This is a beautiful thing. link
This is why Newt may just win. Newt, Not Mitt.
Mitt Romney attacks Newt with his millions and Michelle Bachmann attacks Newt with her minions...
And Newt says, "I'll be happy to hold a free press conference every Tuesday and talk about ideas and have you meet with me personally and answer any questions you may have. Personally. Straight from the horse's mouth... or straight from the horse's ass... whatever you may think of me."
But you gotta worry about that. If Newt is able to wield the sword cheaply at Mitt's mighty fortress, he may bring it down and still push the media toward the big show... spinning a narrative that has him, not Mitt...(link) And he's already hacking away at the President. threatening to chase him around and challenge him to debates. (link) He's gonna be, or plan to be, it seems, like George Bush's Purse (link) or Traficant's hair... the albatross in the room... the 900 lbs gorrilla around the President's neck... a gadfly demanding free pressers... Because he, by Gid, has something to say...
And He's Not Mitt. Not Bush. Not McCain. Not Nixon.
Except that he is, in a way. In the sense that he is weirdly and strangely alien to the right and oddly attractive to the left... in a weird flirtatious way, he is offputting but not so bad you won't stand there and listen. You know. Just because it's fascinating to see it in motion, this mind. Like that chick at the party that thinks she's hot and because she thinks it... hell because she thinks at all... she is hot. She suddenly somehow becomes kinda hot, and well, you know the rest... Eventually she fucks you over. ( link...link ...link ...link ...link)
But still you go on believing (link)
But there's that moment that you kinda liked them, you know?
And there's an intellectual quality that I like behind the zaniness...(link link)
And he, Newt, will probably find a way before it's all said and done to run a modern day William McKinley front-porch strategy...(link)
And he's not Bush, but he is. And he's not Obama, but he is. And he's not Clinton, but he is. And he is not Woodrow Wilson, but he is... And he's not your enemy, but he is.
But we're in a difficult time. and we need some heavy thinking. Maybe a little heavy drinking, too. But not with our enemies... And the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And all of that... So we flirt, but we know even as we flirt that he is not one of us.
I remember telling a friend of mine years ago that the evangelicals would turn on Bush when they discovered he was not one of them. And they did, finally, on immigration.
And I see that the left has turned on Obama but in the same way that they turned on Clinton over welfare going into the election... or that the right turned on Bush over prescription drugs going into the election... they don't like what they've seen but they're willing to think about it. But if another pretty girl entered the room? Another brainiac? Another freakshow? Another whatever floats your boat...
That might turn their heads.
What Obama promised and what he became? They hate him for that. And what Newt promised and what he became? They hate him for that. And Clinton and Bush and ...
But there's another reason. They also hate him because he is not one of us...
Because they are not us. That happens more and more with these guys. Hell, with Obama the burden of proof fell on him. to prove that he was one of us... Whatever that means that us, the people. We always turn for those weirdly alien strangely familiar ones.
And it's the same with Mitt, too. With Mitt, it's because he's Mormom and he has that weird, Baptist coldness about him... He's Bill Henrickson without the wives. And that scares the shit out of some people. Out of Baptists.
But with Newt, it's because he has that quality that Obama has. Newt sees himself as the center of the universe. (link) Obama sees himself as the Transformational President... (link) and also as the center of the universe... (link)
Just think of these two in a debate. teleprompters off or on... (link link link link) and swinging away like boxers boxing over visions for the future...
whereas all mitt can offer is, well, a hardware store and a casino.
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
filed under: who needs torture
Ignore the fact that CNN's reporter asked a multiple choice question designed to give the President a little wink (Are they rapists, child-molestors or just nazi assholes?)... (link)
The real issue here is: Who needs to torture them when you can just kill them without trial by a drone for saying things you don't like. (link) It's "not who we are" to waterboard. But killing them because we don't like what they say? Well that's just ducky.
The real issue here is: Who needs to torture them when you can just kill them without trial by a drone for saying things you don't like. (link) It's "not who we are" to waterboard. But killing them because we don't like what they say? Well that's just ducky.
Friday, November 11, 2011
filed under: a simple question
Drudge is leading at the moment with a variety of articles detailing crimes and illness that are befalling the OWS movement -- a death in Salt Lake City, lung sickness in Zucotti Park...
These are unfortunate events. Some in the media have tried to tie even more to the movement, with claims in the NY Post that OWS is responsible for defacing the the 9-11 memorial. An article in Salon argues that the charge is baseless. (link) SFGate has a story that there was murder in Oakland, but many in the movement there claim it had nothing to do with any of their people. (link) Still, there have been some reports of rapes and lots of suggestion of drug usage, and the footage I posted earlier in the week that shows behavior that would be called bullying in schools. All very unfortunate.
I hope it doesn't continue.
It was widely reported several weeks ago that Occupy had instituted a no snitching policy in its camps so that the public wouldn't get the wrong idea. The Washington Times had one version of this story (link), and an officer in NYPD was reported as saying that there is little information getting out about such activities because the people in OWS are trying to handle things themselves.
Uhm. Here's a question: What is the difference in that -- the no-snitching rule -- and what JoePa and Penn State (or the Catholic Church) have done?
These are unfortunate events. Some in the media have tried to tie even more to the movement, with claims in the NY Post that OWS is responsible for defacing the the 9-11 memorial. An article in Salon argues that the charge is baseless. (link) SFGate has a story that there was murder in Oakland, but many in the movement there claim it had nothing to do with any of their people. (link) Still, there have been some reports of rapes and lots of suggestion of drug usage, and the footage I posted earlier in the week that shows behavior that would be called bullying in schools. All very unfortunate.
I hope it doesn't continue.
It was widely reported several weeks ago that Occupy had instituted a no snitching policy in its camps so that the public wouldn't get the wrong idea. The Washington Times had one version of this story (link), and an officer in NYPD was reported as saying that there is little information getting out about such activities because the people in OWS are trying to handle things themselves.
