OK, I finally took the leap onto Twitter. You can find all my Twittering here.
Up until now I had resisted jumping into Twitter on account of the fact that I don’t own a cell phone and I had assumed until just recently that it was only for people texting one another on their cell phones.
But it seems that it encompasses the Web as well so even Luddites like me can join in the fun. I don’t know that I will have much to Twitter about myself or if I will just use it to follow other Twits. But it was fun setting it up and finding my initial group of Twits to follow. For some reason the site won’t take any of the photos I’ve tried to upload so I remain faceless in the Twitosphere for now.
So for anyone else out there still resisting the temptation to Twitter, I can now say ‘Come on in, the water’s fine!’
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
Rick Perry's Secession Obsession
Knowing he is going to face a tough primary challenge next year from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Gov. Rick Perry has lately been trying to raise his profile with the conservative base of his party. So it was no surprise that he went out of his way to embrace the recent "Tea Party" protests.
But he may have gotten more attention than he anticipated when he decided to dip his toe into the part of the pool occupied by the most fringe elements of his party - the anti-government secessionists. Just by broaching the topic of secession, Perry put himself outside the mainstream of American politics and gave political legitimacy to the lunatic fringe wing of his party. If this actually helps him in a Republican Primary, it is a sad testament to the pathetic state of the GOP today.
But as the sitting governor it is completely innappropriate and irresponsible for Perry to be raising this issue at all. He is smart enough to know that it is completely asinine and stupid, but apparently still thinks exploiting this intellectually handicapped segment of the population will prove beneficial at election time. I hope he is wrong.
But he may have gotten more attention than he anticipated when he decided to dip his toe into the part of the pool occupied by the most fringe elements of his party - the anti-government secessionists. Just by broaching the topic of secession, Perry put himself outside the mainstream of American politics and gave political legitimacy to the lunatic fringe wing of his party. If this actually helps him in a Republican Primary, it is a sad testament to the pathetic state of the GOP today.
But as the sitting governor it is completely innappropriate and irresponsible for Perry to be raising this issue at all. He is smart enough to know that it is completely asinine and stupid, but apparently still thinks exploiting this intellectually handicapped segment of the population will prove beneficial at election time. I hope he is wrong.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Tea Party aftermath
How stupid was that?
I mean, what exactly were these people protesting yesterday? Taxes that haven’t gone up in 10 years and were actually cut just a few weeks ago? Government spending which is currently keeping the economy from falling into the abyss?
I think what we really saw was a great big pity party for a lot of people still upset because they got their butts whooped in the last election. Seriously, isn’t it a little late (or at best way too early) to be threatening politicians with ouster? The election was just three months ago! They lost and now they CAN’T get over it. So at the behest of the shrill rightwing noise machine they marched around yesterday shaking their fists and denouncing the government. Yawn.
At best there were a lot of people who are just a little confused and misinformed about how the world works (and particularly how the government works). At worst you had some extreme elements angry because a black guy (i.e. a “socialist”) got elected president and now they are ready to secede, revolt, whine or whatever. In some ways the protest reminded me of the anti-government militia groups I used to cover in the mid-90s out in the Texas Hill Country before the Oklahoma City bombing sent them all scurrying back into the woodwork.
There was one event that I covered in Boerne sometime around 1994-95 that was called Patriots for Freedom or something like that. It featured a lot of the far-right fringe groups, offshoots of the John Birch Society, secessionist anti-government groups and the militias - gun-toting nutjobs threatening to revolt over taxes. They had all kinds of booths set up with vendors selling automatic weapons and artillery, books on how to avoid paying taxes, lots of literature about how the federal government is illegitimate and, of course, Impeach Clinton bumper stickers.
I imagine that some of the people who went to that Boerne confab were probably at the Tea Party yesterday. The Express-News estimated the crowd to be about 5,000, which is a lot, but apparently not enough for the Tea Party organizers who inflated that number to 16,000 on their web site.
Some people objected to the group using the Alamo as a backdrop for their protest. That doesn’t bother me. The Alamo belongs to everybody. As long as they weren’t relieving themselves on the wall outside or otherwise trashing the place, I have no problem with them holding a civil protest in the vicinity. But the spectacle of these people wrapping themselves in the flag and gushing over the Pledge of Allegiance and God Bless America while at the same time ranting about how much they hate the government and want to secede from the union would have been an embarrassment to our forefathers if they had been here to see it.
I, of course, did not attend the Tea Party. I hate big crowds and avoid them whenever I can. Plus there were much more important things to do last night, like watch the Spurs play. But I’ll be curious to see what the wingnuts do next as the glow of their big party wears off and they recede back into the political obscurity that the 2008 election results gave them.
Update
I just saw this at Daily Kos and had to add it:
I mean, what exactly were these people protesting yesterday? Taxes that haven’t gone up in 10 years and were actually cut just a few weeks ago? Government spending which is currently keeping the economy from falling into the abyss?
I think what we really saw was a great big pity party for a lot of people still upset because they got their butts whooped in the last election. Seriously, isn’t it a little late (or at best way too early) to be threatening politicians with ouster? The election was just three months ago! They lost and now they CAN’T get over it. So at the behest of the shrill rightwing noise machine they marched around yesterday shaking their fists and denouncing the government. Yawn.
At best there were a lot of people who are just a little confused and misinformed about how the world works (and particularly how the government works). At worst you had some extreme elements angry because a black guy (i.e. a “socialist”) got elected president and now they are ready to secede, revolt, whine or whatever. In some ways the protest reminded me of the anti-government militia groups I used to cover in the mid-90s out in the Texas Hill Country before the Oklahoma City bombing sent them all scurrying back into the woodwork.
There was one event that I covered in Boerne sometime around 1994-95 that was called Patriots for Freedom or something like that. It featured a lot of the far-right fringe groups, offshoots of the John Birch Society, secessionist anti-government groups and the militias - gun-toting nutjobs threatening to revolt over taxes. They had all kinds of booths set up with vendors selling automatic weapons and artillery, books on how to avoid paying taxes, lots of literature about how the federal government is illegitimate and, of course, Impeach Clinton bumper stickers.
I imagine that some of the people who went to that Boerne confab were probably at the Tea Party yesterday. The Express-News estimated the crowd to be about 5,000, which is a lot, but apparently not enough for the Tea Party organizers who inflated that number to 16,000 on their web site.
Some people objected to the group using the Alamo as a backdrop for their protest. That doesn’t bother me. The Alamo belongs to everybody. As long as they weren’t relieving themselves on the wall outside or otherwise trashing the place, I have no problem with them holding a civil protest in the vicinity. But the spectacle of these people wrapping themselves in the flag and gushing over the Pledge of Allegiance and God Bless America while at the same time ranting about how much they hate the government and want to secede from the union would have been an embarrassment to our forefathers if they had been here to see it.
