Tag Archives: senate

Posted on by

The Wrong Day To Mess With Me

I’m not in a good mood. My congestive heart failure symptoms are giving me fits today. Weight is up, chest hurts, didn’t sleep. I thought I’d take it easy, not write any political posts, just kind of unplug.

I even, for the most part, just blew off the right-wing posts I was seeing, regardless of how near-sighted, self-centered or just plain stupid they were.

And it was working just fine, until someone decided to turn a post about how to fix Facebook settings into an attack on the left, and Christians on the left in particular.

Don’t ask me why, but it set me off. Maybe my filters are just off today. Maybe I’m just tired of the hypocrisy. Maybe my inner asshole decided it needed to come up for air. Whatever it was, I had a rage come up that made my blood boil. Not a great idea for a guy with a bad ticker.

I let loose on the individual in question, but the anger, the rage is still there. And since writing is my way of making sure I don’t go looking for a bar fight, I decided to get it out. So, if you’re still reading, be prepared – I’m about to vent. As in radioactive steam release vent.

I’m usually fairly mild mannered in my writing. I don’t usually drop the f-bomb. So if that word offends you, feel free to go look for cute kitten pictures now. Because I’m fucking pissed.

Why? Let’s start a little list, shall we?

For example, don’t rail against sharia law, and how Muslims are going to somehow circumvent the Constitution and how you have to pass laws to ensure it never happens, then turn around and tell us that the country should be ruled by your God’s law first, and the Constitution second.

Don’t tell me you defend the Constitution then work to dismantle every bit of it you don’t like.

Don’t find some reason to turn any discussion, no matter how mundane, into an attack on your religion, then turn around and try to tell me you know the difference between a “Christian” and a Christian, just because they don’t agree with everything you say. Or question the faith of the President of the United States.

Don’t tell me you’re all for the civil rights and equality for everyone and then argue against women’s reproductive rights, the rights of homosexuals to marry, or the right of a Muslim church to build a mosque in which to pray.

Don’t rail against Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck and the rest of the right-wing blowhards and then ignore it when Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Bill Maher say something equally as offensive.

And don’t dare bring me the fucking “They do it too” excuse. Don’t. It only shows how stupid you are and how stupid you think I am.

Don’t talk to me about how you represent “the 99%” and then break into buildings. Here’s a clue genius – 99% of people don’t think someone who is breaking the law represents them. Peaceful, persistent protest, yes. Doing shit that is intended to aggravate “the man”, like hurling things at the police or through windows? Not a chance.

Here’s another clue: There really is supposed to be a separation of church and state. You deciding there isn’t doesn’t change history or the Constitution. I’m an agnostic, have been for most of my life. Your ardor for your faith does not give you the right to force me to bend to your beliefs. See “sharia law”.

Oh, and by the way, the 1st Amendment protects you from the government stifling your free speech. It doesn’t protect you from the consequences of voicing your asinine beliefs.

For those who haven’t figured it out, things like Unemployment Insurance and Social Security aren’t “entitlements”. If I paid my money into the system, they were an investment. If your investments are so fucking precious, how about treating these investments with the same amount of care, rather than raid them to fatten your damned offshore Cayman Islands bank accounts.

Don’t tell me it’s too easy to get welfare or assistance, then tell me that I can’t get any medical insurance or food assistance because my disability insurance pays me too much. And my rent is more than half of what I get.

Don’t rail against the President about gas prices (regardless of political stripe) but tell me oil companies need continued subsidies. And don’t tell me gas prices are about supply and demand when we have a surplus and prices are still climbing. Meanwhile, speculators are laughing their asses off as we have to make decisions about whether we eat or put gas in the car. Think that’s an exaggeration? I made that exact decision yesterday.

Don’t tell me that climate change and evolution are “controversial theories”, but insist that “creationism” or “intelligent design” are sound scientific hypotheses.

Don’t tell me about defunding organizations like Planned Parenthood and remove access to birth control, then rail against abortion because of unwanted pregnancies. And when you talk about womens’ pregnancies in terms of barnyard animals I have two words for you: Fuck. Off.

Don’t talk to me about how a racist can’t be a racist because he’s not actually a caucasian while a family buries their young son because he had the temerity to walk back from 7-Eleven with Skittles and iced tea. And don’t even defend the very same racist  who is heard saying “fucking coons” on a 911 tape when the kid he followed, who he vastly outweighed ended up with a hole in his chest from the gun that was fired in “self-defense”.

And you better not try to tell me that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. No, stupid fucking people with access to guns kill people. And no, genius, that doesn’t mean I want to take away your guns. It means there are responsible ways to control who has a gun and when they can have it on them, and if your excuse for carrying it is the Second Amendment, your reading comprehension in terms of the Constitution is embarrassingly low. Look up the definition of “well-regulated militia”, and I’m pretty sure you ain’t it. And it doesn’t give you the right to carry a bazooka like an extension of your johnson. You don’t need a fucking AK-47 to hunt rabbits, moron.

