A wickedly fun and perfectly frivolous post, no harm intended -- except between consenting adults. Since, after all, “All blogs are quite useless.” (Fake Oscar Wilde quotation.)
Now, I’m sure the Republican National Committee and Michael Steele will have an appropriate response to the topic addressed in Jason Linkins’ HuffPo Article today (namely, if I have understood aright, RNC-paid visits to a bondage-themed nightclub in WeHo), but at the moment they’re, well, you’ll understand -- all tied up.
Hosannah to Our Lord in the Highest for this good man’s tenure as RNC Chair. I couldn’t make this stuff up if I worked at it, uh, “24/7.”
I don’t mind stories like this playing rough with the daily headlines: dominate us, you sexy right-wing sadists, DOMINATE US! All through November 1st -- the day before the election. We just can’t get enough….
PS -- just so y'all don't accuse me of plagiarism, the "Party of Yes" ha-ha headline (without the naughty additions I made) first appeared in HuffPo.
Monday, March 29, 2010
A response to Robert J. Samuelson’s WaPo op-ed column today
Robert J. Samuelson has written a piece today for the Washington Post entitled “With health bill, Obama has sown the seeds of a budget crisis”.
Now first of all, let me say that Robert J. Samuelson has an impressive mustache, and this is an important qualification for an economist or an accountant, as anyone who is familiar with the Woody Allen character’s dictum on that issue should know. Especially since I myself have no mustache of any kind -- not even an unimpressive one (dinos have only pin feathers, you see) – I must, in order to maintain any credibility in this area -- agree with Mr. Samuelson in at least one area. It is an important one: notwithstanding certain Republicans’ smugness about the debt not mattering in political terms, I believe Mr. Samuelson is correct in his fiscal-conservative claim that the huge gap between our spending obligations and our tax revenues will at some point become ruinous if we can't close it -- even for a colossus like America, borrowing for a huge percentage of expenditures is dangerous, and hoping that we will always be able to grow our way out of staggering debt is not a viable long-term strategy. I would add that the only reason this borrowing hasn’t been cast as a massive Ponzi-Madoffian scheme – by which I mean in general any scheme that’s viable only so long as everybody goes along with the illusion that fuels and underwrites it – stems from our tremendous economic significance and, of course, from the indisputable fact of our military supremacy. In plain English, America is still a country you don’t want to mess with: in the economic sphere, if we get taken down, a lot of others are going with us. Only certain religious fanatics want to see America burn; everybody else realizes that we are still vital to the global economy even though other countries (China above all) are growing in importance at an astonishing clip.
But Mr. Samuelson’s impressive whiskers only ingratiate him so far with this commenter. I disagree with him about the allegedly reckless quality of the current president’s decision to move forward with health-insurance reform even during an economic downturn. I don’t consider it unfair to point out that the previous administration’s irresponsible fiscal policies and rampant militarism contributed a great deal towards our present difficulties. Their most reckless spending had little to do with social programs. I would even argue (this is not directed at the writer or any particular individual) that the political right’s long-term goal is simultaneously to reduce the tax base and expand military spending to the point where it will no longer be possible to do any meaningful social promising or promise-keeping. So in a sense, running up huge deficits actually furthers the oligarchical right’s interests: it ensures that in the long run, tax revenues can and will only go to economic endeavors that further enrich them but bring no relief to ordinary people just trying to survive.
But on a more congenial note, I suggest that President Obama’s health-insurance changes amount to an advisable realignment of priorities: access to good health care is among the handful of “big things” in which government really should take an interest on behalf of the people, so I don't see why we should call it reckless to put health-care access high on the country’s To Do list. The president has recognized the importance of health to the nation’s well-being, and he has acted accordingly.
If we want to get our national outgo and income into alignment, I suggest, we will need to take a look at revitalizing the tax base (I don't mean this as code for "soak the rich") as well as examining just how many areas of life we think the government really needs to be involved in. But in my view, access to health care is not one of the areas in which the government’s involvement can fairly be labeled unwarranted or merely intrusive.* Whatever one thinks of the insurance reform bill’s particulars, its orientation towards the common citizen who actually pays most of the tax money that will be used for services seems to me entirely appropriate, and I don’t believe its arrival at a difficult socio-economic moment should count against it or lead to charges of fiscal irresponsibility.
*Not that this was necessarily Mr. Samuelson’s point, I should make clear.
