I love the fact that Sarah Palin is hitching her wagon so tightly with the new Know Nothing Party. Nothing could ensure her irrelevance in 2012 more than saddling up with the political equivalent of EMF. In fact, being associated with tea party rallies is going to be about as attractive as being known for Italian hoagie and Mountain Dew fueled Dungeon and Dragons weekends.
Here's a sneak peek into the future: the health care law has been in effect for two years, the economy has rebounded, unemployment has fallen to 7% or thereabouts, and Glenn Beck has exhausted all doomsday scenarios.
Republicans who stayed aloof from teabagging will pound Palin into the ground with samples of the most bizarre and extreme of the teabaggers, essentially making her look as if she's the president of the Timothy McVeigh fan club, and the Republican Party establishment will know that a Palin primary victory will equal a general election defeat, because the Democrats will run ad after ad of teabagger tinfoil hat theory with shots of Ms. Palin egging them on, as she did this weekend in Searchlight, Nevada.
I have to admit I'm not up on the alternatives, though. I suppose Mitt Romney is in the hunt, and probably the bass player from the midwest...um, Huckabee. McCain's Presidential aspirations are over. I guess another Bush might try his hand, maybe Jeb, but I'm fairly certain the country is a little bored with that family.
With any luck, we won't be wasting lives and dollars in Iraq anymore...
28 March 2010
23 March 2010
Alexander the not-so-Great
I was listening to NPR today when they interviewed Lamar Alexander -- or at least played a sound bite from him -- on the student loan bill currently before Congress. I can't remember his exact idiocy on the radio, but here's what he committed to print earlier this month:
Let's leave aside the fact that states run DMVs. I wonder if Alexander understands -- or maybe he just doesn't know -- that the government already provides student loans (and that's on the federal and state level) and they haven't required any DMV-like apparatus to do so.
So you're left with the question: Is Alexander stupid or disingenuous?
Starting in July, all 19 million students who want government-backed loans will line up at offices designated by the U.S. Education Department. Gone will be the days when students and their colleges picked the lender that best fit their needs; instead, a federal bureaucrat will make that choice for every student in America based on still-unclear guidelines.I guess I'm naive; I never picked my lender when I went to college -- I applied for a student loan and -- bam -- there was Sallie Mae. Apparently Alexander thinks that the government is going to install DMV-like offices to service loans:
Finally, the government should disclose that getting your student loan will become about as enjoyable as going to the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Let's leave aside the fact that states run DMVs. I wonder if Alexander understands -- or maybe he just doesn't know -- that the government already provides student loans (and that's on the federal and state level) and they haven't required any DMV-like apparatus to do so.
So you're left with the question: Is Alexander stupid or disingenuous?
22 March 2010
Liar liar pants on fire.
Texas Representative Randy Neugebauer, who called fellow Congressman Bernie Stupak a baby killer while Stupak spoke on the floor of the House now claims he was referring to the Healthcare Bill, telling anyone who will listen that he actually said, "It's a baby killer."
Nice try.
I suppose he thought that particular lie was simpler and more believable than his first choice, which was rumored to be "Baby killer whales are cute."
The actual baby killer, of course, -- and parent killer and plain out person killer -- would be Neugebauer and his fellow self-centered hatemongers, all cut from the same cloth who have opposed any form of legislation geared toward the greater good of the nation. Is the health care bill perfect? Hell, no. It gives way too much to the very vampires who have been sucking this nation dry for decades. However, it's a start, and that's better than where we were.
Nice try.
I suppose he thought that particular lie was simpler and more believable than his first choice, which was rumored to be "Baby killer whales are cute."
The actual baby killer, of course, -- and parent killer and plain out person killer -- would be Neugebauer and his fellow self-centered hatemongers, all cut from the same cloth who have opposed any form of legislation geared toward the greater good of the nation. Is the health care bill perfect? Hell, no. It gives way too much to the very vampires who have been sucking this nation dry for decades. However, it's a start, and that's better than where we were.