Uhm. Here's a question: What is the difference in that -- the no-snitching rule -- and what JoePa and Penn State (or the Catholic Church) have done?
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
filed under: trust, but verify
OK, so you don't want to go crazy on every little issue with worrying about who is saying what about whom and for what reasons. Who has the time to check everything? Right? Still it is important to do just a little research because if you accept everything at face value then who knows what you are being fed?
Here is a quick example.
I read a little piece by Steve Kornacki in Salon that laid out plans for how Obama can defeat the Republicans (link). Nothing earth-shattering in that. And probably likely to happen, I think. When it comes down to it, I just don't know that anyone running on the Republican side has enough appeal to win the middle and still hold on to the angry fire on the right. It will be close, and it will depend on whether the economy stays down. But I wouldn't bet the farm on Obama being a one-termer just yet.
Anyway... Kornacki claims the House is standing in the way of Obama's jobs bill precisely to hold the economy down and increase their chances "even when there is wide agreement among economists that his proposals would add jobs and spur growth." I might even agree on that. At a minimum, the Republicans (and Democrats, too) seem unwilling to compromise, finding that sticking to their guns on "principles" is more likely to benefit them than a bad economy is likely to hurt them. But the "wide agreement" thing caught my eye. Really?
I clicked on the link to see what Kornacki took for "wide agreement" and the article listed only one economist, Moody's Mark Zandi. Also, the article was from September 9, just shortly after Obama had given his speech before Congress -- before the policies had even been spelled out. So how could there have been wide agreement by one single person before anyone even knew what was in the thing? Besides, Moody missed the housing and mortgage crisis and so anything they say at the moment is suspect to me.
So I googled Mark Zandi. It just took ten seconds. You can probably do it in five. I'm more easily distracted than you.
Anyway, in the first several articles, I saw that Zandi had predicted in 2007 that the economy wouldn't grow much weaker, just before it went on its historical devastation tour. Then in 2010, he predicted that the economy would be "off and running" by early 2011. I don't know how it is in your neighborhood, but that hasn't happened happened in mine.
So the "wide agreement" that Kornacki cites is by one guy who has been wrong on some of the major job movements of the past several years, and that guy made his prediction before the bill was even produced.
So, do you see why it's important to ask the question every once in a while? It only takes a second.
Here is a quick example.
I read a little piece by Steve Kornacki in Salon that laid out plans for how Obama can defeat the Republicans (link). Nothing earth-shattering in that. And probably likely to happen, I think. When it comes down to it, I just don't know that anyone running on the Republican side has enough appeal to win the middle and still hold on to the angry fire on the right. It will be close, and it will depend on whether the economy stays down. But I wouldn't bet the farm on Obama being a one-termer just yet.
Anyway... Kornacki claims the House is standing in the way of Obama's jobs bill precisely to hold the economy down and increase their chances "even when there is wide agreement among economists that his proposals would add jobs and spur growth." I might even agree on that. At a minimum, the Republicans (and Democrats, too) seem unwilling to compromise, finding that sticking to their guns on "principles" is more likely to benefit them than a bad economy is likely to hurt them. But the "wide agreement" thing caught my eye. Really?
I clicked on the link to see what Kornacki took for "wide agreement" and the article listed only one economist, Moody's Mark Zandi. Also, the article was from September 9, just shortly after Obama had given his speech before Congress -- before the policies had even been spelled out. So how could there have been wide agreement by one single person before anyone even knew what was in the thing? Besides, Moody missed the housing and mortgage crisis and so anything they say at the moment is suspect to me.
So I googled Mark Zandi. It just took ten seconds. You can probably do it in five. I'm more easily distracted than you.
Anyway, in the first several articles, I saw that Zandi had predicted in 2007 that the economy wouldn't grow much weaker, just before it went on its historical devastation tour. Then in 2010, he predicted that the economy would be "off and running" by early 2011. I don't know how it is in your neighborhood, but that hasn't happened happened in mine.
So the "wide agreement" that Kornacki cites is by one guy who has been wrong on some of the major job movements of the past several years, and that guy made his prediction before the bill was even produced.
So, do you see why it's important to ask the question every once in a while? It only takes a second.
filed under: revolutions are messy
The little dust-up that occured between Occupy Wall Street protestors (DC branch) and Americans for Prosperity tea-partiers over the weekend has gotten a little more attention in the last couple of days. (link) Much of this stuff is underground, I think. Perhaps much ado about nothing, except that in an election year, the stakes are fairly high.
The right has its base in the grass roots tax protests that began several years ago and have already been through an election cycle or two, calcifying into the Republican Party in a way that the Moral Majority once did. Tax policy has now become the civic religion for them. They are still driven by their religious roots, though. Don't think for a moment that if the Republicans sweep the elections in 2012 those compulsions will not resurface. Fifteen minutes after the Congress takes the oath, we will be feted to a new round of abortion controls and flag-burning bans and all of the old social issues that have been so important to the right over the years. These issues have only been temporarily quieted by the economic storm. The moralists won't be able to help themselves. They will demand accountability of their representatives for having worked for their elections. Still, at the moment, the talk is about economics, and they stand for deregulating and lower taxes and less spending and all of the things that drive a free markets approach to prosperity.
On the other hand, the left protestors want social justice. They define their stance in a way that combines a class-based anger at the wealthy with their call for social programs. Theirs is not a new movement either, just a newer iteration of the net-roots, the Seattle protests against globalism, and the like. They, like their counterparts on the right, have added some new wrinkles with their calls for economic solutions to student loans and a host of other programs, all revoving around their language regarding a supposed stance in favor of "the 99%." But the fact that they stood at the door of the AFP protest and pointed their fingers and shouted their slogans and epithets in the faces of common people seems to put the lie to the idea that they truly intend to achieve social justice for "all." What they want is what they have always wanted, an approach to responsible government controls of corporate greed and a redistribution of the profits. Anyone who stands in their way, whether by fact or ideology, is to be opposed.