I, of course, did not attend the Tea Party. I hate big crowds and avoid them whenever I can. Plus there were much more important things to do last night, like watch the Spurs play. But I’ll be curious to see what the wingnuts do next as the glow of their big party wears off and they recede back into the political obscurity that the 2008 election results gave them.
Update
I just saw this at Daily Kos and had to add it:
So here’s the basic lesson of the teabagging hissy fit. The new Republican “theory” of democracy:
GOP wins: “Mandate! Elections have consequences!”
GOP loses: “Tyranny! Fascism! Revolution! Secession!
A Citizens Guide to Tax Demagoguery
Robert Reich has a great post up that answers and counters many of the bogus claims made by the clueless teabaggers yesterday.
No one likes to pay taxes, so tax day typically attracts a range of right-wing Republicans, kooks, and demagogues, all of whom tell us how awful we have it. Herewith a short citizen's guide (that is, a citizen's guide that's short rather than a guide for short citizens) responding to the predictable charges:
1. "Americans pay too much in taxes." Wrong: The United States has the lowest taxes of all developed nations.
2. "The rich pay too much! The top ten percent of income earners pay over 72 percent of all income taxes!" Misleading: The main reason the rich pay such a large percent is they've become so much richer than the bottom 90 percent in recent years. If you look at what they pay as individuals -- the percent of their incomes over and above the highest rate below them -- you'll see a steady decline over the years. When Republican Dwight Eisenhower was president, the marginal rate on the highest earners was 91 percent (after deductions and tax credits, closer to 50 percent); by 1980 it was still up there, at 70 percent (an effective rate of closer to 45 percent); under Bill Clinton, it was 38 percent (an effective rate closer to 28 percent).
Look at the after-tax earnings of families and you'll see what's really going on. Between 1980 and 2000, the after-tax earnings of famlies at the top rose more than 150 percent, while the after-tax earnings of families in the middle rose about 10 percent. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 raised the after-tax incomes of most Americans by a bit over 1 percent -- but raised the after-tax incomes of millionaires by 4.4 percent.
3. "The bottom 60 percent pay only 3.3 percent of the taxes!" Misleading again. Most Americans are paying more in sales taxes than they ever have. Property taxes have also been rising at a steady clip. And Social Security taxes have also risen (thanks to the Greenspan Commission), while earnings over about $100,000 aren't subject to Social Security taxes. So-called "sin" taxes (mostly beer and cigarettes) have also skyrocketed. All of these taxes take a bigger bite out of the paychecks of people with lower incomes than they do people with higher incomes.
4. "Obama is raising your taxes!" Wrong. Obama is cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans, by about $400 per person a year -- not a whopping tax cut, to be sure, but not a tax increase by any stretch. Only the top 2 percent will have a tax increase, but even this tax increase is modest. Basically, they go back to the rates they were paying under Bill Clinton (their deductions will be limited to 28 percent, which is only fair). And they won't start paying this until 2011 anyway.
5. "The huge debts we're wracking up will cause your taxes to rise!" Wrong again. When it comes to the national debt, as I've said before, the relevant statistic is the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product. The only sure way to bring that debt down and make it manageable in future years is to get the economy growing again -- which requires that, in the short term, the government spend a lot of money (because consumers and businesses won't). In the long term, the biggest source of concern is rising health-care costs. And that's something Obama and Congress are aiming to tackle.
6. "We have a patriotic duty to stand up against Washington taxes!" Just the opposite. We have a patriotic duty to pay taxes. As multi-billionaire Warrent Buffett put it, "If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you'll find out how much this talent is going to product in the wrong kind of soil. I will be struggling thirty years later." President Teddy Roosevelt made the case in 1906 when he argued in favor of continuing the inheritance tax. "The man of great wealth owes a particular obligation to the state because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."
An acquaintance from law school, now a partner in one of Washington's biggest and wealthiest law firms, explained to me one day over lunch how he and his partners use tax rules to create offsetting taxable gains and losses, and then allocate the gains to the firm's foreign partners who don't pay taxes in the United States. That way, they keep the losses here and shelter their income abroad. I noticed he had an American flag lapel pin. "You're supporting our troops," I said, referring to his pin. "Yup," he replied, entirely missing my point.
True patriotism isn't cheap. It's about taking on a fair share of the burden of keeping America going.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Tea Party program
Anyone curious about who is going to speak at the big San Antonio "Tea Party" in front of the Alamo? Here is the agenda from their website:
The first thing that strikes me is that it is going to take a half hour just to get through the prayer, pledge of allegiance and "God Bless America". Then they foolishly think that Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent are both going to give up the microphone after just 10 minutes.
But who are all these other people speaking at this "non-partisan" event? I did a little Googling and this is what I came up with...
Edward Jaax appears to be a graduate of something called Patriot Academy, which bills itself as the "premier conservative political training camp in the nation" and "a five-day political training program where students age sixteen to twenty-five learn about America's system of government from a Biblical worldview." It sounds creepy to me.
Next is Phil Pepin, a Ron Paul supporter who is connected with something called CampaignForLibertySA. So this must be where the "non-partisanship" comes in. The teabaggers range from far-rightwing Republicans to far-rightwing Libertarians.
Next is Terri Hall who I am assuming is the person associated with the Texas Toll Party, a rightwing activist group opposing toll roads.
Doug Phillips must be this guy. He apparently sells books and other merchandise targeted toward homeschoolers. This is from his website:
OK, then.
And finally, it looks like attendees will be subjected to a song from Steve Vaus.
It all sounds like sooooo much fun!
6:00p.m.-6:10p.m. - Prayer/Welcome (Adam McManus)
6:10p.m.-6:15p.m. - Pledge of allegiance (Seth Alfaro and Gavin Carmona)
6:15p.m-6:20p.m. - “God Bless America” (Jean French)
6:20p.m.-6:30p.m. - “The Alamo: A Line in the Sand” (Julia Hayden)
6:30p.m.-6:40p.m. - Opening Remarks (Glenn Beck)
6:40p.m.-6:50p.m. - National Anthem (Ted Nugent)
6:50p.m.-7:00p.m. - “An Immigrant’s Story” (Katharine Moreno)
7:00p.m.-7:10p.m. - “The Duty of a Citizen” (Edward Jaax)
7:10p.m.-7:20p.m. - “The War on Economic Freedom” (Phil Pepin)
7:20p.m.-7:40p.m. - “Texas for Sale” (Terri Hall)
7:40p.m.-8:00p.m. - “Freedom at Risk” (Doug Phillips)
8:00 p.m.- 8:15 p.m. - “What You Can Do Now
8:15 p.m. - “We Must Take America Back” Steve Vaus
The first thing that strikes me is that it is going to take a half hour just to get through the prayer, pledge of allegiance and "God Bless America". Then they foolishly think that Glenn Beck and Ted Nugent are both going to give up the microphone after just 10 minutes.