The next person who uses the term “race card” in my presence may get a well-placed fist in the puss. Racism is racism, and I don’t care who is guilty of it. And guess what? It’s out there, uglier than ever. And if you’re black, and you see something that was racist against a black, it’s ok to call it out. And I expect you’ll call out racism against whites, hispanics and Asians. Just like I expect all of them to do the same. Same with anti-Semitism. I don’t care the race, creed or religion of the person being racist. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.

And don’t – don’t - defend a racist remark by trying to redefine it. The word “nigger” is not defined as someone who is lazy or slothful. It’s a derogatory term derived from the mispronunciation of “negro”. So using your definition of it to excuse a bumper sticker that says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012″ isn’t fooling anyone. If you’re going to be racist, at least have the decency of wearing your fucking hood so we can see you more easily.

Speaking of hoods, wearing a hoodie and jeans isn’t supposed to be a death sentence. And then turning around and saying that the reason a kid got killed was his choice in clothing is the epitome of stupidity and blatant idiocy. Maybe the problem is the perception that someone wearing a hoodie is automatically a thug, you fucking gasbag.

And no, there isn’t a “liberal media bias”. There is a bias to what makes money. Fox is focused on the right because Murdoch realized he could make a buck there. Liberals don’t watch as much TV. If they did, he’d try to suck that market dry too. CNN, MSNBC, and all the rest – they aren’t journalism anymore. They are reporters. They repeat what they’re told and fuck the truth. It’s waht they can get you to watch that’s importannt. How the hell else do you justify nearly 30 Republican debates with the same questions asked over and over and over again, like there was any real chance of the answer changing.

Another clue for some of you – just because Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul call it “gotcha journalism”, it doesn’t mean they shouldn’t answer the damned question. If you are asked a question about something you said, it’s your own damn fault for saying it. Blaming the person asking the question and calling it a gotcha question means you realize you opened your fucking mouth when you shouldn’t have, and now you don’t want to have to answer for it. Shut up, and either back your statement or recant it. But asking you about something you said isn’t “gotcha journalism”. It’s follow-up.

Oh, and you rocket scientists on the “professional left”… Just because you had some unrealistic fantasy that the President would fix eight years of backward, destructive policies within 90 seconds of taking office doesn’t mean the rest of us had the same stupid expectation. And the most ridiculous thing you do is then decide you’re going to punish the one guy who actually has gotten things moving in the right direction by not voting for him, or trying to weaken him. Result? You allowed the guys who fucked things up for eight years to gain back the House so they could proceed to spend two years doing nothing but get in the way. Awesome plan. What’s next? Tell folks on the left they should vote for Romney ’cause he’s no different? Oh, right, some of you have already done that. Idiots.

Here’s another thing – shut the fuck up about family values while you’re on your third wife, screwing hookers while you’re in diapers, having sex with Congressional pages or trying to have an illicit homosexual hookup in an airport bathroom while claiming you’re straight. You’re all bunch of hypocrites. And don’t give me the bullshit that the media only covers the screwups on the right because of the bias. They cover the screwups on the right because the right claims to be the arbiters of what are “true family values”. The left doesn’t make that claim, so when they screw up, it’s less of a deal. If the right didn’t spend so much time acting like they were the pristine vestal virgins they want everybody to believe they are, it wouldn’t be as big a deal when they screw up. Bill Clinton got blowjobs in the Oval Office, and they moved to impeachment. Vitter does hookers while wearing a diaper, and he’s still getting voted in. Gingrich is on his third wife – having cheated on the first two – and he’s still running for office. So tell me again, where’s the bias?

I also can’t fathom how the guys who are so concerned about voter fraud can’t even count votes properly in their own caucuses.  They can’t complete a simple primary without accusations of voter fraud within their own people. Maybe that’s why they’re so afraid someone else will do it, even though there is no credible evidence that it happens.

But probably the one thing that really, really pisses me off is the willful, even spiteful ignorance of facts. As the saying goes, you are entitled to your own opinion, even your own conclusion. But you are not entitled to your own facts. Rather than pursue fact and deal with issues based on those facts, there is a culture of simply throwing out conjecture and outright falsehoods and treating them as fact. That’s the willful ignorance. But the spiteful ignorance is when you present the facts, and instead of addressing the facts, the subject gets changed. Can’t win with your argument? Change the argument!

Along a similar line is the incessant use of a straw man argument, based on nothing but hot air. Sure, we all occasionally make an argument based on a misunderstanding of information. But in those cases, most of us, when presented with contradictory facts, will at least concede that we need to do more investigation. That’s perfectly ok – we all have the right to change our minds or be more educated. No, what I get really torqued about are the people who make stuff up out of thin air, and when you call them on it – ask for proof – they move on to the next lie, the next fabrication. They never retract a thing, they never acknowledge the facts in front of them. They just move on to the next piece of bullshit. So why does this piss me off the most? Because these people are the same ones that will demand an unending chain of proof for anything you say, and when you provide it, they’ll still call you the liar, and complain the truth is “manufactured”.

Just stop. Please. It’s bad for my heart to get this pissed off. And you guys are working too hard at it.