So starts the revolution. It is a time of anger, driven by the harsh economic times, managed by a President and a Speaker of the House playing a high stakes game of chicken with the economic fortunes of the country. The crowds have grown larger than they were in protests from the recent past, or at least more vocal. Feet are liable to grow entangled as the two groups march against each other. (link)
Revolutions are messy. People get stirred up and act on their passions. They feel angst and flail in frustration. Given the clash of the OWS and AFP that occured over the weekend, it is unlikely to end with a prefered outcome, one in which a real revolution comes about. Instead, the groups are simply sorting themselves out into their corners, calls for peace all around, the media shaming them into submission with cries about extremism and the need for organization. And so we can propbably expect that OWS and the Tea Party will, like so many protestors before them, get sucked back into the parties.
But here is a question: What would happen if the two groups found a way to march in the same direction? Maybe meet at the Washington convention center and walk the mile or so it would take to stand in front of the US Congress and ask the representatives of the people and the corporate lobbyists they are holding meetings with to interrupt their meetings and come out and explain themselves... maybe have a real revolution. Now that would be a real mess.
Or they could just tear at each other's throats for a while, shout their slogans, jostle around the margins, point fingers and incite and maintain the ongoing hatred between right and left... while both of those other two groups -- the politicians and the corporations -- laugh each other all the way to the bank.
The right has its base in the grass roots tax protests that began several years ago and have already been through an election cycle or two, calcifying into the Republican Party in a way that the Moral Majority once did. Tax policy has now become the civic religion for them. They are still driven by their religious roots, though. Don't think for a moment that if the Republicans sweep the elections in 2012 those compulsions will not resurface. Fifteen minutes after the Congress takes the oath, we will be feted to a new round of abortion controls and flag-burning bans and all of the old social issues that have been so important to the right over the years. These issues have only been temporarily quieted by the economic storm. The moralists won't be able to help themselves. They will demand accountability of their representatives for having worked for their elections. Still, at the moment, the talk is about economics, and they stand for deregulating and lower taxes and less spending and all of the things that drive a free markets approach to prosperity.
On the other hand, the left protestors want social justice. They define their stance in a way that combines a class-based anger at the wealthy with their call for social programs. Theirs is not a new movement either, just a newer iteration of the net-roots, the Seattle protests against globalism, and the like. They, like their counterparts on the right, have added some new wrinkles with their calls for economic solutions to student loans and a host of other programs, all revoving around their language regarding a supposed stance in favor of "the 99%." But the fact that they stood at the door of the AFP protest and pointed their fingers and shouted their slogans and epithets in the faces of common people seems to put the lie to the idea that they truly intend to achieve social justice for "all." What they want is what they have always wanted, an approach to responsible government controls of corporate greed and a redistribution of the profits. Anyone who stands in their way, whether by fact or ideology, is to be opposed.
So starts the revolution. It is a time of anger, driven by the harsh economic times, managed by a President and a Speaker of the House playing a high stakes game of chicken with the economic fortunes of the country. The crowds have grown larger than they were in protests from the recent past, or at least more vocal. Feet are liable to grow entangled as the two groups march against each other. (link)
Revolutions are messy. People get stirred up and act on their passions. They feel angst and flail in frustration. Given the clash of the OWS and AFP that occured over the weekend, it is unlikely to end with a prefered outcome, one in which a real revolution comes about. Instead, the groups are simply sorting themselves out into their corners, calls for peace all around, the media shaming them into submission with cries about extremism and the need for organization. And so we can propbably expect that OWS and the Tea Party will, like so many protestors before them, get sucked back into the parties.
But here is a question: What would happen if the two groups found a way to march in the same direction? Maybe meet at the Washington convention center and walk the mile or so it would take to stand in front of the US Congress and ask the representatives of the people and the corporate lobbyists they are holding meetings with to interrupt their meetings and come out and explain themselves... maybe have a real revolution. Now that would be a real mess.
Or they could just tear at each other's throats for a while, shout their slogans, jostle around the margins, point fingers and incite and maintain the ongoing hatred between right and left... while both of those other two groups -- the politicians and the corporations -- laugh each other all the way to the bank.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
filed under: a picture is worth a thousand words
Slate recently published a little piece (link) about a Thomas Hoepker 9-11 picture that Frank Rich commented on... saying the "young people" in the photo weren't "necessarily callous." The photo reads, when viewed one way, as a sign of the times. New Yorkers sitting around under the sun, taking in the destruction in the background with almost a ho-hum where-shall-we-go-for-dinner attitude. Except that Slate also found some of the people in the photo and allowed them to tell their story. (link)
As it turns out, the people in the photo were talking about the events of the day in the way that you might have been, in the way that I was. One of the subjects asks viewers to consider how a snapshot at a funeral can make mourners look as if they are attending a party. The point, of course, is well taken. How many times do we let those who wish to shape our opinions simply report the news to us without asking questions about how they are manipulating their stories? See, for example, how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen chooses to present stories on the demonization of Bush and Obama (link). One caricature is a "lookalike," the other is disrespectful.
With our current palavering pundit class, it is important always to ask what is behind the messages being produced. Who is behind the information? And don't simply take the image, or the interpretation of the image, at face value or without question. Learn to see between the lines, even in your own thinking. The next time you read something about global warming that is being espoused by some scientist or other, simply google that scientist's name. See what else he's been up to. Or listen to the way Rush Limbaugh dismisses those who call him with reasoned arguments against his opinions. Or ask yourself why, if Mr. Obama has suddenly found the power to act on the economy without the Congress's involvement, he didn't find a way to do so before we headed into election season.
Learn to ask, that is, what is behind the picture. In the thousand words that any picture represents, there are almost always two or three, or six or fifteen, different sides to the story.
As it turns out, the people in the photo were talking about the events of the day in the way that you might have been, in the way that I was. One of the subjects asks viewers to consider how a snapshot at a funeral can make mourners look as if they are attending a party. The point, of course, is well taken. How many times do we let those who wish to shape our opinions simply report the news to us without asking questions about how they are manipulating their stories? See, for example, how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen chooses to present stories on the demonization of Bush and Obama (link). One caricature is a "lookalike," the other is disrespectful.