19 January 2010
Lessons to take from the Massachusetts Special Election
OK, so you're a Democrat, and you need to know what the lessons are for your party given the resounding defeat that Brown laid on Coakley in Mass. today. Well, I've done my share of studying Democrats, so I'll offer up some post-election party insider thought:
"Geez we got beat today by a Republican. Maybe we should try to act more like Republicans."
That's pretty much the way the party has thought since 1972. I was three years old then, so I've never actually had a political party to get behind (let's face it, the SWP, PL, etc. are not going to win any elections and while part of me wants to join one of those parties because maybe if enough people joined it would change, another part of me resists joining any party at all). Sure, I vote Democratic mainly to keep pure evil at bay, but there's little joy in seeing corporatist pawns parading around like they're champions of the working class because they happen to get a little less from lobbyists.
These tools have had a supermajority for months now and they couldn't pass anything meaningful. Imagine if Cheney had had that material to work with. There would be next to nothing left of labor laws or civil rights legislation. The Bill of Rights itself wouldn't be worth the match it would take to burn it. Hell, the Republicans got more done with 51 votes than the Democrats could get done with 60. And you can poo-poo all you want that Lieberman isn't really a Democrat and so what, you'd be right. So what? Come out forcefully with a health care bill with teeth and let the do-nothings block it. Let them take the heat for the impasse. Let them look like fools filibustering instead of offering solutions.
Instead, what do the Dems do? They dilute and dilute in a feeble attempt to herd every cat in the Party into one pen. It ain't gonna happen. So instead of the do-nothings looking like roadblocking fools and Lieberman looking like a turncoat yet again, the Democrats in the Senate and the White House (and to a lesser extent the House of Representatives) look like weak dithering morons.
Did Gingrich give a rat's ass when he ramrodded the Contract on America through Congress? Hell, no. The Republican leaders had a program and they executed it. Sure, it was shit reactionary mean spirited legislation growing out of a deep hatred of government, but they didn't care. It satisfied their misguided ideology. The Democrats, with superior numbers, couldn't capitalize on the Obama wave to do anything useful to mainstream Americans. Instead, they scatter like cats from a vacuum cleaner at each incoherent utterance from some teabagger. The Democratic Party of the 21st century is not the Party that brought the USA Civil Rights legislation, the right to collective bargaining, or anything remotely progressive. Let's go over some of their recent hits:
So does the Massachusetts Senate seat loss mean much to Democrats? In real terms, no. They'll continue to act as if they lost because they weren't Republican enough. They'll continue to shiver every time some pudgy comfortably compensated pundit on cable news barks "Communist" at them because their giveaways to industrial interests weren't big enough.
RIP Ted Kennedy. RIP Paul Wellstone.
"Geez we got beat today by a Republican. Maybe we should try to act more like Republicans."
That's pretty much the way the party has thought since 1972. I was three years old then, so I've never actually had a political party to get behind (let's face it, the SWP, PL, etc. are not going to win any elections and while part of me wants to join one of those parties because maybe if enough people joined it would change, another part of me resists joining any party at all). Sure, I vote Democratic mainly to keep pure evil at bay, but there's little joy in seeing corporatist pawns parading around like they're champions of the working class because they happen to get a little less from lobbyists.
These tools have had a supermajority for months now and they couldn't pass anything meaningful. Imagine if Cheney had had that material to work with. There would be next to nothing left of labor laws or civil rights legislation. The Bill of Rights itself wouldn't be worth the match it would take to burn it. Hell, the Republicans got more done with 51 votes than the Democrats could get done with 60. And you can poo-poo all you want that Lieberman isn't really a Democrat and so what, you'd be right. So what? Come out forcefully with a health care bill with teeth and let the do-nothings block it. Let them take the heat for the impasse. Let them look like fools filibustering instead of offering solutions.
Instead, what do the Dems do? They dilute and dilute in a feeble attempt to herd every cat in the Party into one pen. It ain't gonna happen. So instead of the do-nothings looking like roadblocking fools and Lieberman looking like a turncoat yet again, the Democrats in the Senate and the White House (and to a lesser extent the House of Representatives) look like weak dithering morons.
