities. How much harder will it now become for the IRS to do its actual job?
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Mr. Paul Goes to Washington--and Straight to My Heart!
I feel kind of dirty for saying this, but good for Rand Paul! The Republican senator from Kentucky, a libertarian and a Tea-Party favorite, yesterday took to the Senate floor to speak against the Obama administration's less-than-forthcoming responses to questions about its drone-warfare program. Specifically, he condemned the notion that administration policies seem to give the President legal authority to launch deadly drone attacks indiscriminately against anyone deemed to be a terrorist threat--even American citizens, even on American soil. Reasonable people can disagree about appropriate limits on executive authority when it comes to unleashing death from above on unsuspecting targets; nevertheless, the topic itself demands high-profile, public discussion.
What impressed me about Rand Paul, though, was less what he said than how he said it: He filibustered. And not one of these postmodern, virtual filibusters, either--the kind where senators basically promise to filibuster a piece of legislation in advance, thus requiring sponsors to round up 60 votes in order even to get a bill to the floor. No, Paul went old school: Before the Senate could vote on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director (effectively a foregone conclusion), Rand Paul stood up and began to talk.
And he kept on talking.
And he kept on talking.
And twelve hours later he was still talking, before he finally yielded the floor and Brennan was, eventually, confirmed.
A purely symbolic action? Sure. But so what? That's what a filibuster is: A piece of performance art, a hopelessly outnumbered partisan's last stand against mathematically overwhelming opposition, a final raging against the dying of the light. The most a filibusterer can reasonably hope to achieve is a temporary reprieve before whatever business he or she seeks to prevent inevitably proceeds. But the power of the symbolism derives from the act of that one person stepping up to be the face of opposition.
Suggestions for filibuster reform periodically bubble up. Most go nowhere. The filibuster is a weapon of the minority, and though those in the majority would love to limit the minority's power, they recognize that in the future they themselves may need the weapon and thus refuse to weaken it. Still, one basic reform would provide no particular advantage to either party: Anybody who wants to filibuster should have to get up and filibuster, a la Rand Paul this week and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) a few years back. No shortcuts allowed. A Senator with serious objections to a piece of legislation should have the courage of his or her convictions and stand up and talk for a few hours. A small requirement for impeding the passage of undesirable legislation.
And if anyone doubts the power of a legitimate filibuster, consider this: A legitimate filibuster has gotten me to say complimentary things about Rand Freakin' Paul!
What impressed me about Rand Paul, though, was less what he said than how he said it: He filibustered. And not one of these postmodern, virtual filibusters, either--the kind where senators basically promise to filibuster a piece of legislation in advance, thus requiring sponsors to round up 60 votes in order even to get a bill to the floor. No, Paul went old school: Before the Senate could vote on John Brennan's confirmation as CIA Director (effectively a foregone conclusion), Rand Paul stood up and began to talk.
And he kept on talking.
And he kept on talking.
And twelve hours later he was still talking, before he finally yielded the floor and Brennan was, eventually, confirmed.
A purely symbolic action? Sure. But so what? That's what a filibuster is: A piece of performance art, a hopelessly outnumbered partisan's last stand against mathematically overwhelming opposition, a final raging against the dying of the light. The most a filibusterer can reasonably hope to achieve is a temporary reprieve before whatever business he or she seeks to prevent inevitably proceeds. But the power of the symbolism derives from the act of that one person stepping up to be the face of opposition.
Suggestions for filibuster reform periodically bubble up. Most go nowhere. The filibuster is a weapon of the minority, and though those in the majority would love to limit the minority's power, they recognize that in the future they themselves may need the weapon and thus refuse to weaken it. Still, one basic reform would provide no particular advantage to either party: Anybody who wants to filibuster should have to get up and filibuster, a la Rand Paul this week and Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) a few years back. No shortcuts allowed. A Senator with serious objections to a piece of legislation should have the courage of his or her convictions and stand up and talk for a few hours. A small requirement for impeding the passage of undesirable legislation.
