Tag Archives: Tea Party

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

When The ACLU Thinks You’ve Stepped Over The Free Speech Line…

When the ACLU won't back your free speech play, you might be on the wrong side if the issue

When the ACLU won't back your free speech play, you might be on the wrong side if the issue

We’ve written previously about USMC Sgt. Gary Stein and his trouble with the Corps in terms of free speech. It seems he is bound and determined to see how far he can take this. From the OC Register:

 A Camp Pendleton Marine facing dismissal for running a Facebook page called Armed Forces Tea Party that criticizes the Obama administration is still speaking out but has been getting little support from military law experts and free speech advocates who say he may have crossed the line.

Sgt. Gary Stein planned to speak at a Tea Party meeting in San Diego County on Thursday, a day after the Marine Corps notified him that it is moving to dismiss him for violating the Pentagon’s policy barring troops from engaging in political activities.

The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticizing the commander in chief.

David Loy, of the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego County, said he has not followed Stein’s case closely, but that based on what he has seen in the media he thinks there may be a legitimate concern on the part of the Corps about Stein appearing to be speaking as a member of the armed forces because of his Facebook page’s name.

“The military has a very strong interest and appropriately so to remaining neutral,” he said. “The last thing we want is our military taking sides on political issues.”

Former Navy officer David Glazier, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, agreed.

“He’s really rubbing the government’s nose in it,” he said. “It’s really hard to have sympathy for him.”

Plenty of others have tried going this route before. They don’t get very far. In fact, most of the people the Register talked to said that the Corps has gone very easy on Sgt. Stein up until now. But he seems hellbent to try to push the issue.

Here’s a tip, Sgt., not that you asked – if the ACLU thinks you’ve stepped over the free speech line, you might want to listen. When folks who will fight for the right supremacists to assemble and speak – because the organization supports free speech – when they won’t back you, you’re on the wrong side of the fight.

As the Register notes, this has been a regulation for the armed forces since the Civil War. Does he really think he has a new argument to make for it. As a commenter noted on another post, USMC can also mean U Signed the Motherf’in Contract. Stein is a recruiter. He knows the regs, and he knows them well. And he signed to extend his service. He knows the rules, and he chooses to flaunt them. If he continues, he’ll be lucky if all they do is demote him and discharge him. Insubordination is not a term tossed about lightly in the armed forces. And if Sgt. Stein wants to wear that term like a badge of honor, I have a hunch the USMC will be glad to oblige.

Posted on by

Don’t Waste Your Time – Or Mine

The old adage says that you know you’re on the right track when the other side starts squealing…

So, we’ve apparently established that this guy is ok with Limbaugh’s rants, doesn’t know the definition of “socialist”, thinks I’m a “S.L.U.T.”, and has a problem with people who shave their heads.

Note that there is no response to a request for him to back his words. He’s just throwing stuff out now to see if he gets a response. And then, the “too bad they didn’t abort you” reference. Cause these guys never indulge in this stuff, right?

Mind you, this wasn’t in response to anything… Just out of the blue. I’m guessing that it was in response to yesterday’s post about Rush Limbaugh’s ongoing situation.

Now frankly, I find these kind of things humorous, and a bit flattering. I mean, the guy included me with @markos in a tweet. He’s a much bigger Twitter presence than I am. And guys like this crack me up. Because they know nothing more than what they hear on Limbaugh, or Beck, or Fox News. Critical thinking? Non-existent.

My standard response to these guys is simple – ask them to back their claim. If they can, I’m more than happy to carry on a discussion – even if they can’t help but drop back into stupid metaphors or insult. Why? Because if they’re dealing with facts, there’s at least  a point for discussion.

But as is usually the case for guys like this, there is no basis in fact. They just like to fire-bomb and run away. So, I let them – run away, that is. Once I see these guys aren’t interested in any conversation, it just becomes an entertainment. And when they don’t get me throwing fire back, they get bored. And off they go.

But this is the modus operandi of these guys. They think that bluster and insult makes their point. In fact, it just exposes them for the juveniles they are. These are the guys who wish they could have bullied people in the schoolyard, and now want to do it online, behind the safe anonymity of the Internet.

Of course, we all know it’s not that anonymous. It’s a GoDaddy domain, so make your own judgments.