With our current palavering pundit class, it is important always to ask what is behind the messages being produced. Who is behind the information? And don't simply take the image, or the interpretation of the image, at face value or without question. Learn to see between the lines, even in your own thinking. The next time you read something about global warming that is being espoused by some scientist or other, simply google that scientist's name. See what else he's been up to. Or listen to the way Rush Limbaugh dismisses those who call him with reasoned arguments against his opinions. Or ask yourself why, if Mr. Obama has suddenly found the power to act on the economy without the Congress's involvement, he didn't find a way to do so before we headed into election season.
Learn to ask, that is, what is behind the picture. In the thousand words that any picture represents, there are almost always two or three, or six or fifteen, different sides to the story.
filed under: optics
Can the Occupy movement afford much of this? (link)
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
Friday, November 4, 2011
filed under: don't go wobbly on me now, george
In the run up to the First Gulf War, Margaret Thatcher famously stiffened George Bush's spine by telling him not to go "wobbly" when he had a moment of indecision. In a recent column in Slate, Beverly Gage wonders whether the OWS movement will have the stick-to-it-iveness to ride out the protests now that cold weather has come on (link). She is heartened to find that, one cold storm in, the movement seems resolved to continue. She then goes on to review the labor movement and draw lessons for OWS.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
filed under: fathers be good to your daughters
The viral video of Texas Judge William Adams beating his 16-year old daughter shows parental behavior that is reprehensible (link). There is nothing that can justify such behavior. The fact that this man will likely not be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations (link) should not preclude him from losing his position on the bench. He sits in judgment of child abuse cases. How can a man who so clearly is willing to let his temper loose and terrorize his own family make judgments about the actions of others? We should not hold our public servants and officials to a higher standard than the law requires, but we can at least expect them to obey the laws that they enforce on the people. Anyone who would rationalize his behavior (and from the comments, there are plenty who would) is simply wrong-headed.
Like so many in my generation, I grew up with the belt. Like some parents, I have given the occasional swat on the behind to my own children with my hand. But never in anger and not for years. It has simply been uncessary. In this one video, this man doles out more than my children have experienced in their entire lives, combined. But they have had a swat or two on the rarest of occasions. I admit to this here merely to indicate that I don't want to be a hypocrite and suggest there should be a total abstention from any particular form of "disciplining." As with the use of weapons in war, when dealing with other nations, we should have everything on the table, if only so that we do not have to use everything.
This impulse to beat a child comes from a bliblical view that revolves around the notion that when you spare the rod you spoil the child. An eye for an eye and all of that. While I am not entirely opposed to the use of force in circumstances where it is warranted, it is high time we put away our medieval notions of public justice and family rearing and realize that an example of good behavior is far more effective than a threat to punish bad. Train up a child in the way that he should go? You don't get there by first telling the child that if she doesn't listen to you and obey your commandments, you will "hit her in the fucking face" with a belt. And you don't let men who make such threats sit in judgments of our laws and ourselves. Whether it be policemen spraying pepper spray in the faces of protestors or politicians sitting on tax committees who do not pay their taxes... or judges sending people to jail for beating children when they themselves do the same... we should not accept this in a civil society. Fathers be good to your daughters... people who live in glass house shouldn't throw stones... there's a reason those things resonate.
Like so many in my generation, I grew up with the belt. Like some parents, I have given the occasional swat on the behind to my own children with my hand. But never in anger and not for years. It has simply been uncessary. In this one video, this man doles out more than my children have experienced in their entire lives, combined. But they have had a swat or two on the rarest of occasions. I admit to this here merely to indicate that I don't want to be a hypocrite and suggest there should be a total abstention from any particular form of "disciplining." As with the use of weapons in war, when dealing with other nations, we should have everything on the table, if only so that we do not have to use everything.
This impulse to beat a child comes from a bliblical view that revolves around the notion that when you spare the rod you spoil the child. An eye for an eye and all of that. While I am not entirely opposed to the use of force in circumstances where it is warranted, it is high time we put away our medieval notions of public justice and family rearing and realize that an example of good behavior is far more effective than a threat to punish bad. Train up a child in the way that he should go? You don't get there by first telling the child that if she doesn't listen to you and obey your commandments, you will "hit her in the fucking face" with a belt. And you don't let men who make such threats sit in judgments of our laws and ourselves. Whether it be policemen spraying pepper spray in the faces of protestors or politicians sitting on tax committees who do not pay their taxes... or judges sending people to jail for beating children when they themselves do the same... we should not accept this in a civil society. Fathers be good to your daughters... people who live in glass house shouldn't throw stones... there's a reason those things resonate.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
filed under: he just can't help himself
Here's another reason church and state should be kept separate. (link) Because once in a while, like a double negative, their lies seem to cancel each other out, and it begins to seem like someone is telling the truth. Like here, for example when Carney says that the House should be focused on passing Mr. Obama's jobs bill instead of reaffirming the national motto regarding trust and God and us, and the relationship between all three. Is what he said true? Well, it would seem so. It would certainly seem to be the case that Congress should focus on attending to the economy rather than trafficking in medieval fantasies and fictional caricatures. But that doesn't really get at the truth behind the jobs debate -- which is how will Mr. Obama's package affect the economy? We are asked to placed our unblinking faith in a plan that obviates any call for social responsibility for the mess we are in, except for, of course, the ultimate responsibility, the requirement that we pay the final costs.
And so, if Mr. Obama will have his way, we will close our eyes and march on our capitols and push through his proposals. And then we'll bathe in the newfound riches turned loose by the wash of government funds. He has told us over and over that it is a deadlock certainty -- all the prophets testify -- if we will but take up our cross and follow him, the promised land is in sight. So what shall it be? Shall we gather by the river? Shall we dive under the water's smooth surface and hope that we don't drown as we are baptized in his love? And shall we remember his promises in the day of judgment and be counted whole, or land in hell?
