Sharpton, Still Outrageous
At the July 7 memorial in Los Angeles to Michael Jackson, Al Sharpton addressed Mr. Jackson's children and said, to cheers:
Wasn't nothing strange about your daddy. It was strange what your daddy had to deal with.
Sharpton apparently "forgot," as reported online by the Times of London:
In 1993 Jackson was accused by the parents of 13-year-old Jordan Chandler of sexually molesting their son during sleepovers at his 3,000- acre ranch. The family dropped the case after reaching an £18.5 million financial settlement with Jackson. No charges were brought.
And in November, 2002
....Jackson provoked outrage when he dangled his baby son, Prince Michael II, over the balcony of a Berlin hotel and appeared briefly to lose control. As a result of that incident officials in Santa Barbara County are already considering the launch of a formal investigation into the father of three’s fitness to be a parent.
Just what would Al Sharpton believe is strange? Fortunately, Sharpton's standard of normalcy is not as destructive as his infamous hostility toward small business owners, such as Korean-American grocers.... or New York State law enforcement personnel, such as the Attorney General (whom he equated with Adolph Hitler while trivializing the Holocaust) investigating an obvious hoax. Yes, that was the racial huckster; this, fortunately, is only someone who believes inappropriate (let's be generous) behavior toward young children is acceptable.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
I'll Blame It On Iraq
Appearing at an Independence Day Tea Party in the Houston area, Samuel Wurzelbacher declared
I believe we need to spend a little more on illegal immigrants get them the (expletive) out of our (expletive) country, and close the borders down. We can do it.
We’ve got the greatest military in the world and you’re telling me we can’t close our borders- that’s just ridiculous.
In January, President Bush rejected an Israeli request to fly through Iraqi airspace, controlled by the U.S.A., to bomb Iranian underground nuclear facilities. On Meet The Press last Sunday, Vice President Biden, while asserting that Israel is a sovereign nation with a right to attack Iraq, refused to reveal whether the Obama Administration would give Israel the right to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reluctant to seek permission, given that it probably would be denied and it's highly unlikely Tel Aviv would undertake such an attack without U.S. authorization.
It's not as if Iran's nuclear program poses no threat. In early June, shortly before the "election" in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency noted Iran had increased its supply of low-grade enriched uranium by 30 percent to nearly 3,000 pounds since its last quarterly report. The low-grade variety is used in nuclear reactors but
Scientists say 3,000 pounds of low-enriched, or reactor-grade, uranium of the type Iran has would be more than enough to build a single nuclear weapon if Iran were to boot out international inspectors, renege on treaty obligations and further refine its supplies....
The agency (the U.N. Security Council, which has passed several resolutions asking Iran to stop enriching uranium) report also says that Iran continues to deny it access to the heavy-water reactor near the west-central city of Arak and has not yet provided it with design information for a planned nuclear power plant near the southwestern Iranian town of Darkhovin. Iran says that under its treaty obligations, it need not provide such information until just before it introduces nuclear material to a site.
And the BBC reports "The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon." (Iran wants the option of a nuclear weapon as Sarah Palin has opted out as governor of Alaska in part so she can maintain the option of a presidential run in 2012. No parallel, but never waste an opportunity to tie Iran to an enemy of the U.S.A.) And el Baradei (who has stepped aside as director but supports engagement with Iran) is not to be ignored, given that in early 2003, while Condoleezza Rice was dreaming of mushroom clouds, he warned the world that Iraq did not have an active nuclear program. (Unfortunately, that was pre-1/09, when we had a President who did not believe we were part of the world community.)
Perhaps there would be no Israel and/or American air strike upon Iraqi facilities anyway, given the possibility that some are underground and the likelihood they are scattered. Still, it is sobering that the misbegotten war in Iraq has limited the options of the free world in dealing with a more important nation, Iran. That was headed by genocidal tyrant Saddaam Hussein, who probably would have loved to see bombs rained down on Iran and reportedly was contemplating a "security agreement with the US to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."
Which brings us back to illegal immigration, which populist liberals everywhere recognize (or should recognize) lowers wage rates and benefits for workers in the U.S.A. More personnel at the border would enhance the effort to stem the tide (temporarily reduced because of recession), as President Obama recognizes. But as for the U.S. military, as Joe the Plumber advocates? Sorry, Sam- it's in Iraq in a war which has proven a boon for terrorism and Tehran.
Appearing at an Independence Day Tea Party in the Houston area, Samuel Wurzelbacher declared
I believe we need to spend a little more on illegal immigrants get them the (expletive) out of our (expletive) country, and close the borders down. We can do it.
We’ve got the greatest military in the world and you’re telling me we can’t close our borders- that’s just ridiculous.