The real sad part about these people is that they just can’t be reached by common sense. A look at this tweeter’s website reveals birtherism, a strong hatred for the President, and a willingness to believe any conspiracy theory as long as it attacks “liberals”. For example, a post on ACORN – which they call “embattled” – ignores the fact that ACORN was disbanded in 2010, even after they were cleared of any wrongdoing by four different investigations. They claim that ACORN has been spun off. Again, it’s fantasy, but with these folks, facts mean nothing. they can’t be bothered with facts – facts interfere with their preconceived, fabricated storylines that fit their varied and sundry prejudices.

Bottom line is – you’re never going to get these kind of folk to change their minds. Nor are you going to get them to see anything other than the pictures they have already painted in their heads. But the important thing to remember is – these aren’t the people that decide elections. They’ve always been around. The ones that can make real change, that can affect all of our futures, are the folks who actually listen. The folks who can reason, can have intelligent, civil discourse are the ones who sway elections.

So, when you run into one of these gems like the individual above – don’t waste your time. Let them waste theirs.

Posted on by

Stop Talking To Ostriches

Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

This makes it hard for them to listen... Image © 2012 Leo Soderman - Creative Commons Non-Commercial

I keep myself pretty informed. As much as I can, I base my opinions on data, not other people’s opinions. Yes, I probably have a bias – most people do. But I do try very hard to back my assertions with facts, not conjecture.

I have come to realize that trying to express those opinions to some individuals just isn’t worth the stress.

These individuals come in all stripes. They range from the people who still believe the President is some Manchurian Candidate character whose birthplace is in question to people who complain that their health is failing while lying to the doctor about their diet and medicine regimen. They all make me crazy. And they shouldn’t. It’s my choice to discuss these things with them. And going forward, I’m making a concerted effort not to.

Why? Because they won’t change, they won’t listen to reason, and facts mean nothing. For example – one individual I know was recently admitted to the hospital for a possible stroke. When asked about what they had eaten that day, the response was “Coffee and a cookie for breakfast”. The doctor asked “Aren’t you a diabetic with blood pressure problems?” – the individual couldn’t see how their diet choices were that big of a deal. When asked whether they took their medications regularly, the answer was “Of course”. “Did you take them this morning?” – The answer was no.

This individual’s pantry is filled with a diabetic’s dream – pastries, breads, cookies – every form of bad carbs you can imagine. And yet, they can’t figure out why they can’t lose weight. Instead, they look to fad diets, like drinking “cucumber water”, which results in a temporary loss, but no improvement in the long term. They refuse to acknowledge that their own choices are killing them.

It’s like the proverbial ostrich sticking their head in the sand. If they just ignore the facts, ignore the evidence, and just say “Oh, that doesn’t work for me” without even trying, they think they can just keep on going the way they have.

I see the same thing with conservatives. Their need to hate President Obama is so consuming that facts are irrelevant. Here are some classic examples:

  • He’s going to take away your guns! Except the only gun legislation the President has signed granted the ability to carry concealed weapons in National Parks.
  • He’s a Communist/Socialist/Name your “ist”!  Except bank bailouts, multiple small business tax cuts, and cutting government payroll say otherwise. If they call a Communist, or a Socialist, they have no real concept of the meaning of those words.
  • He’s a foreigner! Yup, this one is still around. The “Donald” is still searching for clues, despite the fact that the Secretary of State in Hawaii has produced both versions of the birth certificate. Regardless of facts, they still want to question his authenticity.
  • He’s destroying the economy! This one makes me crazy. All evidence points the other way. Job losses have essentially stopped, and unemployment has dropped steadily. Of course, once the numbers for the standard measure of unemployment (U3) showed significant improvement, conservatives jumped on the bandwagon to say  that we really should look at the U6 numbers, which take into account ALL unemployment and underemployment. Except, that number is also vastly improved. If the trend for the last 20+ months keeps up, the current administration will reach U6 levels below the levels at which President Obama came into office before the elections. And, the Dow is at levels unseen since before his election. GM is showing record profits, back from the brink of extinction. And corporations are hiring again, and showing record profits in a wide variety of industries.
  • He’s gonna kill us with these gas prices! He wants them higher! A complete twist of the President’s statements. He has said that $5/gal gas prices might reduce demand further, but demand is already at 1997 levels, and the number if rigs drilling in the Gulf is 4x what it was when he took office, despite a one year moratorium on leases. If current production trends hold up (and the industry thinks the projections might be conservative) – with no additional drilling than is already approved – the US is poised to become a net exporter of energy products in about a decade. The price of gas has nothing to do with supply and demand. It’s about speculation.

There are plenty of other examples, like refusing to give the President credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden, or the assertion that somehow, he’s soft on terror because he chooses to work with diplomacy first. Every single one of these is easily refutable with data and facts. But that doesn’t matter.