And if all of that doesn't work, just re-elect him. Then all will be forgiven.
Which is as much to say, where is the Lord in all of this? and from whence comes his help? Doesn't he help those who help themselves? So why then is Mr. Obama so deadset on putting government squarely in the path. Wouldn't a simple step to the side, simply getting out of the way, be a more effective move in this time of struggle?
The nine most frightening words in the English language: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.
And so, if Mr. Obama will have his way, we will close our eyes and march on our capitols and push through his proposals. And then we'll bathe in the newfound riches turned loose by the wash of government funds. He has told us over and over that it is a deadlock certainty -- all the prophets testify -- if we will but take up our cross and follow him, the promised land is in sight. So what shall it be? Shall we gather by the river? Shall we dive under the water's smooth surface and hope that we don't drown as we are baptized in his love? And shall we remember his promises in the day of judgment and be counted whole, or land in hell?
And if all of that doesn't work, just re-elect him. Then all will be forgiven.
Which is as much to say, where is the Lord in all of this? and from whence comes his help? Doesn't he help those who help themselves? So why then is Mr. Obama so deadset on putting government squarely in the path. Wouldn't a simple step to the side, simply getting out of the way, be a more effective move in this time of struggle?
The nine most frightening words in the English language: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
filed under: last call
Al, please call your campaign office. Al Cohol, please stop what you are doing and call your campaign office. There's trouble that needs attendin'...
Was Rick Perry drunk? Watch the video and decide for yourself (link). Maybe he was just being an excitable little fuss-budget. But at 6:59, there sure seemed to be a beer burp that came up on him. It seemed more than just the occasional campaign slur. Stump speech or just stumped? Either way, do we really want to watch this guy address Congress with a State of the Union?
Was Rick Perry drunk? Watch the video and decide for yourself (link). Maybe he was just being an excitable little fuss-budget. But at 6:59, there sure seemed to be a beer burp that came up on him. It seemed more than just the occasional campaign slur. Stump speech or just stumped? Either way, do we really want to watch this guy address Congress with a State of the Union?
filed under: move on
I have written several posts recently discussing Herman Cain's bid for the presidency. His case interests me because it is one of those cases that come along once in a while in American politics that muddy the usual partisan waters. Think Terry Schiavo or Monica Lewinsky. Folks are trying to find a way to line up so that their glaring hypocrisies do not show and they can still get the outcome they desire. In the case of Schiavo, liberals who argued that women have an unassailable right to decide what to do with their own bodies suddenly found themselves having to find a way to justify allowing a husband to pull the plug on his vegetative wife's life support so that they could get at the real nut, which was opposing the nuts who believe in the sanctity of life. In the case of Lewinsky, it came down to conservatives who had spent the better part of a decade arguing that sexual harassment was a trumped up political wedge issue suddenly trying to use that wedge to bring down the Clinton Administration. For better or worse, the liberals won both of those arguments.
Which brings us to Mr. Cain. I will say here that I do not support Cain for President -- not because he is, as has been claimed by the pundit class class recently, an Uncle Tom, but because he seems to me to be the crazy uncle in the corner. He simply doesn't make much sense. He is incoherent. And I don't think he is what we need right now.
That said, I am unwilling to live in a society where there is one set of rules for one class of people and another for everyone else. So I would take a moment here to ask a very simple question: Even if Mr. Cain was involved in a suit for sexual harassment in which his organization paid out, as has been reported, a $35,000 settlement to a woman who claimed he made her uncomfortable with his advances... so what?
Didn't Bill Clinton put the nail in this coffin once and for all? Didn't the fact that he paid out $800,000 to Paula Jones in a settlement over the very same issue without ever for one moment, according to the left, losing his credibility and legitimacy as President, set a hard and fast rule that settling on a sexual harassment claim is not a preclusion to serving as President?
If you want to oppose Cain, oppose him, as I do, on policy grounds. But sexual harassment? Move on, America. One is tempted to say... Move on dot org.
(See also here: link)
Which brings us to Mr. Cain. I will say here that I do not support Cain for President -- not because he is, as has been claimed by the pundit class class recently, an Uncle Tom, but because he seems to me to be the crazy uncle in the corner. He simply doesn't make much sense. He is incoherent. And I don't think he is what we need right now.
That said, I am unwilling to live in a society where there is one set of rules for one class of people and another for everyone else. So I would take a moment here to ask a very simple question: Even if Mr. Cain was involved in a suit for sexual harassment in which his organization paid out, as has been reported, a $35,000 settlement to a woman who claimed he made her uncomfortable with his advances... so what?
Didn't Bill Clinton put the nail in this coffin once and for all? Didn't the fact that he paid out $800,000 to Paula Jones in a settlement over the very same issue without ever for one moment, according to the left, losing his credibility and legitimacy as President, set a hard and fast rule that settling on a sexual harassment claim is not a preclusion to serving as President?
If you want to oppose Cain, oppose him, as I do, on policy grounds. But sexual harassment? Move on, America. One is tempted to say... Move on dot org.
(See also here: link)
Saturday, October 29, 2011
filed under: Uncle Herman
-- What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground. (Genesis 4:10)
I watched a little exchange on the internet last night between analyst Karen Finney and MSNBC host Martin Bashir (link) in which Finney called GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain an Uncle Tom. Not in so many words, of course. She prettied it up by saying that the base of the Republican Party liked Cain because he was a black man who "knew his place" and that he made the base feel "like they are not racist because they can like this guy." Bashir approved, "Wow. Thank you for spelling that out."
So what, exactly, did Finney spell out? Is it true that Mr. Cain allows the white people in the Tea Party to feel good about themselves because he allows them to put up one of their own -- albeit a puppet, a charlatan, a fraud -- thereby alleviating their inbred prejudices against all things black? At the heart of this question lies a deeper one: What does it mean to be a black man in America?