But who are all these other people speaking at this "non-partisan" event? I did a little Googling and this is what I came up with...
Edward Jaax appears to be a graduate of something called Patriot Academy, which bills itself as the "premier conservative political training camp in the nation" and "a five-day political training program where students age sixteen to twenty-five learn about America's system of government from a Biblical worldview." It sounds creepy to me.
Next is Phil Pepin, a Ron Paul supporter who is connected with something called CampaignForLibertySA. So this must be where the "non-partisanship" comes in. The teabaggers range from far-rightwing Republicans to far-rightwing Libertarians.
Next is Terri Hall who I am assuming is the person associated with the Texas Toll Party, a rightwing activist group opposing toll roads.
Doug Phillips must be this guy. He apparently sells books and other merchandise targeted toward homeschoolers. This is from his website:
Everything on our site is an expression of our mission: to rebuild Christian family culture. At Vision Forum, we are unabashed advocates for the historic, biblical ideal for motherhood and fatherhood; we rejoice in the revival of biblical education promoted through the home school movement; and we dare to believe that it is still noble and virtuous to train our sons to hold the doors for our daughters...
OK, then.
And finally, it looks like attendees will be subjected to a song from Steve Vaus.
It all sounds like sooooo much fun!
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A very balanced panel of judges
A three-judge panel in Minnesota has looked at all the evidence and the arguments surrounding the tedious, lengthy recount of the Senate election and has determined unanimously that Al Franken is the winner.
And yet, Republican Norm Coleman is still going to appeal the results to the state Supreme Court.
So was the three-judge panel not good enough? Were they biased against Coleman? What was the political makeup of the panel?
It turns out the panel was exceedingly well balanced with one judge appointed by a Democrat, one judge appointed by a Republican and one judge appointed by an independent (Jesse Ventura). You can’t get much more balanced than that. And did I mention that they were unanimous in their decision?
But none of that really matters to Coleman or the Republican Party which at this point is simply trying to keep Democrats from getting another vote in the Senate for as long as possible.
One question that I have. Since Franken was elected to a six-year term in the Senate, when does the clock start on that term? When he finally gets sworn in? Or has it already started back on election day?
It hardly seems fair if that is the case.
Here is hoping that the Minnesota Supreme Court will bring this to a rapid conclusion and I hope the voters in Minnesota won’t soon forget how Republicans screwed them out of representation and seniority in the Senate.
And yet, Republican Norm Coleman is still going to appeal the results to the state Supreme Court.
So was the three-judge panel not good enough? Were they biased against Coleman? What was the political makeup of the panel?
It turns out the panel was exceedingly well balanced with one judge appointed by a Democrat, one judge appointed by a Republican and one judge appointed by an independent (Jesse Ventura). You can’t get much more balanced than that. And did I mention that they were unanimous in their decision?
But none of that really matters to Coleman or the Republican Party which at this point is simply trying to keep Democrats from getting another vote in the Senate for as long as possible.
One question that I have. Since Franken was elected to a six-year term in the Senate, when does the clock start on that term? When he finally gets sworn in? Or has it already started back on election day?
It hardly seems fair if that is the case.
Here is hoping that the Minnesota Supreme Court will bring this to a rapid conclusion and I hope the voters in Minnesota won’t soon forget how Republicans screwed them out of representation and seniority in the Senate.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Of Puppies and Pirates
I was having to defend President Obama this weekend over his supposed mishandling of the pirate hostage crisis off the coast of Somalia. We apparently weren’t being tough enough and were sitting around holding hands and singing Kumbayah or something. But before the day was over I learned that we were doing a bit more than hand-holding and hymn-singing. Three of the four pirates ended up with holes in their heads courtesy of Navy SEAL sniper fire and the captain of the vessel who was taken hostage was free and unharmed.
You really couldn’t have asked for a better ending, unless of course you are a fanatical, far-rightwing Obama-hater like this guy.
Beldar, who I lost all respect for long ago, is not satisfied with this outcome. His thirst for blood is not satiated and he wants the fourth pirate, now in captivity, to be put to death. He also goes on to spit at Obama and try and twist the story to make it seem like he was guilty of intentionally prolonging the crisis. The rightwing radio yakkers quickly followed suit. It was truly ridiculous and people who are not wrapped up in the cult could see that it wouldn’t have mattered what Obama did or didn’t do. He could have swum out there and personally slit the throats of all the pirates and STILL would have been criticized by the wingnuts as being soft on terrorism or piratism or whatever.
Obama’s recent trip to Europe was nitpicked at every opportunity for percieved improprieties or lack of protocol. They sniped about the gift he gave the Queen. They complained about Michelle Obama breaking protocol by hugging the queen. They went completely nuts when Obama bent down to grasp the Saudi King’s hands saying it was a “bow.”
With the economy starting to turn around, the stock market beginning to recover and banks starting to pay back their TARP loans, it’s like the right has become extremely desperate to find something - anything! - to bash Obama over the head with.
That became even more evident when Newt Gingrich grumped that the news stories about the Obama family’s new dog were “fairly stupid” and whined that nobody cares where the dog came from.
What was really stupid is why the news media keeps interviewing Newt Gingrich. Who cares what he has to say?
You really couldn’t have asked for a better ending, unless of course you are a fanatical, far-rightwing Obama-hater like this guy.
Beldar, who I lost all respect for long ago, is not satisfied with this outcome. His thirst for blood is not satiated and he wants the fourth pirate, now in captivity, to be put to death. He also goes on to spit at Obama and try and twist the story to make it seem like he was guilty of intentionally prolonging the crisis. The rightwing radio yakkers quickly followed suit. It was truly ridiculous and people who are not wrapped up in the cult could see that it wouldn’t have mattered what Obama did or didn’t do. He could have swum out there and personally slit the throats of all the pirates and STILL would have been criticized by the wingnuts as being soft on terrorism or piratism or whatever.
Obama’s recent trip to Europe was nitpicked at every opportunity for percieved improprieties or lack of protocol. They sniped about the gift he gave the Queen. They complained about Michelle Obama breaking protocol by hugging the queen. They went completely nuts when Obama bent down to grasp the Saudi King’s hands saying it was a “bow.”
With the economy starting to turn around, the stock market beginning to recover and banks starting to pay back their TARP loans, it’s like the right has become extremely desperate to find something - anything! - to bash Obama over the head with.
That became even more evident when Newt Gingrich grumped that the news stories about the Obama family’s new dog were “fairly stupid” and whined that nobody cares where the dog came from.
What was really stupid is why the news media keeps interviewing Newt Gingrich. Who cares what he has to say?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
Life on Mars canceled
I just learned today to my great despair that the TV show "Life on Mars" has been canceled after just one season. It now joins Firefly as one of my favorite shows to last only one season.