No, these folks will not change their beliefs. Period. If presented with facts, regardless of how valid, strong, unassailable they are, they will actually redouble their efforts to believe despite all evidence to the contrary. Those facts are perceived as an assault on their very core, and their resulting behavior is to simply stick their heads in the sand and ignore what is right in front of them.

How else do you explain Tea Party proponents who want government “entitlements” slashed, but turn around and say “keep your hands off my Medicare”? They want to cut the very programs that they rely on – but don’t want those programs cut when it comes to their own welfare.

In a nutshell, you won’t change these folks’ minds. The more you show them that the facts are against them, the more entrenched they become. And the deeper their heads dive into the sand.

So, I had to come to a conclusion. I’m not going to try. Their beliefs are so entrenched that no amount of persuasion, fact, data or debate will change their minds. So, the easier solution is to focus on those folks who haven’t buried their heads in the sand, who are open to discussion. The independent thinkers who still value information over rumor, data over innuendo.

And when things continue to get better, the ostriches still won’t see it.

Posted on by

Respect: What The GOP Has No Clue About

The President is a cool customer. I'd have been tempted to snap that thing off.

If you listen to the blowhards on the debate stage lately, particularly Gingrich, you’d think they were being flayed alive for being asked questions they find uncomfortable. They rail against the media, against “gotcha” questions, against the timing of questions – you name it. And they demand that they be shown some respect. I’ve got two words for them:

You first.

Ever since President Obama took office – and the Tea Party started gaining some ground – the concepts of respect and civility have gone out the window. Need some examples? How about heckling and namecalling during  the State of the Union address – multiple years. How about flat out derision of the President? Not disagreement with policies or positions, but plain ol’ insult? What about the still active birther movement? All of these show a contemptible lack of respect for the man and the office of President of the United States.

I’m not saying you can’t disagree, even vociferously. But when it just comes down to insult, you’ve hit bottom. And the is where the GOP is. Today in Arizona was a perfect example.

When the President stepped off Air Force One on his way to an event at the Intel plant in Chandler, AZ, he was greeted by Governor Jan Brewer. The President apparently expressed his displeasure with her, as he believes she mischaracterized a meeting they had last year in her recently released book. What then ensued included Brewer raising her voice, talking over the President, and wagging her finger at him. Yup, like a mom scolding a child, or perhaps a servant.

Again, disagreements are fine. Discussion is fine. But her attitude, her demeanor, her means of addressing The President of the United States of America was beyond rude, beyond disrespectful. Had he done the same to her – the Republicans would be screaming about an elitist attitude and condescending demeanor. Can you imagine if someone had displayed the temerity to do the same to Bush while he was in office?

And how many times was Bush heckled during his State if the Union addresses? How many times did someone feel that it was appropriate to yell “LIAR!” while George was in front of Congress? But these current crop of Republicans all think it’s more than ok to do so, perfectly acceptable to show no respect for the President.

A couple of days ago, the NHL Champion Boston Bruins were invited to the White House, as are all professional champion teams. And all but one attended – Tim Thomas, the goaltender. Why? Was there an illness in his family? A prior engagement? No. He just disagrees with the President’s policies. So he chose not to attend.

It’s his right. It’s also completely classless and disrespectful to his team and to the President. But again, that’s the new crop of Republicans. Demand respect and give none. If a foreign dignitary had been invited to the White House and declined it because he “disagreed” with the President’s policies, there would be a holy furor to beat the band. It would be considered unacceptable and an affront against not just the President, but the country. But Thomas is an American, and believes that gives him the right to be rude and disrespectful. It doesn’t matter what your politics are – or the President’s. To be invited is an honor, and to not go is disrespectful to the office of the President, not just the man who holds it.

We see this even within the debates, when candidates flatly state that they don’t care what the rules are, don’t care what the moderator says and won’t answer the questions asked because they don’t want to. As usual, everybody has to follow the rules except them.

Yes, there are folks on the left side of the fence that are disrespectful. Some of the “professional left” are as rude and sometimes worse. Guess what? My daughter doesn’t get away with “They do it too” excuses. When I heard folks disrespect the last President, I was just as appalled. I didn’t agree with the guy, and had plenty of reasons for that. But I guarantee that if somehow I had been invited to the White House, I’d have been there. I’d have shaken his hand. And I’ve have said it was an honor to meet him. Because it would be an honor to meet the President of the Unites States. It doesn’t matter who’s holding the office.