I can't even begin to answer these questions in a way that satisfies the racial divide that continues to color our politics in this post-Obama period, this period that was supposed to be post-racial because we had, as a nation, finally come to right some wrongs and elect a man despite his color, because of his ideas. The reason I cannot answer the question properly is because it seems to me that the charge made by Finney -- so lovingly supported by Mr. Bashir in bas relief -- is exactly the same charge one might make against the establishment left in the case of the President himself (link). Here is one we can accept. Clean. Articulate. (link)
You see, the problem is that racial politics in the US, as it is defined by the academic and political communities, is ultimately an emic account. This means that it must be seen from the inside out, from within the black culture. Such an account is specifically not etic. That is, it is not a problem that can be viewed from the outside in, from an outsider's perspective. The white conservative takes the words of Martin Luther King Jr., regarding the need to view people not on the basis of the color of their skin but on the content of their character, at face value. And he thinks that by being racially neutral, by being color-blind, he is meeting his social responsibility.
But that is entirely wrong. It is as wrong in the case of black culture as it is in the case of gay culture. Or feminism. Or Islamic ideology. If you are reading this and you are a fundamentalist Christian, for example, think about the things that the media says about you. Do they understand your views on the world? Do they understand the deep and sacrificial love that Christ has for the church and that the husband, by extension, is supposed to have for his wife? Or do they simply argue that the Christian right wants to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen? It is because they are, by and large, viewing the problem as an anthropologist would view the New Guinea tribesmen. You are a curiosity to them. They do not understand you because they do not live in your world. And you, if you are a white conservative, do not understand the needs of blacks, and gays, and women who want abortions for the very same reason.
But do liberals understand? Well, here is where it gets a bit sticky. I do a little carpentry on occasion to help afford my lifestyle. I remember being shocked once by a comment made by one of my customers, who was the proto-typical Northeastern Democrat. Organic foods and composting, holistic health and Public Radio -- the whole bit. Not a move was made without checking in with Moveon.org, first. Everything in her life revolved around what Charles Schumer would have her do. WWCSD. So imagine my surprise when she told me I should make a flyer to advertise my work and she was insistent that I put a picture on the flyer. Because I am dense and didn't get it, she finally spelled it out. In order to get business in her neighborhood, it would be a good thing to have my picture on the ad, "to let folks know you're white." Whisper the unthinkable. Wink. Nod.
What?! Isn't that exactly the kind of underground racism that teabaggers are accused of? Well, yes and no. It is certainly a kind of racism. (And, it seems to me, an especially pernicious one.) But it is different from the kind of claim that is leveled at the right. That is because the charge that is leveled at the right is one of overt, outsider racism. The left shares, apparently, the views of black culture (link), at least in part because it helps to shape them. Call it the Democratic Plantation, if you will, but the fact stands that the official public voice of the black culture in America speaks with a left-leaning accent. So when Karen Finney claims Mr. Cain is an Uncle Tom, she means he is a black who stands outside the fold. A black sheep, so to speak. A prodigal son, as yet unreturned.
So is it possible that the right likes Mr. Cain because of his ideas and not because of his skin color? Well, yes, absolutely. But it is also probably the case that they like him just a little because he is a black man who doesn't march in lockstep with the crowd. It's why they latch onto comments made by Bill Cosby and elect Michael Steele their Party Chairman. It's why they like Clarence Thomas. They see them as clean articulate versions of their own type of black man, ones given to promotion of free enterprise, who see social responsibility as key to effective societies, who view government as an interloper. And the left shoots across the bow of such blacks because they are playing electoral politics. They are protecting their turf.
Meanwhile, the black community, for reasons of its own, just does not agree with Herman Cain. At least not in large numbers. At least not yet. And least not publicly. Herman Cain would claim they have been brainwashed. He would, by running, change all of that. But his is an uphill battle. And it will be fought, if it is fought at all, by white people, against the grain. Because black people do not agree with him.
And Karen Finney's comments are but one reason why.
(If you like this article just a little, feel free to read a little analysis I did of Al Sharpton (link) as an astute reader of public tastes, and a larger analysis of President Obama's role (link) in changing racial politics. Thanks.)
I watched a little exchange on the internet last night between analyst Karen Finney and MSNBC host Martin Bashir (link) in which Finney called GOP Presidential hopeful Herman Cain an Uncle Tom. Not in so many words, of course. She prettied it up by saying that the base of the Republican Party liked Cain because he was a black man who "knew his place" and that he made the base feel "like they are not racist because they can like this guy." Bashir approved, "Wow. Thank you for spelling that out."
So what, exactly, did Finney spell out? Is it true that Mr. Cain allows the white people in the Tea Party to feel good about themselves because he allows them to put up one of their own -- albeit a puppet, a charlatan, a fraud -- thereby alleviating their inbred prejudices against all things black? At the heart of this question lies a deeper one: What does it mean to be a black man in America?
I can't even begin to answer these questions in a way that satisfies the racial divide that continues to color our politics in this post-Obama period, this period that was supposed to be post-racial because we had, as a nation, finally come to right some wrongs and elect a man despite his color, because of his ideas. The reason I cannot answer the question properly is because it seems to me that the charge made by Finney -- so lovingly supported by Mr. Bashir in bas relief -- is exactly the same charge one might make against the establishment left in the case of the President himself (link). Here is one we can accept. Clean. Articulate. (link)
You see, the problem is that racial politics in the US, as it is defined by the academic and political communities, is ultimately an emic account. This means that it must be seen from the inside out, from within the black culture. Such an account is specifically not etic. That is, it is not a problem that can be viewed from the outside in, from an outsider's perspective. The white conservative takes the words of Martin Luther King Jr., regarding the need to view people not on the basis of the color of their skin but on the content of their character, at face value. And he thinks that by being racially neutral, by being color-blind, he is meeting his social responsibility.