The only good news is that they gave the show's creators enough forewarning that they were able to film a series finale episode that resolved the show. I haven't seen it yet, but my understanding is that they did a good job wrapping up the series.
But still, there is no reason why the show couldn't have continued for several more seasons at least. It was a fun show with a terrific cast. I am so depressed.
All I can figure is that the TV executives closely monitor my viewing habits and use it as a reverse poll, canceling shows that I watch and promoting shows that I avoid. How else to explain the sudden death of Boston Legal last year. The early demise of My Own Worst Enemy early this season. The end of ER, which I watched regularly, and now the end of Life on Mars.
Lately, I have also been watching Dollhouse, the news series by Buffy the Vampire creator Joss Whedon, and Castle, the crime drama starring Nathan Filion of Firefly fame. So be warned because both these shows are sure to be canceled as well. I would be shocked if either is approved for a second season.
Since the network TV executives are working so hard to prevent me from having any shows to watch on TV, I may have to oblige and finally give in. When Lost finally ends in another year or two I may be completely out of options.
The only good news is that they gave the show's creators enough forewarning that they were able to film a series finale episode that resolved the show. I haven't seen it yet, but my understanding is that they did a good job wrapping up the series.
But still, there is no reason why the show couldn't have continued for several more seasons at least. It was a fun show with a terrific cast. I am so depressed.
All I can figure is that the TV executives closely monitor my viewing habits and use it as a reverse poll, canceling shows that I watch and promoting shows that I avoid. How else to explain the sudden death of Boston Legal last year. The early demise of My Own Worst Enemy early this season. The end of ER, which I watched regularly, and now the end of Life on Mars.
Lately, I have also been watching Dollhouse, the news series by Buffy the Vampire creator Joss Whedon, and Castle, the crime drama starring Nathan Filion of Firefly fame. So be warned because both these shows are sure to be canceled as well. I would be shocked if either is approved for a second season.
Since the network TV executives are working so hard to prevent me from having any shows to watch on TV, I may have to oblige and finally give in. When Lost finally ends in another year or two I may be completely out of options.
The NRA rules their world
The Houston Chronicle has a good editorial today about the idiotic bill before the Texas Legislature that would force public universities to allow handguns on campus.
Most of the lawmakers who are supporting this outrageous legislation are doing so simply because they don't want to risk losing their 100 percent rating with the NRA. The fact that they would allow an extremist organization like the NRA to dictate to public universities that they have to allow guns on campus (private schools would be conveniently exempt), despite the opposition of the very people charged with protecting the students on these campuses, shows just how completely irresponsible and morally bankrupt they have become.
These moronic cowboy fantasies that gun nuts have that they will whip out their concealed handguns and stop some campus shooter are as likely to happen as they are to repel an invasion of space aliens. More likely to happen is that they will screw around with their gun at some point and get themselves or someone else shot.
Some letter writers to the Chronicle had a great suggestion for these jerk lawmakers. Since they are going to force handguns onto our college campuses, the bill should also contain a clause opening up handguns to the state Capitol and their legislative offices.
Such idiots!
the most troubling, irresponsible one of all is a bill to allow concealed weapons on college campuses. Authored by Rep. Joe Driver, R-Garland, it seems to have enough support to pass the House. In the Senate, 13 of the 31 members have promised their support for an identical bill authored by Sen. Jeff Wentworth, R-San Antonio.
It’s a horrifying thought. It is our fervent hope that cooler heads in the Senate will prevail and block its passage. Students have enough on their plates without having to worry that horsing around, drinking or otherwise acting like a college student could result in an unintended tragedy.
There are excellent reasons why all major car rental agencies require that a driver be at least 25, or pay a hefty premium if younger. Psychologists are well aware that the ability to foresee the consequences of one’s behavior is still developing long past adolescence.
The arguments that having a concealed weapon would help prevent tragedies such as Columbine and Virginia Tech are discounted by experts, who cite statistics that being in possession of a handgun can be a dangerous proposition in itself, on or off campus. Texas colleges seem to agree: Campus police departments and more than 40 colleges have voiced their opposition, noted the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Within the last month, 57 people have died in eight mass shootings around the country. Just a week ago yesterday, a gunman shot and killed 13 people in Binghamton, N.Y., before killing himself. The next day, three Pittsburgh police officers were killed, hours after a man killed his five children and then himself in Washington State. Eight died the week before that in a nursing home in North Carolina; four police officers in Oakland. … Most of the killers were registered gun owners.
We live in a violent country. And firearms are the weapons of choice. They have no place on a college campus.
Most of the lawmakers who are supporting this outrageous legislation are doing so simply because they don't want to risk losing their 100 percent rating with the NRA. The fact that they would allow an extremist organization like the NRA to dictate to public universities that they have to allow guns on campus (private schools would be conveniently exempt), despite the opposition of the very people charged with protecting the students on these campuses, shows just how completely irresponsible and morally bankrupt they have become.
These moronic cowboy fantasies that gun nuts have that they will whip out their concealed handguns and stop some campus shooter are as likely to happen as they are to repel an invasion of space aliens. More likely to happen is that they will screw around with their gun at some point and get themselves or someone else shot.
Some letter writers to the Chronicle had a great suggestion for these jerk lawmakers. Since they are going to force handguns onto our college campuses, the bill should also contain a clause opening up handguns to the state Capitol and their legislative offices.
Such idiots!
The Cult of Conservatism
I've often wondered why it is so hard to have a political discussion with some conservatives. Rational argument seems impossible when the reponse is always a random spewing of meaningless nonsense. (See the comments in the post below for a good example).
I have a theory as to why this is. I believe a large segment of today's "conservative" movement has essentially developed into a cult. Like the classic definition of a cult, these people isolate themselves from regular society and adhere to a strict set of doctrine dictated to them by a small group of high priests and priestesses.
The isolation comes in the way that they shut themselves off from all forms of news and information except those that are approved by the cult - Fox News, Washington Times, NewsMax, rightwing radio, rightwing blogs, and so forth.
All other forms of communication are viewed as suspect and dismissed as heretical and false. The media personalities on these few approved outlets serve as the high priests of the cult - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
They are the gatekeepers of truth for the cultists. Until they say that it is OK to believe something, it is rejected by the cult followers. They are, as a rule, paranoid and distrustful of all other forms of media as well as all forms of government and just about anybody and everybody not directly connected to their cult network.
I think this is why a cult leader like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who runs the Washington Times, fits in so well with the rightwing movement today. Conservative cultists aren't bothered by Moon's beliefs that he is the "messiah", because he has the two things that the cult followers truly prize and worship above all else - money and power.
Now not all "conservatives" are total adherents to the cult. Mark for instance is not fully vested in the cult because his devotion to Catholicism overrides it in some instances. Others may be only partial converts at this point, but the clear direction of the Republican Party today is towards full embracement of the cult mentality.