And if anyone doubts the power of a legitimate filibuster, consider this: A legitimate filibuster has gotten me to say complimentary things about Rand Freakin' Paul!
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Three Cheers for Cancer (A Longish Post)
I engaged in a moment of soul-searching. Then, I rebooted my capacity for rational thought and realized that the above statements are complete and utter bullshit. No surprise, really. The source of the image--"The Republican Revolution"--is a proud Tea Party organization. You remember the Tea Party, right? Those are the folks who continue to insist in the face of all evidence to the contrary (and no evidence in support) that President Obama is a Kenyan-born, crypto-Islamofascist just waiting for the opportunity to impose Sharia law on the real Americans of Peoria. Ludicrous!
Everyone KNOWS Obama was born in Indonesia!
Sigh.
Lest anyone come across this image and take the statement seriously, let's take a few moments to reflect:
First, consider the utter implausibility of the numbers: 1,100 murders prevented every DAY (their emphasis) by handguns. According to the Department of Justice, for the last several years, the number of homicides in American has hovered around 15,000. If the Republican Revolution's number is accurate, then, in the absence of guns, we could expect around 400,000 additional murders each year. This would translate into a homicide rate of approximately 1 per 750 people--or over 133 per 100,000. To put that into context, the deadliest country, in terms of homicide rate, is Honduras, whose rate is just over 82 per 100,000 people. I find it difficult to believe the United States population is inherently 60% more murderous than that of Honduras. But perhaps that's the gun enthusiasts' argument: Honduras is significantly more dangerous than the United States BECAUSE so many fewer people have guns: Honduras comes in 88th in per capita gun ownership (6.2), whereas the US is number 1 (88.8).
(DIGRESSION: THE US HAS ALMOST 90 GUNS FOR EVERY PERSON?!?! HONDURAS HAS MORE THAN SIX?!?!? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD?!?!?!?!?!?!? EOD)
Ultimately, we must guess at the basis for the Republican Revolution's argument. Certainly there is no actual data to support it. I went to the Department of Justice website, the ostensible source of the data cited. For starters, it should be noted that there is no "National Crime Victims Survey"; there IS a "National Crime VICTIMIZATION Survey." A small point, perhaps, but when trying to establish credibility, it would behoove one to correctly state at least the TITLE of one's source. Unsurprisingly, I could find no measurement of "number of murders prevented"--whether because of gun possession or for any other reason.
Because how COULD there be such a measurement? How can one quantify something that DOESN'T happen? Even a theoretically cut and dried instance of murder-prevention-by-handgun doesn't withstand scrutiny. Imagine: a gun-wielding miscreant confronts a little old lady, proclaiming his intention to murder her in cold blood. Fortunately, an armed good samaritan overhears the threat and, brandishing his own weapon, frightens off the potential killer. Surely, this is a clear instance of a homicide prevented by gun ownership?
Well, no, it isn't. We don't know that the miscreant would have followed through on his threat. We don't know if his gun would have jammed or if, had he shot, the wounds would prove fatal. Certainly, we can all breathe a sigh of relief that no harm befalls either the old lady or her rescuer, and we could (and should) thank the civic-minded good samaritan. But from a statistical perspective, even so clear a case of self-defense is of questionable value; and how many such "prevented homicides" are even THIS obvious?
Another way of thinking about this: If, as mentioned above, approximately 15,000 people are murdered in the United States each year, this translates into a rate of a little less than 5 per 100,000 people (given a population of about 300 million). We could also say that the NON-HOMICIDE rate is about 99,995 of 100,000: Of every 100,000 people, 99,995 are NOT murdered each year! Presumably, gun ownership saves some of these people, but other factors contribute as well: running away, not being targeted by a potential killer, even death by natural causes.
In 2010, over 500,000 people died from cancer in the United States (600 per 100,000 people)--or more than 1,100 people per day! Thus, CANCER is a more effective preventer of homicide than handguns! Yay, Cancer!