There. I got it off my chest. Do I feel better? No. But I’ll have to deal with the fact that sometimes, you can’t fix stupid.

Posted on by

The Maddow Blog – Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and contraception

Apparently, for Scott Brown, the only way to win is to pretend the left is the right.

via The Maddow Blog – Scott Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and contraception.

Late last week, incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) and his main challenger, Elizabeth Warren (D), had competing op-eds on the policy dispute in the Boston Globe. Brown, who has struggled badly to understand the basics of the controversy, continues to be deeply confused.
Most notably, Brown believes he has a trump card to play: his approach is the same as Ted Kennedy’s. The Republican senator’s op-ed said he simply wants an exemption based on “moral and religious convictions.” Brown wrote, “My predecessor, the late Senator Ted Kennedy, believed just as I do.” A new Brown campaign radio ad is pushing the same line.

The problem, of course, is that the talking point is simply not true.

Yup, it’s topsy-turvy world for Brown. He believes that he can somehow convince Massachusetts voters that Ted Kennedy would have sided with him on an issue involving healthcare. It’s ludicrous on its face, but that won’t stop him from trying it. But that’s a typical Republican tactic – say exactly the opposite of the truth, say it with conviction, and don’t back down. Luckily, Massachusetts voters are smarter than that.

I hope.

Posted on by

What’s Good For The Goose

When I saw the headline for this Huff-Po post, it caught my eye:

Welfare Drug Testing Bill Withdrawn After Amended To Include Testing Lawmakers

However, as with far too many of the stories over there, the title was designed to attract, and in the process, mislead the reader. The headline is accurate, but doesn’t tell the whole story. The bill was indeed withdrawn, but it was withdrawn because the author of the bill felt it would not stand Constitutional scrutiny with the amendment. He plans to re-introduce it next week re-written to include lawmakers in a form that will pass the Constitutional test.

Now, many have problems with requiring “welfare” recipients to submit to drug screening. And to be sure, there are plenty of reasons to be wary, particularly the right’s apparent desire to keep poor folks poor and rich folks rich. But I also see some reasoning that makes sense. For example, most unemployment insurance programs require the recipient to be able to accept work and be unable to find work. Since most employers now require some type of drug screening, having drugs in your system makes you unavailable to work for those employers. I think it would be reasonable to withhold unemployment benefits from those who choose to use drugs while looking for work. Clean drug test? Full benefits. But benefits that are not cash-based, like food stamps/assistance, make no sense to withhold. They can’t use the food assistance debit cards for drugs or booze – at least not directly. Health insurance? A grey area. Give them assistance in quitting the drugs first.

But the real key here is that we should be requiring legislators to abide by the same rules and laws the rest of us do. You want to pass a law that says you can’t receive benefits if you don’t pass a drug test? Then the same goes for lawmakers. You want to reduce healthcare benefits paid for by the state? Reduce yours first.

It’s a fairly simple idea. They shouldn’t receive any benefits that aren’t available to the taxpayers that pay their salary. If they want better healthcare, make it better for those who they represent. If they want pensions, make sure their constituents also have them.

“What’s good for the goose” is how the old saying goes. There’s a lot of truth to it.

Posted on by

Murdoch Wants To Control Your Internet

No real surprise here – Rupert Murdoch is doing his level best to ensure that the Internet is controlled the way he wants it controlled. Via HuffPo:

WASHINGTON — News Corp. honcho Rupert Murdoch threw his weight behind Congress’ attempt to restrict the Internet, personally lobbying leaders on Capitol Hill Wednesday for two measures that purport to combat piracy.

Murdoch’s media empire is among some 350 large corporations that have come out in favor of the Stop Online Piracy Act in the House, as well as theProtect IP Act in the Senate.

Both measures would require Internet operators to police activity online, and would mandate Internet giants like Google and AOL (the parent company of The Huffington Post and an opponent of the bills) and credit card companies to take down sites that have content deemed to be in violation of copyright rules.

In both of these pieces of legislation, the sites would receive no warning. They would just be shut down. Period. You might be able to get back online after a “review”, but if the site is your business, you’re out of business for the duration.

When you hear Congresscritters talking about “evil regulation”, these two pieces of legislation fit the title accurately. So if the fat cats are so against regulation, why would they consider this? Because it would be another tool to consolidate the control of information into an ever-shrinking number of sources.  When you control the media, you control the masses. By controlling the media, Rupert and his cohorts can get the legislation they want, the tax breaks they want, the control they want – and never have to worry about what it does to the rest of the country.

If you haven’t already called/emailed/faxed/written your legislators about these invasions into our online freedoms – get to it.

Posted on by

The Super-Dooper-Uber Committee Is Looking For Ways Out

Remember a few months ago when we described that the debt ceiling deal wasn’t as bad as it looked? And how the “super-committee” was headed toward an impasse? We are now one week away from their deadline, and they’re looking for ways out of the deal.