There are probably as many reasons for this as there are stars in the sky. Might some be racist? Sure. Some making it a political play? Yup. It doesn’t matter. It all boils down to one thing: Lack of respect for the President of the United States. Will you continue to stand for that?

Posted on by

Tennessee Tea Party Wants To Clean Up History

You may remember the dust-up in Texas a few months ago when they decided to “correct” text books to make them more “accurate”. For example, references to Thomas Jefferson were to be removed or downplayed because they would include his thoughts on the separation of church and state. Speeches by Jefferson Davis were to be included alongside those of Abraham Lincoln, and Confederate General “Stonewall” Jackson added as a model of leadership. Yup, leading insurrection against the government is a character trait to teach kids.

Not to be outdone, the Tennessee Tea Party is introducing legislation to do their part in creating fiction out of fact. From The Commercial Appeal website:

Regarding education, the material they distributed said, “Neglect and outright ill will have distorted the teaching of the history and character of the United States. We seek to compel the teaching of students in Tennessee the truth regarding the history of our nation and the nature of its government.”

That would include, the documents say, that “the Constitution created a Republic, not a Democracy.”

The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Of course, what they want to do is rewrite history to what they dream it was. As has been the case far too often with Tea Party faithful, the Constitution just seems to get in the way. Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Wait, what’s that 3/5 thing? Oh, yeah. That’s where the Founding Fathers codified, in the Constitution, the representation to be allotted based on slaves. It was quite the fight. Slave owners wanted all their slaves counted, but that would give them too much representation and too much power. But in terms of taxes, they wanted to minimize the way slaves were counted so they’d pay less. Yes, even back then, rich guys were trying to avoid taxes.

The 3/5 Compromise was a way to appease both sides of the argument. But keep in mind, they weren’t talking about abolishing slavery. They were talking about taxes and representation for land owners – and slave owners.

But the Tennessee Tea Party will have none of that. No, they believe all this talk of slavery is misrepresenting them and taints them. Of course, they then have to come up with an alternate reality about why the Civil War happened. And the Civil Rights Act. And most of the history of the United States of America. Because those dead guys from 230 years ago are getting their feelings hurt, right?

Note that they don’t want any “minority experience in the history which actually occurred” to “obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens”. In other words, it doesn’t matter if it actually happened. What matters is that the minority experience is less important than the impression of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens for that matter.

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.

“Made-up criticism about … having slaves…” – Pretty much sums it up. To these guys, it’s all made up. Reality has no meaning, history is just hearsay.

Posted on by

Left? Right? The 99% Aren’t Either

I have seen so many arguments about what the #OWS movement is and isn’t. And most come from the mindset that #OccupyWallSt must follow one “party line” or another, that they represent the left, or that they are being funded by liberals. In some cases, folks on the extreme right have also tried to co-opt the movement to try to change their focus, move them away from protesting Wall St.’s actions and focus on the Fed.

The fact of the matter is, when the #OWS and #OccupyTogether groups talk about the 99%, by definition they are not talking about just one group or another. I had a friend tell me that they did not represent him because he does not agree with some of their tactics or some of their supporters. But when pressed, he says he agrees with their complaints. He just doesn’t like who’s complaining.

This is not about politics as usual. In fact, what the 99% represents is the fact that the political system has been corrupted by the undue influence of corporate money. And that 1% of the income earners are able to have their way with the system, while 99% have no say. This isn’t a right of left issue. The vast majority of Americans agree that the system is broken.

You may not agree with all the ideas for fixing the system, but then again, if the majority agree the system is broken, perhaps we should start having conversations about how to fix it.

The media and corporations don’t know how to deal with something that is apoltical, that doesn’t fit neatly into the left/right, liberal/conservative battlefield. The media can’t figure out how to make the story, and the corporations don’t know how to use the media spin to look good. So instead, they fall back upon tried and tested methods of insulting, denigrating and ignoring the protesters. But they can’t just paint them as liberals – there are conservatives worried about the same issue.

At some point, enough people will be joining in the protest, taking action to make that protest effective in provoking change (like moving your banking to local institutions) that real change will begin. Until then, the media and big business will continue to try to describe this as a battle between the left and the right. Don’t fall for it.

And yes, I did create a T-shirt for this, if you are so inclined : Click here

Posted on by

Moving The Needle

This quote has been used quite a bit lately:

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”
- Mahatma Gandhi

If you believe this quote, you might tempted to think that the Occupy Wall St. movement is on the verge of a major victory. In a little over three weeks, they were initially ignored by even the media, then derided as stinkin’, unemployed hippies with iPads, and now being fought against by Republicans, the media and  the police. If they did all that in a little over three weeks, then the whole system should be fixed by Halloween.