Look, statistics can be manipulated to support any political or ideological viewpoint. The bottom line, though, is that approximately 30,000 people are killed with firearms in the United States each year (that includes suicides and accidents in addition to homicide), a fact that arises not through statistical manipulation but through physics and human biology. When the gun lobby wants to address reality with reality, I and many others will be more than happy to listen.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Post-Mortem
I doubt I can add much to the commentary about the quite satisfying results of yesterday's voting, but I've been harping about the election for so long, as so many of us have, that I can't be expected to leave the day behind without at least offering my own post-election thoughts.
The ever-shrinking part of me that clings to optimism (currently occupying the space between tip of left big toe and first toe-knuckle) wants to think Republican leaders will learn the right lesson from yesterday's drubbing: that the country as a whole has little tolerance for. . .well, for intolerance. Certainly GOP dead-enders will claim Romney lost because of insufficient conservativism, but, while Mittens was undoubtedly a flawed candidate, no lack of ideological purity caused his downfall. Does anyone truly believe ultraconservatives DIDN'T vote for Mitt in large numbers? If the argument is that an uninspiring candidate depressed conservative turnout, then that means a substantial number of Tea-Party true-believers felt more comfortable with the a second Obama term than with an imperfect but at least SOMEWHAT more ideologically copacetic Romney administration. I don't buy it. I personally suspect Tea Partiers turned out in droves for the chance to turn out Obama. I suspect, indeed, that this is the ONLY reason Romney racked up about 50% of the popular vote.
Republicans keep trying to convince themselves and us that there is this tremendous demand on the part of the majority of Americans for some return to mythical conservative values when the facts--the observable if much maligned material of the reality-based community--are so clearly opposite. Are Republicans blind to the fact that, in five of the last six presidential elections, a majority of voters expressed a preference for the other guy? Or they could just look at yesterday's Senate results! If there is such overwhelming preference for red-blooded conservatives, why did Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin in Republican-leaning Missouri and Richard "Rape Babies Are Just God's Way of Making Lemonade Out of Lemons" Mourdock in reliable Red State Indiana, both lose? Why was Allen "Obama's a Communist" West tossed out in Florida? Among a certain Republican subset, Romney may conjure the image of a Rebublican-in-name-only, but no one could accuse Akin, Mourdock, and West of holding anything but the purest of conservative credentials. As Edward G. Robinson might snarl, "Where's yer groundswell, now, eh?"
Part of me hopes the GOP doesn't wake up. Let the party devour itself in internecine bickering until it goes the way of Whigs and Tories and Bull Mooses and other extinct political fauna. At the same time, I worry that, if the Republicans DON'T come to their senses, and something bizarre were to happen, we could end up with a President Ryan--a thought that should appeal to no one. Maybe Boehner and company will face reality and we can get something like civility out of our elected leaders--to say nothing of governance. I won't hold my breath.
In the meantime, we can all breathe a little easier today and, perhaps, for the next four years. And by 2016, maybe Elizaabeth Warren will be ready to take a shot at the office. A boy can dream, no?
The ever-shrinking part of me that clings to optimism (currently occupying the space between tip of left big toe and first toe-knuckle) wants to think Republican leaders will learn the right lesson from yesterday's drubbing: that the country as a whole has little tolerance for. . .well, for intolerance. Certainly GOP dead-enders will claim Romney lost because of insufficient conservativism, but, while Mittens was undoubtedly a flawed candidate, no lack of ideological purity caused his downfall. Does anyone truly believe ultraconservatives DIDN'T vote for Mitt in large numbers? If the argument is that an uninspiring candidate depressed conservative turnout, then that means a substantial number of Tea-Party true-believers felt more comfortable with the a second Obama term than with an imperfect but at least SOMEWHAT more ideologically copacetic Romney administration. I don't buy it. I personally suspect Tea Partiers turned out in droves for the chance to turn out Obama. I suspect, indeed, that this is the ONLY reason Romney racked up about 50% of the popular vote.