To give you an idea why they’re looking for a way out, just  look at the recent proposals from Republicans. They actually offer revenue increases. Of course, they want these backed by tax cuts that essentially offset the majority of those revenue increases, nullifying the effect on the deficit. And since they have all been adamant about not increasing taxes, they’ve run into a a sticky problem. The deficit reduction required cannot be achieved without some increase in revenues, i.e., taxes. Which, as we had previously predicted, means they’re at an impasse.

The folks over at the Atlantic Wire have summarized what is now going on, an attempt to change the rules of the game so they don’t have to do the work they were assigned:

They can’t strike a deal so they want to pull a fast one. With only one week left, members of the bipartisan Super Committee are resorting to accounting gimmicks and legislative sleights of hand to magically produce $1.2 trillion in deficit savings without significant tax increases or spending cuts. The book-cooking has even awoken infrequent tweeter Donald Rumsfeld, imploring the committee this morning to “End the budget gimmicks. Congress and candidates should tell us what they will cut now, not in a decade.”

Some of these tricks include:

  • Counting Iraq war savings – You may remember that when the President’s budget used the expected savings from the Iraq war, Republicans railed against it saying it was not real savings, as those dollars were already being pulled. Now, those same Republicans want to use that savings in the count of Supercommittee debt reduction.
  • Change the baseline – The Congressional Budget Office creates a “baseline”, by which future budget proposals are scored. Currently, that means that savings must come after the Bush-era tax cuts expire. Now, the Supercommittee wants to work as if the tax cuts will not expire, then using the expiration of those cuts as savings. In other words, no real changes, just an accounting trick to make it look good. This is akin to a retailer telling you you’re saving 30% on that coat – after they jacked the price up 40%.
  • Passing the buck – Another proposal has them handing the task of changing the tax revenues to another set of Congressional committees, essentially passing the buck. They wouldn’t make any cuts now, just say that those future committees will do so. Sure they will.
  • Banking on the future – Another interesting accounting trick is that they want to count projected growth in the economy as make an assumption about how much more revenue that will generate. You know, kind of how you like to pretend what you’ll do if you win the lottery. “We think the economy will grow X%, so if we make no cuts, the added revenue will make up the difference!”
  • Just pretend it never happened – The last trick is to simply repeal the Supercommittee entirely. That’s right, pretend it never happened – the JR Ewing tactic. Of course, this would be almost as disastrous for the Republicans. They cut the debt ceiling deal with the promise they would reduce the deficit. By disbanding the Supercommittee, they give up the ability to claim they are truly deficit hawks, and the debt ceiling cannot be reversed. So the debt ceiling would stand, and Republicans would not have made a single motion toward reducing the deficit.
But anyone watching this whole kabuki play for the last few months could easily have seen this was coming. Republicans don’t want to increase revenues, but they can’t deny the simple fact that revenues must increase to bring the deficit in line. So, they can either choose to increase revenues – and incur the wrath of the Tea Party, they can hold the line on revenues and watch as defense spending is cut wholesale – and lose the defense hawks. Or, they can try to change the rules and wriggle out of their duty, and hope no one notices.
Posted on by

Congressional Approval Rating In the Single Digits

A new New York Times/CBS Poll reveals that Americans have the lowest opinion of Congress than any time since they have issued the poll, with only 9% approving of the job Congress is doing.

Of course, the first question that comes to mind is – What is wrong with those 9%?

But there are a whole bunch of numbers in this poll that reflect how much mistrust Americans have for their elected representatives. Seven in ten think Republicans favor the wealthy and two-thirds object to tax breaks for corporations. A similar number favors increasing taxes on millionaires.

In the poll, 89% distrust that government will do the right thing. And then there’s this nugget…

With the nation’s unemployment rate at 9.1 percent, income inequality remains a palpable issue for Americans. Nearly 9 in 10 Democrats, two-thirds of independents and just over one-third of all Republicans say that the distribution of wealth in the country should be more equitable, even as a majority of Republicans said they think it is fair.

Much as the Republicans want to rail against it, these numbers mean that the majority of Americans believe that wealth distribution in this country is out of whack.

Look for these numbers to be used by both sides to bolster their cases, but Republicans will be reaching for straws. Theres not much here for them to be positive about.

There is one analysis I haven’t seen yet, and perhaps might be an interesting thing to look at. That is the relationship of presidential approval rating to Congress’. While the POTUS is hovering in mid 40′s, Congress is below 10%. How often has there been that large a delta between the two? And what have been the outcomes? The gut feeling I have is that when that delta has been bigger, the POTUS is much more likely to be re-elected, but Congress may be in deep trouble – on both sides of the aisle.

Posted on by

Speech: No, It’s Not The Same

One of the phrases you hear used a lot by the media, and by folks wanting to try to justify bad actions is: “Both sides do it”.

The insinuation is that some act, usually some type of violent or otherwise offensive rhetoric is spewed, and somehow it is justified by claiming the other side does it. And unfortunately, folks have gotten so weary of the speech, of the BS, that they believer this canard just to end the conversation.

It’s. Not. True.