Did Gingrich give a rat's ass when he ramrodded the Contract on America through Congress? Hell, no. The Republican leaders had a program and they executed it. Sure, it was shit reactionary mean spirited legislation growing out of a deep hatred of government, but they didn't care. It satisfied their misguided ideology. The Democrats, with superior numbers, couldn't capitalize on the Obama wave to do anything useful to mainstream Americans. Instead, they scatter like cats from a vacuum cleaner at each incoherent utterance from some teabagger. The Democratic Party of the 21st century is not the Party that brought the USA Civil Rights legislation, the right to collective bargaining, or anything remotely progressive. Let's go over some of their recent hits:
- Gutting social programs under Clinton
- Continuing under Clinton the creeping deregulation of banks etc that helped bring on the current recession
- Rolling over and playing dead -- no, even worse lap dog -- for the Bush Administration in giving Bush a blank check for the Iraq Boondoggle, passing the PATRIOT Act, and No Child Left Behind.
- Being held hostage by one soulless Senator whose party allegiance is worth about as much as Rush Limbaugh's marriage vows
So does the Massachusetts Senate seat loss mean much to Democrats? In real terms, no. They'll continue to act as if they lost because they weren't Republican enough. They'll continue to shiver every time some pudgy comfortably compensated pundit on cable news barks "Communist" at them because their giveaways to industrial interests weren't big enough.
RIP Ted Kennedy. RIP Paul Wellstone.
05 January 2010
An overview of the past year.
2009 was not a stellar blogging year for me. Only one month did I manage double-digit posts, and two months I didn't post at all.
Here's the thing: I rarely missed it.
Sure, every now and then I would feel bad that I was neglecting the blog, but the main problem is that I've been out of touch with the District for too long.
It's not the so-called blogging community with their meet-ups and flame wars (I only met another blogger once, and that was by chance) that I've lost touch with, but the feel of place. My blog was mainly political, and much of that national, so it wasn't really a strict DC-living blog, but that's where the energy came from.
I'm not exactly shutting down the blog, at least officially. I might keep writing.
Who knows. There's so much disappointment everywhere.
Here's the thing: I rarely missed it.
Sure, every now and then I would feel bad that I was neglecting the blog, but the main problem is that I've been out of touch with the District for too long.
It's not the so-called blogging community with their meet-ups and flame wars (I only met another blogger once, and that was by chance) that I've lost touch with, but the feel of place. My blog was mainly political, and much of that national, so it wasn't really a strict DC-living blog, but that's where the energy came from.
I'm not exactly shutting down the blog, at least officially. I might keep writing.
Who knows. There's so much disappointment everywhere.
13 November 2009
I've had it up to here with political correctness.
Political correctness does not exist, at least not in the way it's being used by pundits and politicians. The term itself -- in its current usage -- gained currency as a neat right-wing sound bite to dismiss any allegations of racism or sexism. Oh, you think I'm being derogatory when I use the n-word to describe Blacks? You're being "politically correct." You don't like that I refer to women on college campuses as sluts and candidates for the MRS degree? You're being "politically correct."
In other words, the term has provided a nice cover for neanderthal behavior and has effectively become a blanket term for anything liberal, progressive, or simply sensitive to multiple perspectives. Now, for some reason, the right wing has decided to deploy "political correctness" to discuss the Fort Hood shootings (I'd say to politicize the shootings, but let's face it -- everything is always already political, and here we have the most pungent ingredients for a political soup: army base, nation at war, Muslim shooter publicly critical of US role in Iraq and Afghanistan...). From his perch in cloud cuckoo land, Charles Krauthammer actually throws out this rubbish:
The "political correctness" in this case was the initial response of news agencies -- surprising, actually -- not to rush to judgement. In the absence of any information other than the shooter's name and religious affiliation (because we have to remember that information on his business card, radical cleric contacts, and even his specific statements before and during the shooting weren't known until a few days later), the media didn't supply all those missing details.