Republicans keep trying to convince themselves and us that there is this tremendous demand on the part of the majority of Americans for some return to mythical conservative values when the facts--the observable if much maligned material of the reality-based community--are so clearly opposite. Are Republicans blind to the fact that, in five of the last six presidential elections, a majority of voters expressed a preference for the other guy? Or they could just look at yesterday's Senate results! If there is such overwhelming preference for red-blooded conservatives, why did Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin in Republican-leaning Missouri and Richard "Rape Babies Are Just God's Way of Making Lemonade Out of Lemons" Mourdock in reliable Red State Indiana, both lose? Why was Allen "Obama's a Communist" West tossed out in Florida? Among a certain Republican subset, Romney may conjure the image of a Rebublican-in-name-only, but no one could accuse Akin, Mourdock, and West of holding anything but the purest of conservative credentials. As Edward G. Robinson might snarl, "Where's yer groundswell, now, eh?"
Part of me hopes the GOP doesn't wake up. Let the party devour itself in internecine bickering until it goes the way of Whigs and Tories and Bull Mooses and other extinct political fauna. At the same time, I worry that, if the Republicans DON'T come to their senses, and something bizarre were to happen, we could end up with a President Ryan--a thought that should appeal to no one. Maybe Boehner and company will face reality and we can get something like civility out of our elected leaders--to say nothing of governance. I won't hold my breath.
In the meantime, we can all breathe a little easier today and, perhaps, for the next four years. And by 2016, maybe Elizaabeth Warren will be ready to take a shot at the office. A boy can dream, no?
Thursday, February 23, 2012
The Vagina Ideologues
In what--somehow--passes for good news, Virginia's right-wing lunatic of a governor, Bob McDonnell, backed down from a controversial law he had previously supported, wherein women seeking abortions would first have to submit to a vaginal ultrasound. Instead, Virginia law will "only" require women to have an abdominal ultrasound, with the more intrusive method simply being available as an option if the woman requests it.
(DIGRESSION: Las Vegas bookmakers have established the over/under on vaginal ultrasound requests at zero. EOD)
(ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: This whole reproductive rights battle has really gotten out of hand. Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of vaginas, but could we please go a day without seeing them splattered all over the front page of The New York Times! EOAD)
Well, abdominal ultrasounds. I guess that's not so bad. And it does ensure that women seeking abortions will get ultrasounds, which is important. After all, women need ultrasounds to. . . uh. . . to. . . Wait, why do these women need to have an ultrasound, again? . . . Oh, so that they can see the fetus they're carrying. Oh, OK!
Wait, I'm sorry: This is important, why? . . . Oh, because then they might have second thoughts about having an abortion. . . . I see. . . So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health, then; it's basically just something politicians are doing to possibly make women feel worse about a decision that they've probably agonized over already. . .
Now, I know what you're all thinking: Here goes the Solipsist on another left-wing rant about overreaching, self-righteous, paleo-conservative zealots seeking to impose their Sharia-esque worldview on the rest of America. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I think this law is a wonderful idea. I think women should be forced to consider fully the consequences of whatever abortion-related decision they make. Of course, in fairness, if pregnant women must face this sort of "reality check," so should everyone else--especially politicians who seem to find this sort of thing so important:
--You want to repeal Obamacare? You go and explain, in person, one at a time, to a substantial number of people--let's say fifty, just to keep it manageable--a substantial number of people who will lose their access to healthcare--why this is really good for them.
--You don't like gun-control laws? Go speak to the relatives of the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Tucson shootings--go speak to them one at a time--and explain why everyone must have continued access to guns.
--You don't think taxes should be raised on the rich? Go around the country to explain to people making around $30,000 a year--one at a time--why it's a good thing for the country that they pay taxes at a higher rate than multi-millionaires.
You get the point. If women facing one of the most serious decisions they are ever likely to make must undergo a blatant attempt to force them into empathy, I see no reason why we should not hold our elected representatives to the same standard.
Alternatively, in keeping with the whole vaginal ultrasound concept, we could simply force politicians to undergo a thorough colonoscopy whenever they're thinking about dropping a load of crap on the rest of us.