Today, one of my conservative friends posted a link to a supposed list of “liberal incivilities”. These were what they found to be the most offensive things they could paint on a liberal these days. And the point of this list is to say that liberals “do it too.”

Let’s look at some of these items from the list:

Hoffa’s Remarks Vs. Breibart’s

The first is about a speech given by labor leader, Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa. As per the quote in the article:

“President Obama, this is your army.  We are ready to march.  Everybody here’s got to vote.  Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”

This particular instance was referred to as Obama’s Army, as if to say that there was some insurrectionist faction ready to take up arms. But that’s not exactly the quote. That’s taken out of context. Here’s a more complete version. I’ve bolded the sentences above so you can see what was left out:

President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. And President Obama, we want one thing: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. That’s what we’re going to tell him. He’s gonna be [stutter] and when he sees what we’re doing here, he will be inspired. But he needs help. And you know what? Everybody here’s got to vote. If we go back, and we keep the eye on the prize. Let’s take these son of a bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong.

Hmm. There’s a whole lot missing there. In the original quote, they don’t mention jobs. This doesn’t come across, at least to me, like someone advocating armed takeover or thuggery. It pretty clearly says vote. And it seems pretty clear he means take them out of office. But when you edit about 75% of the original quote out, it seems a bit harsher.

So, why do they want to make this comparison? Let’s look at Andrew Breitbart from just this weekend at a Tea Party gathering in Boston:

We outnumber them and we have the guns.” (Audience laughs) “I’m not kidding.”

“There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.”

“And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’”

Breitbart basically says that the military is in the pockets of the conservatives and Tea Party, insinuating that the military would join in putting down liberals if the time came.

Now, regardless of what you think about Hoffa’s rhetoric (I think war analogies are not helpful), Hoffa’s was clearly an analogy. Breitbart makes it perfectly clear – he’s talking about actual guns. There is no comparison between the two.

The argument will then be made that Breitbart isn’t a leader. They’re right, he’s worse. He’s a serial prevaricator who has been caught multiple times doctoring video tapes and using false premises to attack his favorite targets. But worse – he gets media air time. Remember the whole Shirley Sherrod story, where a doctored tape of a speech she made ended up costing her a job? And how when the whole tape was seen it was actually the opposite of what was portrayed? Guess who? Breitbart. Think he doesn’t get people to act? Think again.

In no way are these two incidents equal. None. There is no equivalency here.

Tea Party Lynchers

The second example they give is that of Indiana Rep Andre Carson, who said some things that struck a nerve:

“This is the effort that we’re seeing of Jim Crow,” said Carson, the caucus’ whip or chief vote counter.

“Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens,” he said. “Some of them in Congress right now with this Tea Party movement would love to see you and me — hanging on a tree.”

That’s some pretty pointed rhetoric, to be sure. And probably not helpful. But, is he off-base?

To be sure, there are many individuals in the Tea Party that are not racist. But let’s look at some signage…

Hmm. This first one doesn’t seem racist, does it? Yes, it does. These signs appear quite frequently at Tea Party rallies. But again, this does not mean it is indicative of all Tea Party supporters, but definitely is a swipe at the President’s race. How else do you account for such a blatant, stereotypical and culturally insensitive act such as calling the President “massa”?

The answer, of course, is that you can’t account for it. It’s a racist sign, at a Tea Party event.

But this sign really doesn’t point to things such as lynching, right?

 

 

Oops.

Not much question about this. “Hang ‘em high” isn’t usually used as a reference to party decorations or wall art. No, it’s usually referencing just one thing.

People swinging from a tree.

Now of course, in this case, they’re referring to Democrats. Mostly white male Democrats. So, while definitely using violent – lynching, in fact – rhetoric, it’s not really a racist sign. No proof of Carson’s claim.

And then there’s this.

“Hope for the Rope”.

“Change and Estrange”

And a noose.

Unless you’re intentionally being thick, you know that “Hope and Change” is the President’s campaign slogan. So you’ve got advocacy and imagery for putting a noose around the President’s neck. A black man’s neck.

Was Carson off-base? You decide. But there is ample evidence that there are plenty of racist factions within the Tea Party.

Stormfront, the white supremacist website has its own forum specifically geared toward supporting members of the Tea Party. They supported Rand Paul in his bid for Congress. These are the same folks who utter the following gems:

“Negroes need white taxes to survive”

“Maxine [Waters] is a typical low-IQ affirmative action negro.”

There’s plenty more. You can see for yourself. I won’t link to them – they don’t need help. But just a warning: You’ll probably feel like you need to shower with a scouring pad to get the racism off you when you’re done.

Truth be told, groups like Stormfront don’t think the Tea Party is extreme enough. But they figure they can win their war from within, if they can just get a few sympathetic people into office.

Should Carson have said what he did? Not in my book. I think it was a bad piece of rhetoric and ill-advised. But I can’t say he’s wrong.