Now first of all, let me say that Robert J. Samuelson has an impressive mustache, and this is an important qualification for an economist or an accountant, as anyone who is familiar with the Woody Allen character’s dictum on that issue should know. Especially since I myself have no mustache of any kind -- not even an unimpressive one (dinos have only pin feathers, you see) – I must, in order to maintain any credibility in this area -- agree with Mr. Samuelson in at least one area. It is an important one: notwithstanding certain Republicans’ smugness about the debt not mattering in political terms, I believe Mr. Samuelson is correct in his fiscal-conservative claim that the huge gap between our spending obligations and our tax revenues will at some point become ruinous if we can't close it -- even for a colossus like America, borrowing for a huge percentage of expenditures is dangerous, and hoping that we will always be able to grow our way out of staggering debt is not a viable long-term strategy. I would add that the only reason this borrowing hasn’t been cast as a massive Ponzi-Madoffian scheme – by which I mean in general any scheme that’s viable only so long as everybody goes along with the illusion that fuels and underwrites it – stems from our tremendous economic significance and, of course, from the indisputable fact of our military supremacy. In plain English, America is still a country you don’t want to mess with: in the economic sphere, if we get taken down, a lot of others are going with us. Only certain religious fanatics want to see America burn; everybody else realizes that we are still vital to the global economy even though other countries (China above all) are growing in importance at an astonishing clip.
But Mr. Samuelson’s impressive whiskers only ingratiate him so far with this commenter. I disagree with him about the allegedly reckless quality of the current president’s decision to move forward with health-insurance reform even during an economic downturn. I don’t consider it unfair to point out that the previous administration’s irresponsible fiscal policies and rampant militarism contributed a great deal towards our present difficulties. Their most reckless spending had little to do with social programs. I would even argue (this is not directed at the writer or any particular individual) that the political right’s long-term goal is simultaneously to reduce the tax base and expand military spending to the point where it will no longer be possible to do any meaningful social promising or promise-keeping. So in a sense, running up huge deficits actually furthers the oligarchical right’s interests: it ensures that in the long run, tax revenues can and will only go to economic endeavors that further enrich them but bring no relief to ordinary people just trying to survive.
But on a more congenial note, I suggest that President Obama’s health-insurance changes amount to an advisable realignment of priorities: access to good health care is among the handful of “big things” in which government really should take an interest on behalf of the people, so I don't see why we should call it reckless to put health-care access high on the country’s To Do list. The president has recognized the importance of health to the nation’s well-being, and he has acted accordingly.
If we want to get our national outgo and income into alignment, I suggest, we will need to take a look at revitalizing the tax base (I don't mean this as code for "soak the rich") as well as examining just how many areas of life we think the government really needs to be involved in. But in my view, access to health care is not one of the areas in which the government’s involvement can fairly be labeled unwarranted or merely intrusive.* Whatever one thinks of the insurance reform bill’s particulars, its orientation towards the common citizen who actually pays most of the tax money that will be used for services seems to me entirely appropriate, and I don’t believe its arrival at a difficult socio-economic moment should count against it or lead to charges of fiscal irresponsibility.
*Not that this was necessarily Mr. Samuelson’s point, I should make clear.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
No need to fear November
It has become conventional wisdom to expect serious losses for the Democrats in this November's elections, but I'm not worried. While the Democrats will very likely lose a few seats -- that almost always happens to the party in power in midterm elections -- there are important factors working in our favor.
(1) HCR is a plus, not a minus. Polls already show a modest bounce in its approval rating since it was passed. Many who opposed it did so because they felt it didn't go far enough, not because it went too far. Many who oppose the package actually like the individual programs that make it up -- they object to the bill because they are misinformed about what's in it. And some of its provisions will take effect before the election. Voters will then be judging the reform by what they see it actually doing, not by horror-fantasies about death panels and Communism.
(2) The biggest factor influencing the vote will be employment. The job-loss data don't lie -- losses have decreased almost every month since Obama took office. Recent economic growth has been stronger than expected, and although employment is always one of the last indicators to recover after the end of a recession, it will do so. The hopeful-sounding predictions by the administration's enemies that the economy will slide back into recession have the air of an increasingly-desperate clutching at straws. They will come up empty. And Congress has plenty of options for acting to stimulate job growth.
(3) With enemies like these, who needs friends? The Republicans' relentless obstructionism on HCR and their bitter-end negativity may be energizing to the worst of their base, but they can't be appealing to the broad center, which is where elections are won. And Republicans' failure to condemn or even quite acknowledge last week's rash of violence and threats against Democrats is even uglier. Intemperate statements now will turn up in campaign ads later. And don't forget the NY-23 syndrome -- hard-line rightists undermining more electable moderate Republicans. An example is teabagger JD Hayworth's primary challenge to John McCain in Arizona, which has pushed McCain into a series of increasingly extremist statements in an effort to out-loony Hayworth for the sake of base primary voters. Either Hayworth will win the primary and (probably) lose the general, or McCain will prevail, but as damaged goods in the eyes of centrist voters and still viewed with suspicion by the base.