But that is entirely wrong. It is as wrong in the case of black culture as it is in the case of gay culture. Or feminism. Or Islamic ideology. If you are reading this and you are a fundamentalist Christian, for example, think about the things that the media says about you. Do they understand your views on the world? Do they understand the deep and sacrificial love that Christ has for the church and that the husband, by extension, is supposed to have for his wife? Or do they simply argue that the Christian right wants to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen? It is because they are, by and large, viewing the problem as an anthropologist would view the New Guinea tribesmen. You are a curiosity to them. They do not understand you because they do not live in your world. And you, if you are a white conservative, do not understand the needs of blacks, and gays, and women who want abortions for the very same reason.
But do liberals understand? Well, here is where it gets a bit sticky. I do a little carpentry on occasion to help afford my lifestyle. I remember being shocked once by a comment made by one of my customers, who was the proto-typical Northeastern Democrat. Organic foods and composting, holistic health and Public Radio -- the whole bit. Not a move was made without checking in with Moveon.org, first. Everything in her life revolved around what Charles Schumer would have her do. WWCSD. So imagine my surprise when she told me I should make a flyer to advertise my work and she was insistent that I put a picture on the flyer. Because I am dense and didn't get it, she finally spelled it out. In order to get business in her neighborhood, it would be a good thing to have my picture on the ad, "to let folks know you're white." Whisper the unthinkable. Wink. Nod.
What?! Isn't that exactly the kind of underground racism that teabaggers are accused of? Well, yes and no. It is certainly a kind of racism. (And, it seems to me, an especially pernicious one.) But it is different from the kind of claim that is leveled at the right. That is because the charge that is leveled at the right is one of overt, outsider racism. The left shares, apparently, the views of black culture (link), at least in part because it helps to shape them. Call it the Democratic Plantation, if you will, but the fact stands that the official public voice of the black culture in America speaks with a left-leaning accent. So when Karen Finney claims Mr. Cain is an Uncle Tom, she means he is a black who stands outside the fold. A black sheep, so to speak. A prodigal son, as yet unreturned.
So is it possible that the right likes Mr. Cain because of his ideas and not because of his skin color? Well, yes, absolutely. But it is also probably the case that they like him just a little because he is a black man who doesn't march in lockstep with the crowd. It's why they latch onto comments made by Bill Cosby and elect Michael Steele their Party Chairman. It's why they like Clarence Thomas. They see them as clean articulate versions of their own type of black man, ones given to promotion of free enterprise, who see social responsibility as key to effective societies, who view government as an interloper. And the left shoots across the bow of such blacks because they are playing electoral politics. They are protecting their turf.
Meanwhile, the black community, for reasons of its own, just does not agree with Herman Cain. At least not in large numbers. At least not yet. And least not publicly. Herman Cain would claim they have been brainwashed. He would, by running, change all of that. But his is an uphill battle. And it will be fought, if it is fought at all, by white people, against the grain. Because black people do not agree with him.
And Karen Finney's comments are but one reason why.
(If you like this article just a little, feel free to read a little analysis I did of Al Sharpton (link) as an astute reader of public tastes, and a larger analysis of President Obama's role (link) in changing racial politics. Thanks.)
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
filed under: it depends on the situation
Really fine read about a really interesting group that may or may not serve as inspiration for OWS. link
I find myself fascinated by these guys... and I think fascination is something we are sorely missing in our political discourse. (Less so in the social discourse, but approaching, even there...)
It is important sometimes to take yourself completely out of your frame of reference and look at things from an entirely new perspective. Think outside the box, as we say in other places. That means, when you hear something about some event or other, you don't automatically classify it and categorize it and side either with or against it based on how such things have always been settled in the past. And don't just listen for how you can agree or disagree based on what the usual stereotypes dictate, either. Instead, listen (or view) to see if there is something inside the message that is strange and unusual, unsettling. More often than not, that's the part that means something. The rest of it is just filler, just space to fill the broadcast.
I'll give you an example... a friend of mine posted this picture ( link ) of an installation by the street artist Banksy at the Occupy London protest. Someone had commented in the thread that Banksy -- who is perhaps the most in-demand artist-activist alive at present -- seemed a bit hypocritical in siding with the protestors when he himself draws a pretty hefty coin. And the comment immediately below that said the first commenter shoud not think OWS is against earning money, but merely against the wild extremities that occur with the rigged game resulting from blah blah blah derivatives blah blah blah bailout blah blah blah 1% blah. He said the person should try to break out of the automatic switch on switch off, black/white, binary thinking that plagues society and political discourse. And both had pretty good points, I think. Is Michael Moore a hypocrite for asking Harvey Weinstein for just a little bit more than the 29 bajillion dollars (est.) he made on Fahrenheit 911, when he constantly criticizes corporate monsters for their greed? Yes, probably. But should we break out of this immediate finger-pointing and name-calling kill-the-messenger mode, and consider the real issues at hand in order to see whether there are areas of common ground on which we can stand? Absolutely.
But here's another way to look at the work... It's not about who makes what and who is protesting whom... Look at the actual art itself. How did you learn to handle money? From your parents? Maybe. But they were playing Monopoly with you when they were teaching you... We just swallow that competitive, must-crush-all nature of money wholly from the time we are first allowed to sit at the table. So the work is about the bankers holding out their hands, pretending poverty while they are dressed in tuxedos... yes. But can it also be about something more? The American Dream changing to accommodate something that is less about making money and scoring political points and more about, for example, living in the moment and laughing with your kids? That's how we live our lives in the real world anyway, right? But for some reason when we talk politics we all go back to that little kid sitting at the table, swallowing the quantity theory of money and being moved by the invisible hand. Happily, we all want to be little millionaires.
But can money buy you love? Then I don't care too much for it.
So now, maybe, hopefully, the work of Banksy and the OWS movement it is meant to support will not spark (only) an automatic response of "why do these damned robber barons still hold their hands out?!?!"... but, instead, they will make us ask ourselves: Why do we still pay credence to the idea that money is about proving our worth against others? That idea is so destructive.
After all, didn't we also learn on Sunday morning after we played Monopoly with the family on Saturday afternoon... that the love of it is the root of evil?