Like the Scientologists that they resemble, the conservative cultists have an irrational fear of things they don't fully understand. For Scientologists, it is the fear of psychology. For conservatives it is the fear of "socialism" by which they mean any government program or initiative that veers away from a strictly hard-right ideology.
More on this later....
I have a theory as to why this is. I believe a large segment of today's "conservative" movement has essentially developed into a cult. Like the classic definition of a cult, these people isolate themselves from regular society and adhere to a strict set of doctrine dictated to them by a small group of high priests and priestesses.
The isolation comes in the way that they shut themselves off from all forms of news and information except those that are approved by the cult - Fox News, Washington Times, NewsMax, rightwing radio, rightwing blogs, and so forth.
All other forms of communication are viewed as suspect and dismissed as heretical and false. The media personalities on these few approved outlets serve as the high priests of the cult - Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, etc.
They are the gatekeepers of truth for the cultists. Until they say that it is OK to believe something, it is rejected by the cult followers. They are, as a rule, paranoid and distrustful of all other forms of media as well as all forms of government and just about anybody and everybody not directly connected to their cult network.
I think this is why a cult leader like the Rev. Sun Myung Moon, who runs the Washington Times, fits in so well with the rightwing movement today. Conservative cultists aren't bothered by Moon's beliefs that he is the "messiah", because he has the two things that the cult followers truly prize and worship above all else - money and power.
Now not all "conservatives" are total adherents to the cult. Mark for instance is not fully vested in the cult because his devotion to Catholicism overrides it in some instances. Others may be only partial converts at this point, but the clear direction of the Republican Party today is towards full embracement of the cult mentality.
Like the Scientologists that they resemble, the conservative cultists have an irrational fear of things they don't fully understand. For Scientologists, it is the fear of psychology. For conservatives it is the fear of "socialism" by which they mean any government program or initiative that veers away from a strictly hard-right ideology.
More on this later....
Wednesday, April 08, 2009
Wingnuts on Parade
Next Wednesday, April 15, San Antonio will pay unwitting host to a rightwing pity party and protest event being billed as the San Antonio Tea Party.
What will distinguish the San Antonio Tea Party from the hundreds of other tea parties scheduled for that same day in other cities (and the dozens that have previously been held) is that the Mad Hatter himself - far-right talk radio host Glenn Beck - will be at the San Antonio event in an effort to exploit the city’s shrine of liberty - The Alamo - for his partisan political purposes.
While researching this issue prior to writing this post, I was surprised to learn that the person heading up the local event is none other than Robin Juhl, aka Ranten’ Raven, my old blogging buddy and sparring partner.
Raven is the one who (with his lovely wife) planned and organized the one and only San Antonio Blogger BBQ, a pleasant gathering that brought together locally-based political bloggers of all stripes. It was with great sadness that I reported two years ago the demise of Raven’s blog. So I am happy to see that he is still doing well, although not so delighted to see what it is that has been keeping him busy lately.
But I must say that he has done some good work organizing this event as you can see by the website and blog that has been set up. And I appreciate their efforts to keep the gathering as civil and peaceful as possible as evidenced by the “Rules” they have listed on their site:
Of course, if they actually do uphold this rule then they will have to ask Glenn Beck to leave as soon as he shows up. The same goes for that wild-eyed fascist freak Ted Nugent who is planning to show up and butcher the National Anthem on his electric guitar.
As Steve Benen noted today, these tea party protesters seem a bit confused about what they are supposed to be protesting. They don’t like all of the spending and the deficits, but for some reason they didn’t seem to be bothered by it too much when it was going on for the past eight years under a Republican president. Apparently, a Republican president spending hundreds of billions of dollars to repair infrastructure in Iraq is OK, but a Democratic president spending hundreds of billions of dollars to repair infrastructure in the U.S. is not. And nevermind that the point behind the spending boost is to try and pull the country out of the economic death spiral created by the Republican administration’s failed economic policies.
The organizers of this event have gone to great lengths to say that it is not supposed to be a partisan, anti-Obama, anti-Democrat affair. But it is hard to see anyone who supports the current administration showing up for an event meant to protest everything they are trying to do to save our economy.
I guess the thing that disturbs me the most about it is just that - the extreme anti-government tone of the event. It is hard to see how these people can claim to love their country when they seem to despise every aspect of it other than the symbolism. Sure, they loooooove the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, pictures of bald eagles, and so on. But they absolutely hate the U.S. government, even when its being run by rightwing Republicans, and they can’t stand most of their fellow Americans on whom they blame most all of their problems on, whether its the “liberals” or “Hollywood” or immigrants or welfare recipients.
What will distinguish the San Antonio Tea Party from the hundreds of other tea parties scheduled for that same day in other cities (and the dozens that have previously been held) is that the Mad Hatter himself - far-right talk radio host Glenn Beck - will be at the San Antonio event in an effort to exploit the city’s shrine of liberty - The Alamo - for his partisan political purposes.
While researching this issue prior to writing this post, I was surprised to learn that the person heading up the local event is none other than Robin Juhl, aka Ranten’ Raven, my old blogging buddy and sparring partner.
Raven is the one who (with his lovely wife) planned and organized the one and only San Antonio Blogger BBQ, a pleasant gathering that brought together locally-based political bloggers of all stripes. It was with great sadness that I reported two years ago the demise of Raven’s blog. So I am happy to see that he is still doing well, although not so delighted to see what it is that has been keeping him busy lately.
But I must say that he has done some good work organizing this event as you can see by the website and blog that has been set up. And I appreciate their efforts to keep the gathering as civil and peaceful as possible as evidenced by the “Rules” they have listed on their site:
RULE 1: No Violence
We are not anarchists. We are concerned citizens using the freedoms secured by our nations founders and declared in the Bill of Rights to petition our government. Any who advocate, in general, any act of violence or other active civil disobedience will be told (not asked--TOLD!) to leave our reserved area. Any who advocate, in specific, any act of violence will be reported to the San Antonio Police or to the US Secret Service, as appropriate. Our Founders gave us the Bill of Rights and we will use them. Talk of “battles” must be reserved to the context of “Battle of the Flowers” and “political battles.” We will act in a peaceful, lawful manner, period. PERIOD. Your alternative is to form your own protest, separate from ours. We have no problem with those who want to organize their own Tea Party. Good luck, and may God Bless your efforts.
Of course, if they actually do uphold this rule then they will have to ask Glenn Beck to leave as soon as he shows up. The same goes for that wild-eyed fascist freak Ted Nugent who is planning to show up and butcher the National Anthem on his electric guitar.