Biden’s Barbarians

Let’s go straight to the replay kids…:

It’s a fight literally for our right to exist. Don’t misunderstand what this is. Don’t misunderstand- not a joke, not a joke, not an applause line. You are the only folks keeping the barbarians from the gates. You are the only non-governmental power. The only one who has the power and capacity to stop this onslaught. Ladies and gentleman, that’s why they want you so badly. The middle class is under attack because labor is under the most direct assault in generations. You know, to state simply what I stated two years ago at some of your national conventions, the other side has declared war on labors house and it’s about time we stand up!

The complaint? That VP Joe Biden called conservatives/Republicans/Tea Party supporters “barbarians”.

Of course, the problem with all that is that he didn’t call them that. Once again, it’s a matter of selective listening. He referred to “keeping the barbarians from the gates”. If you look that up, it’s a reference to the book/film “Barbarians At The Gate”, about the leveraged buyout and corporate raiding of RJR Nabisco in the 80′s. In this usage, the “barbarians” are not savages, but raiders looking to maximize the profit of the companies at the expense of its employees and as of late, the unions.

So, let’s follow the path so far. The first outrage was about a metaphorical “army” which only looks like a threat if you eliminate the vast majority of the text. The second I can cut them a little slack on – it’s a generalization. But it is a generalization based on observable truths.

But this third one? Really? Kind of stretching a bit here to be offended. The phrase “barbarians at the gate” has been used for decades to describe a situation where someone (person/group) is trying to disrupt your way of life, your business, your livelihood. And that is an apt description of how the right has been going after unions for the last year.

To somehow turn this into begin offended because you think it is describing you as a savage? Seems like a grasp for straws.

Now, let’s contrast this with current Republican front-runner TX Gov. Rick Perry’s statement that Ben Bernanke’s actions have been treasonous, and that they would “treat him pretty ugly down in Texas”. Let’s be sure what treason means. Per Article III, Section 3 of the US Consitution:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

That’s some heavy stuff. And the penalty? No less than 5 years in jail, but as much as death. By the way, sedition is also against the law. You remember Rick Perry saying that Texas might have to secede from the Union?  He might want to check the US Code on that:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

See that bolded part? Seceding from the Union would qualify right in there. So, Perry thinks Bernanke is treasonous for monetary policy, but is ok with seceding from the Union. Just as long as we’ve got that straight…

Save The Rhetoric

Their next point starts to really get far afield. They take House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to task for saying the following:

“The Republicans right now are using the idea of deficit reduction as an excuse, they’re hijacking an idea that has some resonance—we all want to reduce the deficit—in order to not reduce the deficit but to destroy the public space, destroy government.  … You wonder, do their children breathe air?  Do they drink water?”

Wow. As far as rhetoric goes, we’re getting pretty tame here. The only thing she asks – if the children breathe air or drink water – is a reference to the right’s desire to remove all regulations and let business run wild. In her mind, this will pollute air and water, and she’s asking if they care. She points out that Republicans are trying to defund the EPA, the Department of Education and remove as many regulations regarding clean air, clean water and safe food as they can.

Fairly cut and dried. Except that these folks want to claim she was attacking Republican children. Yup, they want you to believe that her statement about whether they breathe air was an attack on the kids, not the policies. Did I mention they were getting thin on complaints?

Why would they bother? Because they are trying to do exactly what she said. But by making her an anti-child demon, they switch the subject for their loyal base.

Meanwhile, lets all look back fondly on the actions of Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-TX) on the House floor the night of the debate on the Affordable Care Act. He was the one who yelled “it’s a baby killer” during debate. Republicans knew who it was, but wouldn’t give him up. The next day, when the rumors started circling that it was him, he fessed up.

So, they get upset when someone uses a question about their children to point out their policies, but shouting “baby killer” is what they’ll try to cover up. Mental note made.

Go To Hell… ?

Yup, this is the next “incivility” they want to quote. Maxine Waters, D-CA, telling the Tea Party they could go to hell. That’s it. No threats, no war references, no references to children or babies. Just telling them to go to hell.

Now, if I were Rep. Waters, I wouldn’t have used the rhetoric. Why? While it riles up her constituents, it does nothing for the overall conversation but muddy the water. But the outrage? Gimme a break. Here’s a hit from way back when…

From June 2004 Washington Post:

On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney’s ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush’s judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

“Fuck yourself,” said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Leahy’s spokesman, David Carle, yesterday confirmed the brief but fierce exchange. “The vice president seemed to be taking personally the criticism that Senator Leahy and others have leveled against Halliburton’s sole-source contracts in Iraq,” Carle said.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the “Defense of Decency Act” by 99 to 1.

Cheney, in 2010 said “That’s sort of the best thing I ever did”.

So, Waters saying “go to hell” is bad, Cheney, as the Washington Times put it “…responded with a barnyard epithet, urging Mr. Leahy to perform an anatomical sexual impossibility” – is no big deal, and even funny.

Frankly, as an adult I couldn’t give a flying fig about either of these incidents. But it just goes to show how deep these folks want to go to claim some type of insult.

They go on with five more of these, raising spectres like Al Gore, Keith Olbermann and Janeane Garafalo. Just an aside, they must really hate Janeane – even Breitbart ranted about her.