(4) A President should be a strong leader. During 2009 Obama's fixation on bipartisanship, futile in the face of the Republicans' intransigence, made him look weak, dithering, and unable to get things done. Since January he seems to have realized that such efforts were pointless, and the change has affected his image as well as the actual results achieved: Working with Congress to get HCR through despite the lack of Republican support, and using recess appointments to fill essential posts despite Republican obstruction, not only is strong and effective leadership, it also looks like strong and effective leadership. There will be more, and it will all help in November.
It's always possible, of course, that some unexpected major event could happen and change everything. But barring that (and such an event might be one that favors rather than harms our side), I don't think November's going to be all that bad.
Update (29 March): Arthur Greene has more detail on why HCR will probably help the Democrats in November -- benefits for critical groups like the elderly and the middle class will already have taken effect. Greene is a conservative and writes from an anti-HCR viewpoint, but his points on this are solid. Blogger DemWit also e-mails:
The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as CLASS Act, provides for a national insurance program to help cover the cost of long-term care -- something 70 percent of people over 65 will need at some point along the way. The premiums will be much lower than those for private plans, and you won't get screened out because you've already had some health problems.
Class act indeed. So much for the death panels.
(1) HCR is a plus, not a minus. Polls already show a modest bounce in its approval rating since it was passed. Many who opposed it did so because they felt it didn't go far enough, not because it went too far. Many who oppose the package actually like the individual programs that make it up -- they object to the bill because they are misinformed about what's in it. And some of its provisions will take effect before the election. Voters will then be judging the reform by what they see it actually doing, not by horror-fantasies about death panels and Communism.
(2) The biggest factor influencing the vote will be employment. The job-loss data don't lie -- losses have decreased almost every month since Obama took office. Recent economic growth has been stronger than expected, and although employment is always one of the last indicators to recover after the end of a recession, it will do so. The hopeful-sounding predictions by the administration's enemies that the economy will slide back into recession have the air of an increasingly-desperate clutching at straws. They will come up empty. And Congress has plenty of options for acting to stimulate job growth.
(3) With enemies like these, who needs friends? The Republicans' relentless obstructionism on HCR and their bitter-end negativity may be energizing to the worst of their base, but they can't be appealing to the broad center, which is where elections are won. And Republicans' failure to condemn or even quite acknowledge last week's rash of violence and threats against Democrats is even uglier. Intemperate statements now will turn up in campaign ads later. And don't forget the NY-23 syndrome -- hard-line rightists undermining more electable moderate Republicans. An example is teabagger JD Hayworth's primary challenge to John McCain in Arizona, which has pushed McCain into a series of increasingly extremist statements in an effort to out-loony Hayworth for the sake of base primary voters. Either Hayworth will win the primary and (probably) lose the general, or McCain will prevail, but as damaged goods in the eyes of centrist voters and still viewed with suspicion by the base.
(4) A President should be a strong leader. During 2009 Obama's fixation on bipartisanship, futile in the face of the Republicans' intransigence, made him look weak, dithering, and unable to get things done. Since January he seems to have realized that such efforts were pointless, and the change has affected his image as well as the actual results achieved: Working with Congress to get HCR through despite the lack of Republican support, and using recess appointments to fill essential posts despite Republican obstruction, not only is strong and effective leadership, it also looks like strong and effective leadership. There will be more, and it will all help in November.
It's always possible, of course, that some unexpected major event could happen and change everything. But barring that (and such an event might be one that favors rather than harms our side), I don't think November's going to be all that bad.
Update (29 March): Arthur Greene has more detail on why HCR will probably help the Democrats in November -- benefits for critical groups like the elderly and the middle class will already have taken effect. Greene is a conservative and writes from an anti-HCR viewpoint, but his points on this are solid. Blogger DemWit also e-mails:
The Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, otherwise known as CLASS Act, provides for a national insurance program to help cover the cost of long-term care -- something 70 percent of people over 65 will need at some point along the way. The premiums will be much lower than those for private plans, and you won't get screened out because you've already had some health problems.
Class act indeed. So much for the death panels.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Hatred
Back by popular demand and apropos our times.
Christ Carrying the Cross by Hieronymus Bosch
by Wisława Szymborska
Look, how spry she still is,
how well she holds up:
hatred, in our century.
How lithely she takes high hurdles.
How easy for her to pounce, to seize.
She is not like the other feelings.
At once older and younger than they.
She alone gives birth to causes
which rouse her to life.
If she sleeps, it's never for eternity.
Insomnia doesn't take away but gives her strength.
Religion or no religion
-- as long as she's in the running
Motherland or no-man's land
-- as long as she's in the race.
Even justice suffices at first.
After that she speeds off on her own
Hatred. Hatred.
The grimace of love's ecstasy
twists her face.
Oh, those other feelings,
so sickly and sluggish.
Since when could brotherhood
count on milling crowds?
Was compassion ever first across the finish line?
How many followers does doubt command?
Only hatred commands, for hatred knows her stuff.
Smart, able, hard working.
Need we say how many songs she has written.
How many pages of history she has numbered.