(DIGRESSION: Las Vegas bookmakers have established the over/under on vaginal ultrasound requests at zero. EOD)
(ADDITIONAL DIGRESSION: This whole reproductive rights battle has really gotten out of hand. Don't get me wrong: I'm all in favor of vaginas, but could we please go a day without seeing them splattered all over the front page of The New York Times! EOAD)
Well, abdominal ultrasounds. I guess that's not so bad. And it does ensure that women seeking abortions will get ultrasounds, which is important. After all, women need ultrasounds to. . . uh. . . to. . . Wait, why do these women need to have an ultrasound, again? . . . Oh, so that they can see the fetus they're carrying. Oh, OK!
Wait, I'm sorry: This is important, why? . . . Oh, because then they might have second thoughts about having an abortion. . . . I see. . . So, this has absolutely nothing to do with the woman's health, then; it's basically just something politicians are doing to possibly make women feel worse about a decision that they've probably agonized over already. . .
Now, I know what you're all thinking: Here goes the Solipsist on another left-wing rant about overreaching, self-righteous, paleo-conservative zealots seeking to impose their Sharia-esque worldview on the rest of America. Well, you couldn't be more wrong. I think this law is a wonderful idea. I think women should be forced to consider fully the consequences of whatever abortion-related decision they make. Of course, in fairness, if pregnant women must face this sort of "reality check," so should everyone else--especially politicians who seem to find this sort of thing so important:
--You want to repeal Obamacare? You go and explain, in person, one at a time, to a substantial number of people--let's say fifty, just to keep it manageable--a substantial number of people who will lose their access to healthcare--why this is really good for them.
--You don't like gun-control laws? Go speak to the relatives of the Columbine killers or the Virginia Tech massacre or the Tucson shootings--go speak to them one at a time--and explain why everyone must have continued access to guns.
--You don't think taxes should be raised on the rich? Go around the country to explain to people making around $30,000 a year--one at a time--why it's a good thing for the country that they pay taxes at a higher rate than multi-millionaires.
You get the point. If women facing one of the most serious decisions they are ever likely to make must undergo a blatant attempt to force them into empathy, I see no reason why we should not hold our elected representatives to the same standard.
Alternatively, in keeping with the whole vaginal ultrasound concept, we could simply force politicians to undergo a thorough colonoscopy whenever they're thinking about dropping a load of crap on the rest of us.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Monday Miscellany
Physician Heal Thyself--No, Really, HEAL THYSELF!
Dr. Ralph Steinman last week received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his ground-breaking work in immunology.
"But Dr. Steinman would never see the message nor learn of the prize. He died of pancreatic cancer on Friday, three days before the phone call from the Nobel committee. He had been battling the highly deadly disease for four years, using a treatment he devised to try to prolong his life, essentially turning his body into an extension of his research."
So basically he won the Nobel Prize for failing miserably.
*****************************
Are You Ready for Some Treason?
Hank Williams, Jr., was fired from his gig as America's official football-readier for his comments on Fox about President Obama. The specific comment that got everyone all fired up was when he compared Obama's playing gold with House Speaker John Boehner to "Hitler playing gold with Netanyahu." While obnoxious, this was not the worst comment that Williams made; after all, one could argue that Williams' comments were ambiguous: Perhaps Boehner was Hitler in the equation.
Far more serious, though, was the fact that Williams went on to state that Obama and Biden were "the enemy." Think about that: Here is an American--a famous American--declaring on national television that the President--HIS President--is "the enemy."
Now, I hated George W. Bush, and I hated Dick Cheney--scratch that, I STILL hate Bush and Cheney. But I would not go on record declaring myself their "enemy." Certainly if I were a public figure, I would not declare to a national audience, some of whom have a (pathetically misplaced) allegiance to me, that these men are "the" enemy.
When the next Jared Loughner guns down the next Gabrielle Giffords, let's hear Fox News again distance themselves from responsibility.