As Steve Benen noted today, these tea party protesters seem a bit confused about what they are supposed to be protesting. They don’t like all of the spending and the deficits, but for some reason they didn’t seem to be bothered by it too much when it was going on for the past eight years under a Republican president. Apparently, a Republican president spending hundreds of billions of dollars to repair infrastructure in Iraq is OK, but a Democratic president spending hundreds of billions of dollars to repair infrastructure in the U.S. is not. And nevermind that the point behind the spending boost is to try and pull the country out of the economic death spiral created by the Republican administration’s failed economic policies.
The organizers of this event have gone to great lengths to say that it is not supposed to be a partisan, anti-Obama, anti-Democrat affair. But it is hard to see anyone who supports the current administration showing up for an event meant to protest everything they are trying to do to save our economy.
I guess the thing that disturbs me the most about it is just that - the extreme anti-government tone of the event. It is hard to see how these people can claim to love their country when they seem to despise every aspect of it other than the symbolism. Sure, they loooooove the flag, the Pledge of Allegiance, the National Anthem, pictures of bald eagles, and so on. But they absolutely hate the U.S. government, even when its being run by rightwing Republicans, and they can’t stand most of their fellow Americans on whom they blame most all of their problems on, whether its the “liberals” or “Hollywood” or immigrants or welfare recipients.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Mean as a snake
I’m sorry, but hearing Republican congressmen refer to Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “mean as a snake” and “Tom DeLay in a skirt” strikes me as very funny and very much deserved. For them, that is.
Personally, I think she is like DeLay in the sense that she is very powerful and runs a tight ship, but she is also very different in that she is not a corrupt little weasel like the ex-bug exterminator was.
Personally, I think she is like DeLay in the sense that she is very powerful and runs a tight ship, but she is also very different in that she is not a corrupt little weasel like the ex-bug exterminator was.
Take Me Out to the Ballgame
I’m very glad to see George W. Bush back doing what he does best.
I’m also glad to see that baseball season has started up again, especially since the Spurs season is, for all practical purposes, over.
I’m also glad to see that baseball season has started up again, especially since the Spurs season is, for all practical purposes, over.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Copies of copies of copies
This is a fascinating article.
But almost immediately, Ehrman ran into a problem. It was an intellectual problem at first, but it soon became larger and harder to quarantine. In one of the first classes he took at Moody, he learned that none of the original texts of the New Testament exist. All we have are copies, made years later -- usually, many centuries later. In fact, the copies are copies of copies, and they’re filled with errors or intentional changes made over decades or centuries by scribes. Burning with fervor to discover the true word of God, the authentic divine voice that had been obscured or changed by all-too-human writers, Ehrman decided to begin a serious study of the New Testament. He completed his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College, where he began studying ancient Greek, the original language of the New Testament. But there was still no answer to his original question: How could we know what the word of God was if all we had were error-riddled copies?
So Ehrman decided to plunge all the way in and immerse himself in the academic study of the texts of the New Testament. He entered the Princeton Theological Seminary, home to the world’s leading authority in the field, Bruce Metzger. His literalist faith in and his devotional approach to the Bible were under increasing strain, but he managed to hold onto them for a while -- until a professor jotted a casual comment on one of Ehrman’s papers. Ehrman was attempting to explain a passage from the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus refers to an event that took place “when Abiathar was the high priest.” The problem is that the book in the Old Testament that Jesus is referring to states that not Abiathar but his father Ahimelech was the high priest. Ehrman came up with a convoluted argument to reconcile the contradiction, using Greek etymology to prove that Mark did not mean what he apparently said. Ehrman believed that his professor, a beloved and pious scholar named Cullen Story, would appreciate his argument as a fellow believer in biblical inerrancy.
Story’s response, Ehrman wrote in his best-selling 2005 book “Misquoting Jesus,” “went straight through me.” “Maybe,” Story scrawled at the end of Ehrman’s paper, “Mark just made a mistake.”
Greatest moments on TV
I am shamelessly swiping this idea from Donna. This is a list of my picks for the greatest TV moments. I am trying to stick to things that I saw when they happened and not re-runs
This is really a hard list to do because while I can think of lots of TV shows that I loved to watch, it is hard to come up with one memorable scene that stands out above all the rest as one that I found especially funny, inspiring or entertaining. But here it goes:
Mork and Mindy: Mork (Robin Williams) goes into the kitchen and finds some eggs. Spaceships on his planet are shaped like eggs. He takes an egg, tosses it into the air and says “Fly and be free!” The look of shock on his face when the egg splats on the table is priceless.
Carol Burnet Show: Tim Conway playing the old man who does everything slooooooowly. At the end of the sketch he accidently falls out of a high-rise window. You hear him fall and crash at the bottom. There is a momentary pause and then he screams “Aaaaahhhhhhhh!”
SNL: Steve Martin performing “King Tut” live for the first time.
1988 VP Debate: Lloyd Bentsen knew than Dan Quayle was going to try and compare himself to John F. Kennedy at some point and he was prepared with the knockout punch. There has never been a more devestating takedown in the history of political debates.
1988 Democratic National Convention: Michael Dukakis makes his grand entrance with lights flashing, crowd cheering to the thumping, invigorating music of Neil Diamond singing “Coming To America.” I knew at that moment that he was going to be out next president.
Speed Racer: The mysterious Racer X lets the audience know for the umpteenth time that he is Speed’s long-lost older brother and pulls him out of yet another scrape before slinking away without revealing his secret.
Sesame Street: Depending on the number of the day, a pastry chef would stand at the top of a long flight of stairs and announce “Six coconut creme pies!” before inevitably tripping and falling down the stairs and covering himself with icing and/or pie filling. It delighted me everytime he did it.
Wide World of Sports: Evel Knievel attempts to jump the Snake River Canyon. (Also, anytime the Harlem Globetrotters were on).
Happy Days: Richie Cunningham strutting off singing Fats Domino’s “I Found My Thrill...” everytime a girl would agree to go out on a date with him.
Laverne & Shirley: “Hallow!!” Lenny and Squiggy would always make their entrance at the most inappropriate or inopportune time.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: When Spike first realizes that he has fallen in love with Buffy and gets really upset about it but can’t do anything to change it.
This is really a hard list to do because while I can think of lots of TV shows that I loved to watch, it is hard to come up with one memorable scene that stands out above all the rest as one that I found especially funny, inspiring or entertaining. But here it goes:
Mork and Mindy: Mork (Robin Williams) goes into the kitchen and finds some eggs. Spaceships on his planet are shaped like eggs. He takes an egg, tosses it into the air and says “Fly and be free!” The look of shock on his face when the egg splats on the table is priceless.
Carol Burnet Show: Tim Conway playing the old man who does everything slooooooowly. At the end of the sketch he accidently falls out of a high-rise window. You hear him fall and crash at the bottom. There is a momentary pause and then he screams “Aaaaahhhhhhhh!”
SNL: Steve Martin performing “King Tut” live for the first time.