How many human carpets she has unrolled,
over how many plazas and stadiums.
Let's be honest:
Hatred can create beauty.
Marvelous are her fire-glows, in deep night.
Clouds of smoke most beautiful, in rosy dawn.
It's hard to deny ruins their pathos
and not to see bawdy humor
in the stout column lording it over them.
She is a master of contrast
between clatter and silence,
red blood and white snow.
Above all the image of a clean-shaven torturer
standing over his defiled victim
never bores her.
She is always ready for new tasks.
If she has to wait, she waits.
They say hatred is blind. Blind?
With eyes sharp as a sniper's,
she looks bravely into the future
-- she alone.
Trans. from the Polish by Joanna Trzeciak.
Christ Carrying the Cross by Hieronymus Boschby Wisława Szymborska
Look, how spry she still is,
how well she holds up:
hatred, in our century.
How lithely she takes high hurdles.
How easy for her to pounce, to seize.
She is not like the other feelings.
At once older and younger than they.
She alone gives birth to causes
which rouse her to life.
If she sleeps, it's never for eternity.
Insomnia doesn't take away but gives her strength.
Religion or no religion
-- as long as she's in the running
Motherland or no-man's land
-- as long as she's in the race.
Even justice suffices at first.
After that she speeds off on her own
Hatred. Hatred.
The grimace of love's ecstasy
twists her face.
Oh, those other feelings,
so sickly and sluggish.
Since when could brotherhood
count on milling crowds?
Was compassion ever first across the finish line?
How many followers does doubt command?
Only hatred commands, for hatred knows her stuff.
Smart, able, hard working.
Need we say how many songs she has written.
How many pages of history she has numbered.
How many human carpets she has unrolled,
over how many plazas and stadiums.
Let's be honest:
Hatred can create beauty.
Marvelous are her fire-glows, in deep night.
Clouds of smoke most beautiful, in rosy dawn.
It's hard to deny ruins their pathos
and not to see bawdy humor
in the stout column lording it over them.
She is a master of contrast
between clatter and silence,
red blood and white snow.
Above all the image of a clean-shaven torturer
standing over his defiled victim
never bores her.
She is always ready for new tasks.
If she has to wait, she waits.
They say hatred is blind. Blind?
With eyes sharp as a sniper's,
she looks bravely into the future
-- she alone.
Trans. from the Polish by Joanna Trzeciak.
Friday, March 26, 2010
GOP says NO to civility
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said NO to Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine's proposal to write a joint statement condemning threats to members of Congress.
The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would "together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry" and ask "all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior."
Sounds civil to me.
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told reporters that Kaine sent the letter to Steele today and then phoned him asking the chairman to release a joint bipartisan statement "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics." "This afternoon, Chairman Steele, through staff, declined Chairman Kaine's offer," Woodhouse said.
Oops. Stonewalled again.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye whined to TPM, "Gov. Kaine had an opportunity to condemn such activities when he was sitting next to Michael Steele on the set on Meet the Press. He chose not to, and instead decided to use it as an opportunity to raise money,"
Heye added:
Obviously, a large majority of Americans - a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independent - are upset that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid pushed through health care legislation that increases premiums and raises taxes and did so through strong-arm tactics, closed door meetings and sweetheart deals. Voters have a right to be angry. Unfortunately, some have chosen to engage in language and actions that go too far.
So that's it. The Republicans are just mad that they didn't get their way and they want to punish the outlaw Democrats. One thing for sure, the right-wing nuts have learned well from their mentors if their blog comments are any indication. SOS. SOS. SOS.
NO, that's not it. How can the party of "you lie" and "baby killer" say YES to civility? Why, they could never be uncivil again! They could not abuse traditional rules of House decorum! Worst of all, they could not encourage the wing-nuts to get down and dirty!
HELL NO, they don't want civility.
The draft text of the statement says that while Steele and Kaine disagree on the health care bill, they would "together call on elected officials of both parties to set an example of the civility we want to see in our citizenry" and ask "all Americans to respect differences of opinion, to refrain from inappropriate forms of intimidation, to reject violence and vandalism, and to scale back rhetoric that might reasonably be misinterpreted by those prone to such behavior."
Sounds civil to me.
DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse told reporters that Kaine sent the letter to Steele today and then phoned him asking the chairman to release a joint bipartisan statement "condemning the threats and acts of vandalism over the past week, calling for an end to such tactics and urging a more civil tone in our politics." "This afternoon, Chairman Steele, through staff, declined Chairman Kaine's offer," Woodhouse said.
Oops. Stonewalled again.
RNC spokesman Doug Heye whined to TPM, "Gov. Kaine had an opportunity to condemn such activities when he was sitting next to Michael Steele on the set on Meet the Press. He chose not to, and instead decided to use it as an opportunity to raise money,"
Heye added:
Obviously, a large majority of Americans - a broad coalition of Republicans, Democrats and Independent - are upset that President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid pushed through health care legislation that increases premiums and raises taxes and did so through strong-arm tactics, closed door meetings and sweetheart deals. Voters have a right to be angry. Unfortunately, some have chosen to engage in language and actions that go too far.