If only that were the case.

No, the fight part of that quote has only just begun. And the biggest fight will likely come from within the movement itself, as it tries to coalesce competing interests and goals into a increasingly more focused action. And yet, the lack of single goal focus is what will keep this group growing.

How can a lack of focus help? Because it makes the movement more inclusive. What killed the original Tea Party was the push to focus on specifics. Those specifics were co-opted by Republicans as campaign slogans, none of which they could or intended to deliver on. Instead, they made more promises, and made sure that nothing they did was to the detriment of their benefactors. What Republicans didn’t count on was the strength of the Tea Party once they got into office. And now, a group with less than 30% approval rating from the average American has Congress by the short and curlies.

But the apparent lack of focus of Occupy Wall St. is what frustrates both sides of the political spectrum. They can’t control this group. Much like the Tea Party representatives that were voted in, Occupy Wall St. isn’t singing from the traditional hymnal. Their efforts to allow all viewpoints to be represented means that no individual group can control the movement – not the left, the right, not anarchists or corporatists. Each of these groups can speak, can espouse their views, but none can move it. Unions are trying, Dems are trying, even right-wing “End the Fed” groups are trying, and none has succeeded.

So, if they have no focus, what can they possibly accomplish? A whole lot as it turns out. Unlike the Tea Party, this movement has the potential to be completely non-partisan. But they will have to resist the pull to one ideology or another. They strength of this movement is the simplicity of it’s message – get corporate money out of politics. Everything else is a side issue. That one message is their strength. They don’t need a plan – that will come. It is amazing that people are demanding answers less than a month after the movement started when it has taken decades to get to the mess we’re currently in.

The minute that this movement becomes partisan in any one direction or another, it will fail. Right now, the movement has support because it hits home with a vast cross-section of Americans. These folks are either unemployed, underemployed, underwater on a mortgage, have lost a home, buried under medical bills, facing homelessness or some other hardship that can be traced fairly quickly back to a Wall St. firm that has profited from the situation, even after being bailed out by those same taxpayers they are now foreclosing on. And all the while, they have paid themselves increasingly higher salaries, while those same taxpayers have seen a drop in income.

The vast majority can stand behind correcting these inequalities. The message isn’t about specific ratios or putting limits on pay. It’s about the fact that while thousands are laid off, CEOs are seeing double-digit percentage increases in their pay. Americans inherently believe in fairness – and that’s not the same as equality. As a rule, Americans believe in reward based on merit, that if you work hard and follow the rules, things get better for you. And that’s truly how capitalism is supposed to work. This isn’t about doing away with capitalism, even if some believe that is the solution. What this movement really is looking for is restoring the fairness to the system, restoring the ability to prosper by working hard. And that is what most people want. They don’t want a handout, or even a hand up. They just don’t want to be shoved back down. They want to be able to prosper based on the merit of what they do. They don’t understand why CEOs are making 300-400 times the amount that the average front-line employee does. And they certainly don’t want to pay for the gambling these companies engage in, particularly when they lose – and still see those who were at the helm of the company be rewarded for failure.

So how does this relate to getting money out of politics? Simply, these companies, these individuals are running the table. They have the financial resources to swing elections, to buy legislation, and to mold the system to not only perpetuate their influence, but increase it. They created the inequity and by doing so have given themselves the power to increase it at will.

So, given the distributed nature of this movement, what can they possibly achieve? Well, the first step was raising awareness. The issue is now getting into the average American home, with protests across the country being covered not just on a national level, but on a local level. By keeping the protests peaceful, they gather support. Every pepper-spraying, baton beating or aggressive move by the police only adds to their case.

But now that they are getting attention, the next step is to propose additional forms of protest that actually have an effect. One of these is the proposed “Move Your Money” protest. The idea is to get people to move their money from big banks to local institutions like credit unions.

This type of protest has been suggested before with regard to oil companies, but always falls flat. The main reason is that no matter how much they wish to protest, people need to fuel their cars, and trucks need to move product. It has little effect. But the Move Your Money protest has a bit more bite. It’s not about not using a financial institution. It’s about changing to a different one.

How will this affect the big banks? By dramatically killing their liquidity, if enough people participate. Yes, it has the potential to dramatically affect the banking industry, as they will have diminished assets with which to operate. And as highly leveraged as many of them are, it could take a few down. But the average American will still have their money – just in a local institution.