1988 VP Debate: Lloyd Bentsen knew than Dan Quayle was going to try and compare himself to John F. Kennedy at some point and he was prepared with the knockout punch. There has never been a more devestating takedown in the history of political debates.
1988 Democratic National Convention: Michael Dukakis makes his grand entrance with lights flashing, crowd cheering to the thumping, invigorating music of Neil Diamond singing “Coming To America.” I knew at that moment that he was going to be out next president.
Speed Racer: The mysterious Racer X lets the audience know for the umpteenth time that he is Speed’s long-lost older brother and pulls him out of yet another scrape before slinking away without revealing his secret.
Sesame Street: Depending on the number of the day, a pastry chef would stand at the top of a long flight of stairs and announce “Six coconut creme pies!” before inevitably tripping and falling down the stairs and covering himself with icing and/or pie filling. It delighted me everytime he did it.
Wide World of Sports: Evel Knievel attempts to jump the Snake River Canyon. (Also, anytime the Harlem Globetrotters were on).
Happy Days: Richie Cunningham strutting off singing Fats Domino’s “I Found My Thrill...” everytime a girl would agree to go out on a date with him.
Laverne & Shirley: “Hallow!!” Lenny and Squiggy would always make their entrance at the most inappropriate or inopportune time.
Buffy the Vampire Slayer: When Spike first realizes that he has fallen in love with Buffy and gets really upset about it but can’t do anything to change it.
Blame the Democrats!
Jonathan Gurwitz’ latest column is a textbook example of partisan hackery, diverting attention away from the chief culprits of our economic crisis and trying to cast the blame at the feet of Democrats in Congress who have been practically powerless until just two months ago.
Democrats may have gained a majority in Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections, but they have not had the power to actually change the direction of the government until just recently. Republicans still had the upperhand with a president who could veto legislation and a Senate that would filibuster everything else.
And Gurwitz is also disingenuous when he claims the problem began with “failed congressional oversight”, as if we elect our Congressmen to regulate and police the banking system and not the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC, of course, was defanged over the past eight years by a Republican administration committed to its ideological deregulation agenda. The stage was set by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which was never debated in the House or Senate and was slipped into an omnibus budget bill at the last minute by Sen. Phil Gramm.
The bill contained a provision that has come to be known as the “Enron loophole,” which exempted most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The “loophole” was drafted by lobbyists for Enron working with senator Phil Gramm seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, “Enron On-line.”
But rather than acknowledging this deregulatory boondoggle, Gurwitz wants to distract readers with the totally innocuous issue of congressional payraises. Every year it’s the same thing, conservative government haters criticize the cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional salaries. If it wasn’t for the bipartisan compromise that made the increases automatic, Congress would never get a pay increase because no Congressman would ever want to take all the criticism and abuse for voting for it. Then we would end up with a situation where only the very wealthy could afford to be in Congress, which is already the case for many public offices anyway. And just remember that these automatic COLAs were in place the whole time Republicans were running Congress, but conservatives never complained about it until Democrats retook control.
Democrats may have gained a majority in Congress after the 2006 mid-term elections, but they have not had the power to actually change the direction of the government until just recently. Republicans still had the upperhand with a president who could veto legislation and a Senate that would filibuster everything else.
And Gurwitz is also disingenuous when he claims the problem began with “failed congressional oversight”, as if we elect our Congressmen to regulate and police the banking system and not the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC, of course, was defanged over the past eight years by a Republican administration committed to its ideological deregulation agenda. The stage was set by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 which was never debated in the House or Senate and was slipped into an omnibus budget bill at the last minute by Sen. Phil Gramm.
The bill contained a provision that has come to be known as the “Enron loophole,” which exempted most over-the-counter energy trades and trading on electronic energy commodity markets. The “loophole” was drafted by lobbyists for Enron working with senator Phil Gramm seeking a deregulated atmosphere for their new experiment, “Enron On-line.”
But rather than acknowledging this deregulatory boondoggle, Gurwitz wants to distract readers with the totally innocuous issue of congressional payraises. Every year it’s the same thing, conservative government haters criticize the cost-of-living adjustment for Congressional salaries. If it wasn’t for the bipartisan compromise that made the increases automatic, Congress would never get a pay increase because no Congressman would ever want to take all the criticism and abuse for voting for it. Then we would end up with a situation where only the very wealthy could afford to be in Congress, which is already the case for many public offices anyway. And just remember that these automatic COLAs were in place the whole time Republicans were running Congress, but conservatives never complained about it until Democrats retook control.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Obama still riding high
James Carville thinks Obama's having the best time of his presidency right now.
I have to agree. It looks like the economy is poised to start making a recovery just as Obama is getting his budget through Congress with every Republican in opposition.
When the only thing Republicans can find to complain about is
the gift Obama gave the queen, then things must be going well.
Obama's first foray onto the world stage since being elected cannot be dubbed anything but successful. Obama appeared to be quite comfortable and confident as president of the United States at the G-20 summit that produced an unprecedented global economic recovery package.
The president's polling numbers at home are coming in at an impressive rate. A Democracy Corps poll taken this week found that the percentage of likely voters saying the country is going in the right direction is up to 38 percent, the highest level recorded in more than three years.
His budget is sure to be passed by Congress. And the recent special election in New York's 20th Congressional District in which Democrat Scott Murphy initially trailed by more than 20 points -- but wound up slightly ahead before officials count absentee ballots -- shows that the GOP is making few, if any gains among voters.
To top it all off (at least for now), the financial markets are expressing confidence in the president's leadership as they are expected to close up for the fourth straight week.
I have to agree. It looks like the economy is poised to start making a recovery just as Obama is getting his budget through Congress with every Republican in opposition.
When the only thing Republicans can find to complain about is
the gift Obama gave the queen, then things must be going well.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Morally repugnant, Part II
Revisiting a topic discussed here more than a year ago, it seems that Ron Suskind’s groundbreaking reporting on the futility of the Bush administration’s torture policy has now been backed up and verified by reporting in the Washington Post.
Dan Froomkin has more on this sad, sordid tale:
But we won’t ever hear a mea culpa from the denizens who used to haunt the defunct ATC blog. They grew bored with their warblogging and torture cheerleading and have moved on to other pursuits now, such as shrieking about “socialism” anytime someone does anything to try and clean up the huge mess that the Bush administration left behind.
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as “al-Qaeda’s chief of operations,” and other top officials called him a “trusted associate” of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.
Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a “fixer” for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al-Qaeda only after Sept. 11 -- and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.
Dan Froomkin has more on this sad, sordid tale:
Abu Zubaida was the alpha and omega of the Bush administration’s argument for torture.
That’s why Sunday’s front-page Washington Post story by Peter Finn and Joby Warrick is such a blow to the last remaining torture apologists.
Finn and Warrick reported that “not a single significant plot was foiled” as a result of Zubaida’s brutal treatment -- and that, quite to the contrary, his false confessions “triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms.”