*******************************
A Rose by Any Other Name Is Still a Day Off from Work
It's an American tradition to rename holidays when the initial impetus for their celebration goes out of fashion. Thus, Armistice Day became Veteran's Day when peace became gauche. Decoration Day becaome Memorial Day around the time wallpaper went out of style. And of course National Kitten-Drowning Day became Christmas. Isn't it about time Columbus Day became National Immigration Day. Or at least, National Celebration-of-Empire Day?
Of course, it's harder to change the name of a holiday named after a person, even when sordid truths about the honoree come to light. OK, St. Patrick was a drunk, MLK liked the ladies, and George Washington was a cannibal. It's just too hard to push those changes through.
Dr. Ralph Steinman last week received the Nobel Prize in medicine for his ground-breaking work in immunology.
"But Dr. Steinman would never see the message nor learn of the prize. He died of pancreatic cancer on Friday, three days before the phone call from the Nobel committee. He had been battling the highly deadly disease for four years, using a treatment he devised to try to prolong his life, essentially turning his body into an extension of his research."
So basically he won the Nobel Prize for failing miserably.
*****************************
Are You Ready for Some Treason?
Hank Williams, Jr., was fired from his gig as America's official football-readier for his comments on Fox about President Obama. The specific comment that got everyone all fired up was when he compared Obama's playing gold with House Speaker John Boehner to "Hitler playing gold with Netanyahu." While obnoxious, this was not the worst comment that Williams made; after all, one could argue that Williams' comments were ambiguous: Perhaps Boehner was Hitler in the equation.
Now, I hated George W. Bush, and I hated Dick Cheney--scratch that, I STILL hate Bush and Cheney. But I would not go on record declaring myself their "enemy." Certainly if I were a public figure, I would not declare to a national audience, some of whom have a (pathetically misplaced) allegiance to me, that these men are "the" enemy.
When the next Jared Loughner guns down the next Gabrielle Giffords, let's hear Fox News again distance themselves from responsibility.
*******************************
A Rose by Any Other Name Is Still a Day Off from Work
It's an American tradition to rename holidays when the initial impetus for their celebration goes out of fashion. Thus, Armistice Day became Veteran's Day when peace became gauche. Decoration Day becaome Memorial Day around the time wallpaper went out of style. And of course National Kitten-Drowning Day became Christmas. Isn't it about time Columbus Day became National Immigration Day. Or at least, National Celebration-of-Empire Day?
Of course, it's harder to change the name of a holiday named after a person, even when sordid truths about the honoree come to light. OK, St. Patrick was a drunk, MLK liked the ladies, and George Washington was a cannibal. It's just too hard to push those changes through.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Tea and Psychopathy
As of this writing, it appears that Jared Lee Loughner, the gunman who shot Democratic Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, critically wounding her and several bystanders and killing six people (including a child and a federal judge), acted alone. We can't, therefore, directly blame Tea Party activists for his criminal rampage.
Of course, hardcore Tea Partiers blame Democrats in general and President Obama in particular for any offenses committed against government officials. See, for example, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) who, after Joe Stack launched a suicide attack against the IRS, killing a federal worker, essentially said he could understand where the lunatic was coming from. So, in that spirit, we feel justified in taking a moment to attack the attackers. Yes, we blame the Tea Party.
(DIGRESSION: We suppose that should really be "Tea Party," as this is still essentially a decentralized movement as opposed to an actual group of people concerned with the idea of governing. Just one more way this group of thugs is like the mafia: "Tea Party? Ain't no such thing." EOD)
One of the great ironies about Tea Party conspiracy theorists: For all their fears about incipient socialism and creeping totalitarianism, these people thrive on the very freedom thay suspect the government of trying to curtail. In true tyrannies, anyone who complained about their government with even a fraction of the vitriol expressed by the mildest of TP-ers would quickly find themselves in jail or worse. You don't hear about Tea Parties in North Korea--and Koreans LOVE tea!
We also note that Tea Party groups, while condemning Loughner, warn Democrats not to make political hay of this incident. They note that left-wing groups have committed terroristic acts as well. True enough. The Weather Underground comes to mind. But that was back in the 1960s. Throughout the reign of George W. Bush, the major Republican casualties were self-inflicted, arising as a result of sexual hypocrisy and financial impropriety (see Larry Craig, Tom Delay, et al.)--no crazed Naderite took a potshot at, say, Steve King.