So that's it. The Republicans are just mad that they didn't get their way and they want to punish the outlaw Democrats. One thing for sure, the right-wing nuts have learned well from their mentors if their blog comments are any indication. SOS. SOS. SOS.
NO, that's not it. How can the party of "you lie" and "baby killer" say YES to civility? Why, they could never be uncivil again! They could not abuse traditional rules of House decorum! Worst of all, they could not encourage the wing-nuts to get down and dirty!
HELL NO, they don't want civility.
If Gore had won Kentucky. . .
That Al Gore lost the state of Kentucky in the 2000 Presidential election was a bit of a surprise to some of us. Polls had him up as much as 8%, but of course he lost that state and his loss was accompanied by jeers, of course. Republicans love to hate Al Gore although some have since begun to love Lieberman. They'd also love to forget all the accusations of voter fraud and the way they excoriated all who were suspicious that those voting machines with no means to check whether they had been hacked or not might have in fact, been tampered with in several states. Sore losers, we were called by the smug victors who currently are losers sore enough to the point of threatening us all with violence and insurrection.
In a country with a memory, the mockery might haunt Republicans, but of course they live in the moment and reality is created anew every day to suit each day's requirements. The conviction of a former judge and seven others on Thursday gives renewed strength to the argument that the electoral victory in 2000 and perhaps the Bush-Kerry contest were influenced or decided by corrupt Republicans. former Circuit Judge R. Cletus Maricle and former school Superintendent Douglas C. Adams along with five others were convicted of a federal racketeering conspiracy and several of them of other charges, including mail fraud, extortion and laundering the money that was used to buy votes.
Some of the juries are still out but the mockery, the Liberal bashing, the accusations of treason are sounding more and more off key as we move forward from the 8 year reign of the Right and we have to speculate on what might have been, for better or for worse, if the corrupt and unscrupulous, with all the lip service paid to freedom, had had respect for the law and tolerance of Democracy.
In a country with a memory, the mockery might haunt Republicans, but of course they live in the moment and reality is created anew every day to suit each day's requirements. The conviction of a former judge and seven others on Thursday gives renewed strength to the argument that the electoral victory in 2000 and perhaps the Bush-Kerry contest were influenced or decided by corrupt Republicans. former Circuit Judge R. Cletus Maricle and former school Superintendent Douglas C. Adams along with five others were convicted of a federal racketeering conspiracy and several of them of other charges, including mail fraud, extortion and laundering the money that was used to buy votes.
Some of the juries are still out but the mockery, the Liberal bashing, the accusations of treason are sounding more and more off key as we move forward from the 8 year reign of the Right and we have to speculate on what might have been, for better or for worse, if the corrupt and unscrupulous, with all the lip service paid to freedom, had had respect for the law and tolerance of Democracy.
The Inestimable Dr. Johnson: Theatre, Bricks, and Tea
Samuel Johnson never had much patience with us revolutionary tax-cheats and tea-crate-tossers back in 1776. Still, some perceptive remarks he made in the context of literary theory may be worth mentioning here. Certain Republican politicians have been all but blaming the Democrats for pointing out that people are wrong to throw bricks through their windows and to call them with death threats. That, you see, apparently amounts to capitalizing on their misfortune. Damn liberals go wah wah wah just because someone threatens to hang, draw, and quarter their entire family (or whatever the specific threats are). Well, here is the good doctor having his say about people who insist on dramatic illusionism at the theater:
He that can take the stage at one time for the palace of the Ptolemies, may take it in half an hour for the promontory of Actium. Delusion, if delusion be admitted, has no certain limitation . . . (Preface to Shakespeare).
The point for us regarding today's political environment would be that the officeholders and talkers on the right who have been spreading lies, innuendo, and baseless fear among the populace have unleashed the floodgates of "delusion"; they have obviously peddled their absurdities and falsehoods in the hope that a large enough percentage of the population would take them literally and act upon them to make reforming health care access impossible. The pols and talkers nearly succeeded, and to at least some extent, they are morally accountable for the persistence and bad eminence of the delusionary state they have encouraged, as well as for the material effects that have ensued and may yet ensue from it.