Zubaida was the first detainee to be tortured at the direct instruction of the White House. Then he was President George W. Bush’s Exhibit A in defense of the “enhanced interrogation” procedures that constituted torture. And he continues to be held up as a justification for torture by its most ardent defenders.
But as author Ron Suskind reported almost three years ago -- and as The Post now confirms -- almost all the key assertions the Bush administration made about Zubaida were wrong.
Zubaida wasn’t a major al Qaeda figure. He wasn’t holding back critical information. His torture didn’t produce valuable intelligence -- and it certainly didn’t save lives.
But we won’t ever hear a mea culpa from the denizens who used to haunt the defunct ATC blog. They grew bored with their warblogging and torture cheerleading and have moved on to other pursuits now, such as shrieking about “socialism” anytime someone does anything to try and clean up the huge mess that the Bush administration left behind.
Monday, March 30, 2009
John Cornyn hates democracy
Our U.S. Senator John Cornyn thinks democracy sucks. At least, that’s his opinion whenever things don’t go his way.
Take the Minnesota Senate election, for example, where Democrat Al Franken has come out ahead after a long recount process. Cornyn doesn’t like that result and he is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case all the way through the federal courts.
Nevermind that it could take years to resolve. Cornyn has no problem hamstringing democracy with frivolous lawsuits whenever things don’t go his way. I can guarantee you that he would not be insisting on waiting for a years long court battle to resolve itself before allowing Minnesotans to have their full Senate representation if it was Al Franken doing the litigating. And furthermore, I believe that Democrats would never try and drag out the case that far anyway. That’s because Democrats, as their name says, actually believe in and respect “democracy.”
Not so with Sen. Cornyn. Just look at his response to the Brewing Battle Over Reconciliation in Congress.
Democrats are considering using the budget reconciliation process to resolve several contentious issues over budgetary matters involving healthcare, energy and education. That would mean that the legislation could actually be approved with a majority vote of the Senate. What a novel concept!!!!
But what does John Cornyn think about the idea of “majority rules” which is a keystone of democracy?
“It stinks,” he says.
Cornyn thinks every piece of legislation should have to pass with a 60-vote supermajority, allowing a minority of Senators to kill legislation that has the support of the majority of Americans. But, of course, he only thinks this is fair when Republicans are in the minority. He didn’t think that was such a hot idea when Republicans were in the majority, and he won’t in the future if and when Republicans are ever in the majority again.
But for now, majority rules is out the window as far as he is concerned and so are democratic elections whenever he doesn’t like the end results. Screw democracy.
Take the Minnesota Senate election, for example, where Democrat Al Franken has come out ahead after a long recount process. Cornyn doesn’t like that result and he is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case all the way through the federal courts.
Nevermind that it could take years to resolve. Cornyn has no problem hamstringing democracy with frivolous lawsuits whenever things don’t go his way. I can guarantee you that he would not be insisting on waiting for a years long court battle to resolve itself before allowing Minnesotans to have their full Senate representation if it was Al Franken doing the litigating. And furthermore, I believe that Democrats would never try and drag out the case that far anyway. That’s because Democrats, as their name says, actually believe in and respect “democracy.”
Not so with Sen. Cornyn. Just look at his response to the Brewing Battle Over Reconciliation in Congress.
Democrats are considering using the budget reconciliation process to resolve several contentious issues over budgetary matters involving healthcare, energy and education. That would mean that the legislation could actually be approved with a majority vote of the Senate. What a novel concept!!!!
But what does John Cornyn think about the idea of “majority rules” which is a keystone of democracy?
“It stinks,” he says.
Cornyn thinks every piece of legislation should have to pass with a 60-vote supermajority, allowing a minority of Senators to kill legislation that has the support of the majority of Americans. But, of course, he only thinks this is fair when Republicans are in the minority. He didn’t think that was such a hot idea when Republicans were in the majority, and he won’t in the future if and when Republicans are ever in the majority again.
But for now, majority rules is out the window as far as he is concerned and so are democratic elections whenever he doesn’t like the end results. Screw democracy.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
No more term limits
T.R. Fehrenbach, the conservative historian who writes a weekly column for the Express-News, is proposing limiting U.S. presidents to single terms.
He makes an interesting case based on history, however I am still completely opposed to the idea. I don't think it is true that every president's second term has been disasterous.
It is true that Lincoln may have had a tough time politically during a second term had he not been assassinated, but I think there can be little doubt that he would have still been much better than Andrew Johnson or Ulysseus Grant or any of the other corrupt, post-war presidents we ended up with.
FDR's second term was certainly not a disaster, as Fehrenbach implies, and his subsequent term was successful as well due to his leadership during WWII.
Eisenhower's second term wasn't much different from his first one. Kennedy had the potential to do very well had he had a chance at a second term.
Nixon, of course, was impeached during his second term, but the things that set Watergate into motion happened during his first term.
Reagan clearly had troubles during his second term with Iran-Contra, but it wasn't enough to sour his political support and he probably could have won a third term easily, but instead passed it on to George H.W. Bush.
Bill Clinton's second term was a huge success other than the distraction of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But as far as things that actually impacted people's lives, he had great successes during his second term.
And George W. Bush obviously was awful during his second term, but I would argue that he was awful during his first term as well but managed to cover up his failures and incompetence in the aftermath of 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for Bush's second term more so than Karl Rove.
Now that we have Obama in there, Fehrenbach is suddenly raising the spectre of limiting presients to one term. Why wasn't he making that argument four years ago?
He makes an interesting case based on history, however I am still completely opposed to the idea. I don't think it is true that every president's second term has been disasterous.
It is true that Lincoln may have had a tough time politically during a second term had he not been assassinated, but I think there can be little doubt that he would have still been much better than Andrew Johnson or Ulysseus Grant or any of the other corrupt, post-war presidents we ended up with.
FDR's second term was certainly not a disaster, as Fehrenbach implies, and his subsequent term was successful as well due to his leadership during WWII.
Eisenhower's second term wasn't much different from his first one. Kennedy had the potential to do very well had he had a chance at a second term.
Nixon, of course, was impeached during his second term, but the things that set Watergate into motion happened during his first term.
Reagan clearly had troubles during his second term with Iran-Contra, but it wasn't enough to sour his political support and he probably could have won a third term easily, but instead passed it on to George H.W. Bush.
Bill Clinton's second term was a huge success other than the distraction of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But as far as things that actually impacted people's lives, he had great successes during his second term.
And George W. Bush obviously was awful during his second term, but I would argue that he was awful during his first term as well but managed to cover up his failures and incompetence in the aftermath of 9/11. Osama Bin Laden was responsible for Bush's second term more so than Karl Rove.
Now that we have Obama in there, Fehrenbach is suddenly raising the spectre of limiting presients to one term. Why wasn't he making that argument four years ago?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)