I fail to see how that equates to political correctness.
When Timothy McVeigh perpetrated what had been until 9/11 the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, I don't remember the media immediately seizing upon McVeigh's U.S. upbringing and his Christian faith...although of course as details came out they paid quite a bit of attention to the militia movement and white supremacists.
And it's not simply Krauthammer who's trying to link the Fort Hood shooting to the term "political correctness." On comment boards from national papers like the Post to small town local papers, letter writers and anonymous online posters are decrying the "politically correct" military (ha!) and media.
Krauthammer, by the way, doesn't do himself any favors when his major source of information about Hasan's radical ties come via a report on NPR, the right-wing's target that conveniently kills two birds with one stone: liberal media and government waste.
Apparently, what Krauthammer, writing in the comfort of one week's reflection and subsequent news stories, mistakes for political correctness is actually journalistic integrity (which is itself a nearly dead object).
In other words, the term has provided a nice cover for neanderthal behavior and has effectively become a blanket term for anything liberal, progressive, or simply sensitive to multiple perspectives. Now, for some reason, the right wing has decided to deploy "political correctness" to discuss the Fort Hood shootings (I'd say to politicize the shootings, but let's face it -- everything is always already political, and here we have the most pungent ingredients for a political soup: army base, nation at war, Muslim shooter publicly critical of US role in Iraq and Afghanistan...). From his perch in cloud cuckoo land, Charles Krauthammer actually throws out this rubbish:
Have we totally lost our moral bearings? Nidal Hasan (allegedly) cold-bloodedly killed 13 innocent people. His business card had his name, his profession, his medical degrees and his occupational identity. U.S. Army? No. "SoA" -- Soldier of Allah. In such cases, political correctness is not just an abomination. It's a danger, clear and present.
The "political correctness" in this case was the initial response of news agencies -- surprising, actually -- not to rush to judgement. In the absence of any information other than the shooter's name and religious affiliation (because we have to remember that information on his business card, radical cleric contacts, and even his specific statements before and during the shooting weren't known until a few days later), the media didn't supply all those missing details.
I fail to see how that equates to political correctness.
When Timothy McVeigh perpetrated what had been until 9/11 the worst act of terrorism on U.S. soil, I don't remember the media immediately seizing upon McVeigh's U.S. upbringing and his Christian faith...although of course as details came out they paid quite a bit of attention to the militia movement and white supremacists.
And it's not simply Krauthammer who's trying to link the Fort Hood shooting to the term "political correctness." On comment boards from national papers like the Post to small town local papers, letter writers and anonymous online posters are decrying the "politically correct" military (ha!) and media.
Krauthammer, by the way, doesn't do himself any favors when his major source of information about Hasan's radical ties come via a report on NPR, the right-wing's target that conveniently kills two birds with one stone: liberal media and government waste.
Apparently, what Krauthammer, writing in the comfort of one week's reflection and subsequent news stories, mistakes for political correctness is actually journalistic integrity (which is itself a nearly dead object).
09 November 2009
Schadenfreude
There's nothing sadder than watching your team fail to show up for big games.
OK, so I exaggerate. There are far, far sadder things than that. Like reading the Washington Post comment boards and realizing that most of the people who take time to write on them are reactionary half-wits. Yet still literate. That's sad.
However, in the context of college football, a team with a good record that fails to deliver in the big game is pretty hard to top in the sadness area. And Penn State has delivered that in spades this year, with losses at home to Iowa and Ohio State, the only two decent teams we will play this year (until the bowl game). In both cases, the offense simply didn't show up. The Ohio State game is harder to swallow, because they essentially have one player, and he's not exactly stellar.
But hey, we lost, and have been deservedly kicked to the lower echelons of the top 25 (19 AP, 18 BCS). We should climb up a few spots by beating Indiana and Michigan State, although I can remember a few late season collapses where we went from big bowl contenders to simply bowl bound.
The bright spots on an otherwise disappointing Saturday were that Florida State and Notre Dame lost.