Dr. Johnson was quite certain that his ideal spectator at the theater was never in any danger of getting taken in by the spectacle, neoclassical precepts about verisimilitude notwithstanding; his remarks on this score are brilliant:The truth is, that the spectators are always in their senses, and know, from the first act to the last, that the stage is only a stage, and that the players are only players. . . .Well, that's the stage, and for Dr. Johnson, who more or less follows Aristotle in such matters, it is a rational, neat affair: if we are sane when we go to the theater, we will know the difference between reality and spectacle or illusion, even though the emotion we feel while watching a play is genuine and refers us back to something real or at least possible. I wish I could believe that the neat scission between reality and fiction holds for "political theater," but I can't. Politics may be theater, but it's always also tied to real life, to material consequentiality. Oscar Wilde's dictum that "life imitates art far more than art imitates life" may hold true for the fine art of politics. If you tell me a lie that preys upon my anxieties, my prejudices, my fundamental assumptions about who I am, or who you or "they" are, etc., it's likely that I'm going to become possessed by that lie; my obsessions may well get the better of me and lead me to do that for which I may be sorry. I find certain Republicans' failure to understand this fact inexcusable.
It will be asked, how the drama moves, if it is not credited. It is credited with all the credit due to a drama. It is credited, whenever it moves, as a just picture of a real original . . . . The reflection that strikes the heart is not, that the evils before us are real evils, but that they are evils to which we ourselves may be exposed. If there be any fallacy, it is not that we fancy the players, but that we fancy ourselves unhappy for a moment . . . . The delight of tragedy proceeds from our consciousness of fiction; if we thought murders and treasons real, they would please no more.
Imitations produce pain or pleasure, not because they are mistaken for realities, but because they bring realities to mind.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Grrrrr and Minor Impact Tremors: In This I Must Speak Only For Myself (all 3200 lbs. dinodupoids and 36 feet in length)
“Threats spur increased security for lawmakers : At least 10 House Democrats are offered stepped-up attention in the wake of last weekend's health-care vote, after death threats and vandalism.” Washington Post, 3/24/2010.
That’s the sort of headline we are seeing this week. These are the times that try a dino’s soul, times in which overly temperate utterance seems downright inappropriate and nothing short of a full-on, predatory battle-roar would be appropriate. So let me say the following in response:
To those (and only those) who are responsible for this sort of thing and who agree with what they’re doing – you are thugs. Note that I’m not saying you are “like” thugs or “acting like” thugs. The time is past for weak similes. I’m saying that you ARE thugs – criminal thugs, in the case of the malefactors referenced above.
It has become obvious that your goal is simply to make rational, respectable people give up on America’s civic culture. And you know what? That was exactly the aim of the organized Brownshirts and semi-organized rabble Hitler used back in the 1920s during his rise to power – to frighten and dispirit the populace by throwing bricks through windows, tossing ethnic and other slurs, making death threats, etc. I suppose next you’ll move on to administering beatings in alleys and burning books that you can’t read anyway. You are the very stuff, the raw material, of the American Nazism that could come to pass if we should fail to sustain the republic. Proud of yourselves, trash? You went around painting little Charlie Chaplin mustaches on Barack Obama’s portrait last summer, labeling the reforms “fascism,” and so forth. That’s the most manifest case of projection one can imagine – you’re the fascists here in the States, not President Obama, and the fact that you don’t understand it only proves that you are either bottomlessly stupid or outright insane.
Perhaps like many others in the liberal, centrist, and thoughtful-conservative blogging community, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, and supposed that you were just confused and perhaps a bit dull-witted, but in my view there is no further room for doubt: you are violent, irrational flotsam and your sole objective is not to protect your own liberties but instead to destroy the republic any way you can. Why? Because you can’t stand freedom – you don’t have the courage; you can’t stand debate – you don’t have the brains; you can’t stand living in a country where the majority of people think it’s wise to help others in a time of need – you don’t have the heart. Again I say, ye are vile thugs. Set it down for a certainty that you are the nation’s disgrace and that I (and, I can hope, all decent people here in America and elsewhere in the world) hold you in unmitigated contempt.
Oh, and no matter what you do, the health-care bill is going into effect within the next few days. Choke on that fact. At least now you’ll be able to get some health care without “choking” being labeled a pre-existing condition, you dumb, illiterate, violent, childish, knuckle-dragging anti-American degenerate mother*uckers. I know you for what you are, and I don’t believe you will get your authoritarian dystopia in which conditions are so vile, so abject, that the low likes of you can become the norm. America isn’t perfect, but it’s better than that – better, that is, than YOU. I believe that the normal, the caring, the civic-spirited, and the patriotic (I don’t mean only “liberal” by any of those terms) will prevail, and that they won’t do it with your weapons of choice, either – bricks, guns, bombs, filthy-threat-laden calls in the dead of night, or physical intimidation. No, the most powerful things good people have on their side are justice and right, along with a firm desire to see them done in the proper ways. Decency and humaneness are IDEALS, and we all know that you can’t kill an ideal, however hard you may try. You’re wasting your time with those bricks and phone calls, morons. First learn how to spell: it’s “extremism,” not “exremism,” you stupid *UCK!