We wish Rep. Giffords the best and hope she can recover. We also hope that some good can come of this. We hope that this tragedy forces people to step back, take a deep breath, and tone down the rhetoric that has brought us to this pass.
Solipsistography
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Breaking News
We just read that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) is in critical condition after being shot in the head at a constituents' meeting. As of this writing, she is in surgery in critical condition. Several others were also shot, and one of her aides was killed.
As yet, there is no word on the gunman's motives. If and when it comes out that her assailant is a "Tea Party Patriot," we eagerly await the GOP's attempts to spin.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
This Blog Is Too Damn Long
Color us disillusioned (sort of a pale purple).
In recent days, New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party has gone viral. (If you haven't yet seen his debate performance, you simply must. Click the link. We'll wait.)
. . .
Inspiring, no? Makes us want to rush back to New York just to vote for the man. We even used that clip in our writing class today. Our students have to write an essay that articulates a political platform: Discuss at least three things they think need improvement in our tarnished state, explain why each of these things merits attention, and propose solutions. Mr. McMillan provided a crystalline example:
"OK, so, what does he think is a major problem?"
"Ummm. . . .The rent is too damn high?"
"Right! And how does he convince us that this is a problem?"
"Children can't live anywhere!"
"OK! And what's his solution?"
"Lower the rent!"
(This stuff teaches itself!)
Anyway, imagine our shock and dismay upon reading Gail Collins' column yesterday. She quoted another Times reporter, who followed up with Mr. McMillan after the debate:
In recent days, New York gubernatorial candidate Jimmy McMillan of the Rent Is Too Damn High Party has gone viral. (If you haven't yet seen his debate performance, you simply must. Click the link. We'll wait.)
. . .
Inspiring, no? Makes us want to rush back to New York just to vote for the man. We even used that clip in our writing class today. Our students have to write an essay that articulates a political platform: Discuss at least three things they think need improvement in our tarnished state, explain why each of these things merits attention, and propose solutions. Mr. McMillan provided a crystalline example:
"OK, so, what does he think is a major problem?"
"Ummm. . . .The rent is too damn high?"
"Right! And how does he convince us that this is a problem?"
"Children can't live anywhere!"
"OK! And what's his solution?"
"Lower the rent!"
(This stuff teaches itself!)
Anyway, imagine our shock and dismay upon reading Gail Collins' column yesterday. She quoted another Times reporter, who followed up with Mr. McMillan after the debate:
Sarah Maslin Nir of The Times tracked him down in Brooklyn and discovered that McMillan’s own personal rent is, he said, zero. His landlords, he added, are “like family. They don’t want me to pay any money at all. I am basically living rent free.”
So hypocrite or defender of the downtrodden? You decide.
*******************************************
The Tea-Partiers Are Morons Quote of the Day
(Both quotes appear in "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith")
First runner up, Norman Dennison, founder of the Corydon (Indiana) Tea Party: “[Global warming]’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview. . . adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”
*******************************************
The Tea-Partiers Are Morons Quote of the Day
(Both quotes appear in "Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith")
First runner up, Norman Dennison, founder of the Corydon (Indiana) Tea Party: “[Global warming]’s a flat-out lie,” Mr. Dennison said in an interview. . . adding that he had based his view on the preaching of Rush Limbaugh and the teaching of Scripture. “I read my Bible,” Mr. Dennison said. “He made this earth for us to utilize.”
We assume the "He" refers to God, not Rush Limbaugh--but who knows?
Grand Prize winner, Kelly Khuri, founder of the Clark County Tea Party Patriots: "Some people say I'm extreme, but they said the John Birch Society was extreme, too."
We have it on good made-up authority that she followed with, "Some other people say I'm anti-semitic, but they said Hitler was anti-semitic, too. And some people say I'm an idiot, but they say Christine O'Donnell is an idiot, too!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)