I really don't take much joy anymore in reading the Florida State espn message board, because the people on there are defeated and nasty and would love to kick Bobby Bowden to the curb -- a bunch of ingrates who wouldn't know football and tradition from next week's flavor of the month hot "new" offensive scheme.
The Notre Dame board still provides great amusement, though, because they are still in denial. They still believe that the nation looks to them as a city on the hill, that every coach and every recruit would love to be part of their mid-tier program, and that every team they play treats Notre Dame as "their bowl game" (I suppose since Notre Dame plays mostly losing teams, it might be their bowl game...most of them end up ineligible to play in real bowls). Oh, and before I forget, that Ty Willingham personally and maliciously destroyed Notre Dame football...some posters, like 73Champs, are rather vehement about this charge, calling him "Willingsham" and "Entitlement Thief" and 73Champs has even provided this little "gem" that provides insight into his asininity: "And then based on the color of your skin, bamboozle another un suspecting employer to hire you so you can drive their business into the ground." He usually pulls that one out when he's called out for still backing Charlie Weis, whose record is a full percentage point (yes one point) above Willingham's despite Charlie's having played far worse competition (Willingham played nearly half his games against top25 opponents; Weis has played fewer than a quarter against that caliber of competition...and their records in those games: Willingham, 8-9; Weis, 1-12...the lone Willingham defender on the board, Cardfan, points this out repeatedly and is generally reviled for backing up his argument with numbers. After all, it's much easier to act like Willingham only got hired because he was Black and, according to 73Champs, was fired because he was "lazy").
OK, so I exaggerate. There are far, far sadder things than that. Like reading the Washington Post comment boards and realizing that most of the people who take time to write on them are reactionary half-wits. Yet still literate. That's sad.
However, in the context of college football, a team with a good record that fails to deliver in the big game is pretty hard to top in the sadness area. And Penn State has delivered that in spades this year, with losses at home to Iowa and Ohio State, the only two decent teams we will play this year (until the bowl game). In both cases, the offense simply didn't show up. The Ohio State game is harder to swallow, because they essentially have one player, and he's not exactly stellar.
But hey, we lost, and have been deservedly kicked to the lower echelons of the top 25 (19 AP, 18 BCS). We should climb up a few spots by beating Indiana and Michigan State, although I can remember a few late season collapses where we went from big bowl contenders to simply bowl bound.
The bright spots on an otherwise disappointing Saturday were that Florida State and Notre Dame lost.
I really don't take much joy anymore in reading the Florida State espn message board, because the people on there are defeated and nasty and would love to kick Bobby Bowden to the curb -- a bunch of ingrates who wouldn't know football and tradition from next week's flavor of the month hot "new" offensive scheme.
The Notre Dame board still provides great amusement, though, because they are still in denial. They still believe that the nation looks to them as a city on the hill, that every coach and every recruit would love to be part of their mid-tier program, and that every team they play treats Notre Dame as "their bowl game" (I suppose since Notre Dame plays mostly losing teams, it might be their bowl game...most of them end up ineligible to play in real bowls). Oh, and before I forget, that Ty Willingham personally and maliciously destroyed Notre Dame football...some posters, like 73Champs, are rather vehement about this charge, calling him "Willingsham" and "Entitlement Thief" and 73Champs has even provided this little "gem" that provides insight into his asininity: "And then based on the color of your skin, bamboozle another un suspecting employer to hire you so you can drive their business into the ground." He usually pulls that one out when he's called out for still backing Charlie Weis, whose record is a full percentage point (yes one point) above Willingham's despite Charlie's having played far worse competition (Willingham played nearly half his games against top25 opponents; Weis has played fewer than a quarter against that caliber of competition...and their records in those games: Willingham, 8-9; Weis, 1-12...the lone Willingham defender on the board, Cardfan, points this out repeatedly and is generally reviled for backing up his argument with numbers. After all, it's much easier to act like Willingham only got hired because he was Black and, according to 73Champs, was fired because he was "lazy").
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)