Could this collapse the banking system? Possibly. One thing is for sure – there will not be any stomach for another bailout, especially with banks raising fees just for using debit cards. Will it send a message? Incredibly.

The reality is, most folks won’t do it. But it wouldn’t take everyone. It would take a sufficient percentage. More likely, however, is that there would be some type of intervention to avoid a run on the banks. This already happened last week in St. Louis, where a group of dissatisfied customers tried to enter a Bank of America to close their accounts, and were informed they could only do so online – and were not allowed to enter the bank.

This type of protest is what Occupy Wall St. has the power to mobilize by not being more organized, by not moving to one political arena or another. They have gained a voice and a pulpit. They now need to flex the muscle a bit to move the needle.

Posted on by

Economy: Can #OccupyWallSt Succeed?

So – the #OccupyWallSt protests have been going on for nearly two weeks. And to date, they have been more curiosity than successful. Why? Here’s a great take from Osborne Ink:

No blogger has wanted this kind of moment out loud longer than me. No one has begged for it longer than I have. I want this to work so bad I can taste it. Spare me the protestations that “everyone understands” the problem on Wall Street; unless they appeal to Main Street, the General Assembly isn’t going to accomplish any item on any of their innumerable lists of numerous demands. Because there is no infrastructure, and so far an unwillingness to build infrastructure, they have zero hope of effecting change without attracting middle America and using the infrastructure that exists. That’s not “scorn,” it’s hard-nosed realism about the limits of idealism.

It’s a spot on analysis. Every real movement needs backers, needs structure. Need a recent example? Look at the Tea Party. They had no real power and were looking like a bunch of tricorner hat wearing kooks. Then the Kochs and other right-wing backers started pouring money and resources in and the organizing of the Tea Party began in earnest.

They reduced their “demands” to easily understood and digested sound bytes, so no matter how little they were based in truth, they still caught on. People who couldn’t pass PolSci 101 were suddenly calling anyone left of John Birch a “socialist”. The organizing worked.

The latest news from the front is that the movement is gaining support from labor unions and groups like Continental Airlines pilots. But this is a double-edged sword. Unions are a favorite whipping boy for the right, and their joining the cause will only fire up the anti-union rhetoric. With union participation at some of its lowest levels in decades, this isn’t exactly playing to the “99%” that #OccupyWallSt wants to represent.

And should there be anything other than completely non-violent protest, it will be blamed on the influx of “union thugs”, and the message will be lost in the noise that creates. More importantly, they will lose the interest and backing of the people they want to fight for.

The movement is at an important potential tipping point. The presence of union support can elevate the discussion beyond the few hundred who have take up residence in Zucotti Park. But if they don’t use that elevated presence to present the American people with a specific set of goals for the protest, they will miss their moment.

The #OccupyWallSt website has now released a set of 9 “demands”, goals for the movement for change in Washington in regards to Wall St. And they plan on expanding the non-violent protest to Washington, DC to try to get these goals achieved. But as Osborne pointed out, if they can’t distill these demands into something the average Joe can understand, they fail. They’ll get lip service from those on Capitol Hill, with no real public support. And until there is public support, there won’t be any change.

For example, their first demand is the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall. Just try finding ten ordinary folks who have a clue what Glass-Steagall is. If they simply said something like “STOP THE WALL ST. GAMES”, people can understand that tidbit. “MAKE WALL ST. PLAY BY THE RULES”. Something that the average person understands and can get behind. Once you have their attention, you can then get into the details – ask them to call, fax, email tweet to pass the legislation (HR 1489 to be exact).

Don’t talk about Congressional oversight of Wall St. – talk about prosecuting criminal acts on Wall St. Again, simplify the message and solidify it so the average American that is too busy with life, kids and trying to pay bills can absorb it quickly and understand the basics.

In a few weeks, it’s going to start to get cold in Zucotti Park. The number of protesters is going to start to dwindle. They’ll need a lot of support to continue the vigil. And you can bet the folks who want them to stop will do what they can to prevent them from getting that help and being as uncomfortable as possible. Look for enforcement of regulations that will prohibit the use of heaters and other equipment to keep them warm. It will be a long winter, and resolve will weaken.

So, the time is now for them to build on what they have, and take the protest to a higher level. It needs to gain focus, it needs to truly address the 99% they want to represent. My guess is that right now, 90% of that 99% have no idea who is protesting.

#OccupyWallSt can succeed, but they need to do the one thing they have avoided until now: Organize.

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.