Finally, if you look in the mirror and don’t like that little Charlie Chaplin mustache you see materializing there (is that a mustache which you see before you, or a mustache of the mind?) , I would gladly welcome you into the sphere of normality and civilization – better late than never. I’m sure it will be so new for you there, you’ll feel just like a kid in a candy store.
That’s the sort of headline we are seeing this week. These are the times that try a dino’s soul, times in which overly temperate utterance seems downright inappropriate and nothing short of a full-on, predatory battle-roar would be appropriate. So let me say the following in response:
To those (and only those) who are responsible for this sort of thing and who agree with what they’re doing – you are thugs. Note that I’m not saying you are “like” thugs or “acting like” thugs. The time is past for weak similes. I’m saying that you ARE thugs – criminal thugs, in the case of the malefactors referenced above.
It has become obvious that your goal is simply to make rational, respectable people give up on America’s civic culture. And you know what? That was exactly the aim of the organized Brownshirts and semi-organized rabble Hitler used back in the 1920s during his rise to power – to frighten and dispirit the populace by throwing bricks through windows, tossing ethnic and other slurs, making death threats, etc. I suppose next you’ll move on to administering beatings in alleys and burning books that you can’t read anyway. You are the very stuff, the raw material, of the American Nazism that could come to pass if we should fail to sustain the republic. Proud of yourselves, trash? You went around painting little Charlie Chaplin mustaches on Barack Obama’s portrait last summer, labeling the reforms “fascism,” and so forth. That’s the most manifest case of projection one can imagine – you’re the fascists here in the States, not President Obama, and the fact that you don’t understand it only proves that you are either bottomlessly stupid or outright insane.
Perhaps like many others in the liberal, centrist, and thoughtful-conservative blogging community, I used to give you the benefit of the doubt, and supposed that you were just confused and perhaps a bit dull-witted, but in my view there is no further room for doubt: you are violent, irrational flotsam and your sole objective is not to protect your own liberties but instead to destroy the republic any way you can. Why? Because you can’t stand freedom – you don’t have the courage; you can’t stand debate – you don’t have the brains; you can’t stand living in a country where the majority of people think it’s wise to help others in a time of need – you don’t have the heart. Again I say, ye are vile thugs. Set it down for a certainty that you are the nation’s disgrace and that I (and, I can hope, all decent people here in America and elsewhere in the world) hold you in unmitigated contempt.
Oh, and no matter what you do, the health-care bill is going into effect within the next few days. Choke on that fact. At least now you’ll be able to get some health care without “choking” being labeled a pre-existing condition, you dumb, illiterate, violent, childish, knuckle-dragging anti-American degenerate mother*uckers. I know you for what you are, and I don’t believe you will get your authoritarian dystopia in which conditions are so vile, so abject, that the low likes of you can become the norm. America isn’t perfect, but it’s better than that – better, that is, than YOU. I believe that the normal, the caring, the civic-spirited, and the patriotic (I don’t mean only “liberal” by any of those terms) will prevail, and that they won’t do it with your weapons of choice, either – bricks, guns, bombs, filthy-threat-laden calls in the dead of night, or physical intimidation. No, the most powerful things good people have on their side are justice and right, along with a firm desire to see them done in the proper ways. Decency and humaneness are IDEALS, and we all know that you can’t kill an ideal, however hard you may try. You’re wasting your time with those bricks and phone calls, morons. First learn how to spell: it’s “extremism,” not “exremism,” you stupid *UCK!
Finally, if you look in the mirror and don’t like that little Charlie Chaplin mustache you see materializing there (is that a mustache which you see before you, or a mustache of the mind?) , I would gladly welcome you into the sphere of normality and civilization – better late than never. I’m sure it will be so new for you there, you’ll feel just like a kid in a candy store.
See something? Say something!
We've all seen the signs of what looks like the beginning of a new wave of far-right terrorism -- the Tiller murder, the Austin plane attack, and so on. With the outbreak of vandalism and threats following the passage of HCR, and the more-hysterical-than-ever rhetoric on much of the right, the danger of terrorism or violence directed against the political leadership and institutions of this country seems more serious than ever.
If you see or hear anything that suggets a serious threat, report it. The Secret Service and the FBI are helped in their work by an alert public. You could save a life, or many.
Link to FBI contact information
Link to Secret Service field office phone numbers
If you see or hear anything that suggets a serious threat, report it. The Secret Service and the FBI are helped in their work by an alert public. You could save a life, or many.
Link to FBI contact information
Link to Secret Service field office phone numbers
land of the Prison, home of the Coward
Yes, our personal freedom has been irrevocably damaged by a weak attempt to control swashbuckling Insurance company practices and there's nothing ahead but free fall into the pit of Socialism - or Fascism if your paranoia runs better in that direction. I can't get through an hour without hearing the whining about "Obamacare" and "American values."