They repeat the Hoffa thing – which was already innocuous – by stating that the President didn’t denounce it. So it kinda doesn’t count because it’s a rehash. Besides – how many Republicans strongly denounced the whole birther thing. I’ll wait.

There was only one of the bunch that was truly heinous and needed to be denounced  - and it was even by the likes of Olbermann. That was the video game created by StarvingEyes named “Tea Party Zombies Must Die”. It featured likenesses of Tea Party favorites as zombies and encourages players to wipe them out violently.

On this one, they have every right to be offended. But with the left? Or just some entrepreneurs with a solid lack of taste? Somehow, the video game is suddenly a left-wing media creation?

They’re Not The Same, No Matter How Hard They Try

What do all of these things have in common? They’re a feeble attempt to somehow say “both sides do it”, or “they’re just as bad”. But that fails on a number of levels.

First – in direct comparison – these items are not the same. Not even close. The level of vitriol the right produces, if harnessed for energy, would power half of the nation. See what I did there? Exactly what they do: massive hyperbole, so that if you back it down by half, it’s still outrageous, but folks will actually let it sink in. No, they put out plenty of this ugly stuff, and then try to claim the other side does it too. But the right is far more adept at throwing the bombs.

But the real issue here is that it doesn’t matter if the other side does it. My nearly-nine-year-old has already learned that just because someone does something bad, you don’t have the right to do something bad as well. The old “two wrongs don’t make a right” holds true. Unfortunately, Republicans seem to hold more to “do as I say, not as I do”.

And the media, with their incessant efforts to keep things “balanced”, do their level best to make sure that they present these things as equals when they clearly are not.

The speed of communications is wondrous to behold. It is also true that speed can multiply the distribution of information that we know to be untrue.
- Edward R. Murrow, 1964

This quote is even more true today than it was nearly 50 years ago. When 24/7/365 media runs stories without background, just to be first, instead of right, they err to the side of “balance” when really, those things they think they are balancing shouldn’t be given the weight they are assigned. And false equivalencies are the result, with the fringes entering the mainstream, and the mainstream being squeezed from both sides.

We, as a nation of media consumers and as the people with the right and responsibility of choosing the people who serve us in office, need to be more critical of these equivalencies. And just as importantly, we need to demand that the rhetoric be changed.

Posted on by

Republicans Block FEMA Funds For Disaster Relief

We have mentioned before (here and here) about how Eric Cantor has said he will block relief funds without offsetting cuts. He threatened to do it with funds for relief in Joplin, MO after their devastating F5 tornado, and again with Hurricane Irene. Apparently, the outcry about his positions did nothing to change the Republican mindset, and last night they voted to block a FEMA funding bill, never allowing it to come to a vote. Via Raw Story:

A package of disaster relief funding worth $7 billion was blocked from coming up for a vote by Senate Republicans on Monday, drawing sharp condemnation from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who lambasted the conservative party for abandoning Americans in need.

“Last night, Democrats tried to move forward on a measure that would have granted the Federal Emergency Management Agency additional funding to help communities devastated by natural disasters,” Sen. Reid said in an advisory.

“This ought to be the least political issue going – whether to reach out a helping hand to our friends and neighbors in their time of need,” he continued. “They have lost friends and loved ones. Their homes, businesses and livelihoods have been destroyed by acts of god. Their communities are under water or reduced to rubble.

…

The vote was 53-33, with Republicans uniting against measure that would have brought the aid package to a vote and put a rush on some emergency funds. A 60-vote majority was required to pass it.

“They don’t need help next week or next month,” Reid railed. “They need it now. They need it today.”

He added that because of the increased number of natural disasters this year, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has just over $300 million left. President Barack Obama has issued disaster declarations in 48 states since the beginning of 2011.

The funds are so low, Reid said, that FEMA has stopped rebuilding the town of Joplin, Missouri, which was practically destroyed by tornadoes earlier this year. It withdrew funding for the Joplin rebuilding in order to provide food and shelter to the victims of Hurricane Irene.

So – flooding victims aren’t getting the funds, and the people of Joplin are being victimized again, not by an act of God but an act of Senate Republicans. Keep in mind that this wasn’t a vote to deny the funds. It was a vote to deny the funding ever being considered. Maybe they thought that if it didn’t come up for a full vote, they could sweep it under the rug. I have a hunch those folks who have lost homes, businesses – even family members – won’t be so eager to see this swept away without full consideration.

Disaster relief is one of the things that government is best suited for. But as the constant drone from the right tells us, we should have no government. That somehow, these people should be able to fend for themselves when these disasters happen. As Ron Paul said in the CNN/Tea Party Express debate, that’s freedom.

In this case, it’s the freedom to lose everything you own and care about, and not get any help in recovering. I hope the folks in these hard-hit areas remember who pulled the rug out from under them when the 2012 elections roll around.

Posted on by

Quick Hit: CA SB202 – Moving Votes To Benefit One Side?

In a flurry of activity late last week, the California legislature passed SB202, a bill that would move voting on all Calfornia initiatives to the November elections.