I find myself fascinated by these guys... and I think fascination is something we are sorely missing in our political discourse. (Less so in the social discourse, but approaching, even there...)
It is important sometimes to take yourself completely out of your frame of reference and look at things from an entirely new perspective. Think outside the box, as we say in other places. That means, when you hear something about some event or other, you don't automatically classify it and categorize it and side either with or against it based on how such things have always been settled in the past. And don't just listen for how you can agree or disagree based on what the usual stereotypes dictate, either. Instead, listen (or view) to see if there is something inside the message that is strange and unusual, unsettling. More often than not, that's the part that means something. The rest of it is just filler, just space to fill the broadcast.
I'll give you an example... a friend of mine posted this picture ( link ) of an installation by the street artist Banksy at the Occupy London protest. Someone had commented in the thread that Banksy -- who is perhaps the most in-demand artist-activist alive at present -- seemed a bit hypocritical in siding with the protestors when he himself draws a pretty hefty coin. And the comment immediately below that said the first commenter shoud not think OWS is against earning money, but merely against the wild extremities that occur with the rigged game resulting from blah blah blah derivatives blah blah blah bailout blah blah blah 1% blah. He said the person should try to break out of the automatic switch on switch off, black/white, binary thinking that plagues society and political discourse. And both had pretty good points, I think. Is Michael Moore a hypocrite for asking Harvey Weinstein for just a little bit more than the 29 bajillion dollars (est.) he made on Fahrenheit 911, when he constantly criticizes corporate monsters for their greed? Yes, probably. But should we break out of this immediate finger-pointing and name-calling kill-the-messenger mode, and consider the real issues at hand in order to see whether there are areas of common ground on which we can stand? Absolutely.
But here's another way to look at the work... It's not about who makes what and who is protesting whom... Look at the actual art itself. How did you learn to handle money? From your parents? Maybe. But they were playing Monopoly with you when they were teaching you... We just swallow that competitive, must-crush-all nature of money wholly from the time we are first allowed to sit at the table. So the work is about the bankers holding out their hands, pretending poverty while they are dressed in tuxedos... yes. But can it also be about something more? The American Dream changing to accommodate something that is less about making money and scoring political points and more about, for example, living in the moment and laughing with your kids? That's how we live our lives in the real world anyway, right? But for some reason when we talk politics we all go back to that little kid sitting at the table, swallowing the quantity theory of money and being moved by the invisible hand. Happily, we all want to be little millionaires.
But can money buy you love? Then I don't care too much for it.
So now, maybe, hopefully, the work of Banksy and the OWS movement it is meant to support will not spark (only) an automatic response of "why do these damned robber barons still hold their hands out?!?!"... but, instead, they will make us ask ourselves: Why do we still pay credence to the idea that money is about proving our worth against others? That idea is so destructive.
After all, didn't we also learn on Sunday morning after we played Monopoly with the family on Saturday afternoon... that the love of it is the root of evil?
filed under: that's curious
I saw an odd little bit here (link) on Steve Driehaus, Former Democratic Representative from Ohio, who has bought suit against an organization that worked against him when he lost his bid for re-election in 2010. In the suit, he claims that the Susan B Anthony List, a pro-life group that was unhappy with Driehaus for voting for the national healthcare legislation because they argued that it supported funding of abortions, defamed him by opposing his bid for re-election with claims that he worked to fund abortion. Driehaus apparently considers himself pro-life (link), and the court accepted his argument that the healthcare legislation did not fund abortion. Thus, presumably, the suit goes forward based on the theory that the group lied about Driehaus and deprived him of his livelihood.
This is curious for a couple of reasons. First, the President himself recently touted an executive branch regulation that, when coupled with the healthcare legislation, will work to effectively fund abortion (link). And second, doesn't this move dangerously close to criminalizing political speech?
For the record, I am fiercely pro-choice. I would argue that, not only should women have the ability to decide what to do with their bodies for the nine months following conception, but also that men should have the same choice about what to with their bodies in terms of providing child support in the eighteen years following delivery. I don't like the state intervening in matters that effectively force choices upon others based on the moral positions held by either the right or the left. However, I do worry about our state moving toward a position that says you can't even have a say in the political process. Mr. Driehaus should drop his suit and move on. And the court should go back to deciding the law, rather than attempting to drive the political debate.
Curious? Darn tootin'.
This is curious for a couple of reasons. First, the President himself recently touted an executive branch regulation that, when coupled with the healthcare legislation, will work to effectively fund abortion (link). And second, doesn't this move dangerously close to criminalizing political speech?
For the record, I am fiercely pro-choice. I would argue that, not only should women have the ability to decide what to do with their bodies for the nine months following conception, but also that men should have the same choice about what to with their bodies in terms of providing child support in the eighteen years following delivery. I don't like the state intervening in matters that effectively force choices upon others based on the moral positions held by either the right or the left. However, I do worry about our state moving toward a position that says you can't even have a say in the political process. Mr. Driehaus should drop his suit and move on. And the court should go back to deciding the law, rather than attempting to drive the political debate.
Curious? Darn tootin'.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
filed under: what i wish he'd said...
What I wish he'd said...
when Joe Biden was asked if he will run in 2016...
is that his one focus now was improving the economy...
but alas... (0.14)
when Joe Biden was asked if he will run in 2016...
is that his one focus now was improving the economy...
but alas... (0.14)
filed under: a distinction without a difference
I don't have to explain myself because what I say is self-evident. If you can't explain yourself, it means that you are stupid.
At 0.26 Toure says that sometimes having to explain himself and prove his point regarding racism is too much of a burden -- and, anyway, his point is self-evident. Then at 3:57 he argues that Herman Cain cannot explain his policies because he suffers from an anti-intellectualism that the right embraces.
Double standard much?
At 0.26 Toure says that sometimes having to explain himself and prove his point regarding racism is too much of a burden -- and, anyway, his point is self-evident. Then at 3:57 he argues that Herman Cain cannot explain his policies because he suffers from an anti-intellectualism that the right embraces.
Double standard much?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)