Of course there's little fear that the attempt to make it legal for a suspect to be held forever without trial will jeopardize our "freedom" at all. There's not too much concern that proof of innocence can't overturn a death sentence either. Freedom you see, is a personal, even solipsistic thing and like personal income, we Libertarians don't want to share it or spread it around. I need to be free to do anything, free from any responsibility to the country, but you can rot in hell, for all I care. Some call that Libertarian, some conservative, but either attempt is like pasting a label to Teflon - it won't stick. What it really is, is panic and what it's really not is justice. Yes, I know, if your one of those Glennbecky sorts, you'll insist that justice itself is one of many gates to hell and the corridor to Communism, but if you're one of those, you belong there anyway.
But here's an example or two: Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate's Armed Services, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees, wants to talk us into legislation that allows a "terrorism suspect" to be held forever without charges and without counsel. That's right, I said suspect. What's a suspect? it's whatever some justice department apparatchik or some informant or unnamed source says it is.
And that doesn't scare you; not like filling out a census form, not like keeping your insurance from being canceled the day after they find that tumor because you had an unreported toothache in 1972. None the less, we want limited government, but only as concerns us, not them. A life sentence for suspicion is
They aren't worth taking a risk for in Texas; just ask Troy Davis, sentenced to die for a brutal triple murder in a trial so flawed it makes my hair stand on end. One of the victims, for instance, had complained of abuse and threats from a third party, who was not even interviewed by police. Ten years ago David Protess, at The Innocence Project at Northwestern University, whose group has exonerated 17 condemned prisoners using DNA evidence the court never saw, re-examined the case with his students and concluded Skinner is innocent. Texas won't reconsider a conviction based on new evidence. In Texas, innocence is no defense and Texas, for all it's guns and bravado is so terrified of Davis that they're willing to kill him and the hell with reasonable doubt. Fortunately, the Supreme court isn't from Texas and has granted a stay, just an hour before the execution
Sure, we want limited government, but with unlimited power to do whatever feels expedient and damn the very idea of social justice and screw anyone who ever thought the USA was worth fighting for. Don't you understand we're afraid?
Of course there's little fear that the attempt to make it legal for a suspect to be held forever without trial will jeopardize our "freedom" at all. There's not too much concern that proof of innocence can't overturn a death sentence either. Freedom you see, is a personal, even solipsistic thing and like personal income, we Libertarians don't want to share it or spread it around. I need to be free to do anything, free from any responsibility to the country, but you can rot in hell, for all I care. Some call that Libertarian, some conservative, but either attempt is like pasting a label to Teflon - it won't stick. What it really is, is panic and what it's really not is justice. Yes, I know, if your one of those Glennbecky sorts, you'll insist that justice itself is one of many gates to hell and the corridor to Communism, but if you're one of those, you belong there anyway.
But here's an example or two: Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Senate's Armed Services, Homeland Security and Judiciary committees, wants to talk us into legislation that allows a "terrorism suspect" to be held forever without charges and without counsel. That's right, I said suspect. What's a suspect? it's whatever some justice department apparatchik or some informant or unnamed source says it is.
“There has to be some type of statute -- and he’s been clear on that -- for indefinite detention,” said Graham spokesman Kevin Bishop. An accused person is "too dangerous to release; but we also aren’t going to try them in either a military or a civilian court. So there has to be a system for that, and that’s why Senator Graham is looking for a legal framework."Too bad there's no longer any framework to determine whether someone is actually dangerous, is a terrorist or even what terrorism is under such legislation, but never mind -- the government just knows and we're comfortable with that. Limited justice and limited freedom you see, is limited government.
And that doesn't scare you; not like filling out a census form, not like keeping your insurance from being canceled the day after they find that tumor because you had an unreported toothache in 1972. None the less, we want limited government, but only as concerns us, not them. A life sentence for suspicion is
"un-American and violates our commitment to due process and the rule of law,"says the ACLU, as you'd expect from those Commies. Don't they understand we're afraid? Don't they understand that American values aren't worth taking a risk for?
They aren't worth taking a risk for in Texas; just ask Troy Davis, sentenced to die for a brutal triple murder in a trial so flawed it makes my hair stand on end. One of the victims, for instance, had complained of abuse and threats from a third party, who was not even interviewed by police. Ten years ago David Protess, at The Innocence Project at Northwestern University, whose group has exonerated 17 condemned prisoners using DNA evidence the court never saw, re-examined the case with his students and concluded Skinner is innocent. Texas won't reconsider a conviction based on new evidence. In Texas, innocence is no defense and Texas, for all it's guns and bravado is so terrified of Davis that they're willing to kill him and the hell with reasonable doubt. Fortunately, the Supreme court isn't from Texas and has granted a stay, just an hour before the execution
Sure, we want limited government, but with unlimited power to do whatever feels expedient and damn the very idea of social justice and screw anyone who ever thought the USA was worth fighting for. Don't you understand we're afraid?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)