For those that are unfamiliar with the initiative process in California, voters themselves can submit legislation for a vote by the people of the state. In the past, these votes could happen in June during primaries or during the general elections in November. This legislation moves all of them to November. The reasoning is that November elections feature a larger voter turnout, and initiatives would be voted on by a larger number of voters.

On the pro side, this would minimize the effect of initiatives being voted on that use the schedule to their advantage. It’s a lot easier to push through an initiative when there’s less voters to motivate. So more heinous legislation can work the scheduling to have an easier time of passing.

On the con side, This really only benefits one side of the equation – Democrats. The turnout in CA by Democrats is much higher on November elections, so Democrats have better control of how the vote will go. It also puts a limitation on when initiatives get voted on. Because of the initiative process, there is already a ridiculous number of initiatives on the ballot in each election. This legislation wouldn’t reduce the number of initiatives, but instead, shove them all onto one ballot. I can’t imagine what the local media landscape will look like with all the initiatives running ads. Ugh.

In all, I think this is a bad idea. If what they are trying to fix is lower voter turnout, complicating the November ballot and reducing opportunities to vote is the wrong answer. The initiative process is not without flaws, but it provides CA citizens with a way to address their concerns. Making that process more confusing and making it harder for initiatives to rise above the ruckus is not the answer.

Posted on by

Addressing Congress: Scheduling, Games And No Plans

Last week, the faux outrage reached a fever pitch. Were pols and the media upset about responses to natural disasters? Soaring deficits? No, apparently it was something much more compelling, something much weightier.

Press conference scheduling.

Yup, that was the big brouhaha last week as the President announced he would be scheduling what is essentially a grand press conference including both houses of Congress on the first day back from summer break for Congresscritters. The President plans to present a job creation plan, something he has been talking about for months, but has taken  criticism for not presenting. Sounds reasonable right? First day back, let’s get right to work. How could this be bad?

Except that the Republicans had already scheduled a debate for the same day, same time.

And there, my friends, was the earth shattering, angst producing issue. Scheduling.

Keep in mind that these debates barely move the ratings charts. That should embarrass us, as we see people vote for candidates they know nothing about, or refuse to vote because they feel they can’t effect change. But that’s a whole other post.

Now, before we get too harsh on the Republicans about this, let’s keep in mind that this debate has been planned for months, and the White House undoubtedly knew that. Speaker of the House John Boehner told the President he would not convene Congress for that date, and that the President was more than welcome to move it to the next day, Sept. 8. This, coincidentally, is the same day as the first nationally televised football game of the season. The President acquiesced, and the session will take place tonight, although a number of Republicans have stated they will not attend.

Now initially, I was critical of the White House’s planning on this. There was no way they “forgot” about the Republican debate. None. Zero chance. So the scheduling was a direct swipe. But was it also a good plan? That is the real question.

The White House can easily claim that they don’t need to schedule around debates because doing what’s good for the country should come before the politics of nomination. And the original schedule was for the first day back to work for Congress after they took a month off. Plenty of justifications, but the average American looks at it and says “Good grief! More schoolyard games”.

But the responses from both sides made me take another look at it. At first blush, it looks like the President got pushed around. Kind of ridiculous that the President can’t get the time he requested, but he didn’t. And the Republican debates went on as scheduled. But almost as soon as the new date was announced, Republicans started announcing that they wouldn’t be attending.

So – after complaining that the President hadn’t done enough for job creation (even as Congress – where laws actually originate) – they decide they won’t show up for the joint session of Congress where the President announces his jobs plan. In fact, as if to say they really don’t care what he has to say, Boehner has announced that there will be no Republican response to the President’s session.

No response. Hmm.

So, the White House has been positioning themselves as the “adult in the room” for most of the Obama presidency, and seemed to have really blown it with this scheduling flap. But then, as if on cue, the Republicans give him the perfect opportunity for showing that he is indeed serious about job creation and they are not.

Let’s look at how the White House (and anyone who wants to defeat Republicans) is likely to frame this:

  • President is serious about jobs, and wants to address Congress with a plan on the first day they are back from a month-long recess. Republicans won’t because it interferes with their debate.
  • President reschedules for next day, because jobs are important. Republicans start declaring they will not attend. President will express disappointment that not all of Congress thinks jobs are important enough to attend a  joint session of Congress called by the President to address the issue.
  • Republicans state they will not respond to the President’s announcement. Case can be made that they will not respond because they have no plan of their own for jobs and are simply planning on getting in the way of any progress the President will make.
  • Meanwhile, Republican candidates hold their debate and show that the front-runners aren’t ready for the highest office in the land.

I frankly find it hard to believe that the White House is playing this level of multi-dimensional chess. But if they’re not, the Republicans keep showing how easy it will be to bring out their true colors: no progress for the country unless it benefits them first. The Republicans haven’t presented a jobs plan, despite holding control of the House, simply because they do not have a plan. They have one goal, clearly stated: take control of all three branches of the legislative and executive branches. And if they have to take the country to the brink of failure or beyond, so be it.