In January, President Bush rejected an Israeli request to fly through Iraqi airspace, controlled by the U.S.A., to bomb Iranian underground nuclear facilities. On Meet The Press last Sunday, Vice President Biden, while asserting that Israel is a sovereign nation with a right to attack Iraq, refused to reveal whether the Obama Administration would give Israel the right to fly over Iraq to attack Iran. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is reluctant to seek permission, given that it probably would be denied and it's highly unlikely Tel Aviv would undertake such an attack without U.S. authorization.
It's not as if Iran's nuclear program poses no threat. In early June, shortly before the "election" in Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency noted Iran had increased its supply of low-grade enriched uranium by 30 percent to nearly 3,000 pounds since its last quarterly report. The low-grade variety is used in nuclear reactors but
Scientists say 3,000 pounds of low-enriched, or reactor-grade, uranium of the type Iran has would be more than enough to build a single nuclear weapon if Iran were to boot out international inspectors, renege on treaty obligations and further refine its supplies....
The agency (the U.N. Security Council, which has passed several resolutions asking Iran to stop enriching uranium) report also says that Iran continues to deny it access to the heavy-water reactor near the west-central city of Arak and has not yet provided it with design information for a planned nuclear power plant near the southwestern Iranian town of Darkhovin. Iran says that under its treaty obligations, it need not provide such information until just before it introduces nuclear material to a site.
And the BBC reports "The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency says he believes Iran is mastering nuclear technology and it wants the option of a nuclear weapon." (Iran wants the option of a nuclear weapon as Sarah Palin has opted out as governor of Alaska in part so she can maintain the option of a presidential run in 2012. No parallel, but never waste an opportunity to tie Iran to an enemy of the U.S.A.) And el Baradei (who has stepped aside as director but supports engagement with Iran) is not to be ignored, given that in early 2003, while Condoleezza Rice was dreaming of mushroom clouds, he warned the world that Iraq did not have an active nuclear program. (Unfortunately, that was pre-1/09, when we had a President who did not believe we were part of the world community.)
Perhaps there would be no Israel and/or American air strike upon Iraqi facilities anyway, given the possibility that some are underground and the likelihood they are scattered. Still, it is sobering that the misbegotten war in Iraq has limited the options of the free world in dealing with a more important nation, Iran. That was headed by genocidal tyrant Saddaam Hussein, who probably would have loved to see bombs rained down on Iran and reportedly was contemplating a "security agreement with the US to protect [Iraq] from threats in the region."
Which brings us back to illegal immigration, which populist liberals everywhere recognize (or should recognize) lowers wage rates and benefits for workers in the U.S.A. More personnel at the border would enhance the effort to stem the tide (temporarily reduced because of recession), as President Obama recognizes. But as for the U.S. military, as Joe the Plumber advocates? Sorry, Sam- it's in Iraq in a war which has proven a boon for terrorism and Tehran.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Bravado, As Usual
Bold, decisive, and a maverick. That's how Sarah Palin views herself, as she made clear, yet again, in her statement on July 3 announcing her resignation as governor:
Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!
sure, Governor Palin initially threatened to reject all of the federal stimulus money. But after finding that the public, as well as the state legislature, wanted to accept the funding, Palin did an about-face and will accept all but $29 million of the $930 million offered. That's right- this self-styled fiscal conservative, bane of socialists everywhere (just ask her), will be taking approximately 97% of the money the federal government is doling out to her state. She could have vetoed (perhaps successfully) the package of bills the legislature passed to accept the funding or she could have refused the money, but she didn't.
And believe it or not, this courageous, stalwart opponent of "Big Government" wanted some of the money, intended to stimulate job creation for her fellow Alaskans, instead to go to Medicaid reimbursement and child support enforcement in the state's operating budget, required (as in most states) to be balanced. She could have cut spending or dipped into the state surplus. Instead, she wanted to go the easy route- apply federal money to meet state responsibilities. The legislature, more committed to increasing job opportunities for Alaskans, refused to go along.
Sarah Palin's credo: it's immoral! It's obscene! Let's do it!
Bold, decisive, and a maverick. That's how Sarah Palin views herself, as she made clear, yet again, in her statement on July 3 announcing her resignation as governor:
Even those debt-ridden stimulus dollars that would force the heavy hand of federal government into our communities with an “all-knowing attitude” – I have taken the slings and arrows with that unpopular move to veto because I know being right is better than being popular. Some of those dollars would harm Alaska and harm America – I resisted those dollars because of the obscene national debt we’re forcing our children to pay, because of today’s Big Government spending; it’s immoral and doesn’t even make economic sense!
sure, Governor Palin initially threatened to reject all of the federal stimulus money. But after finding that the public, as well as the state legislature, wanted to accept the funding, Palin did an about-face and will accept all but $29 million of the $930 million offered. That's right- this self-styled fiscal conservative, bane of socialists everywhere (just ask her), will be taking approximately 97% of the money the federal government is doling out to her state. She could have vetoed (perhaps successfully) the package of bills the legislature passed to accept the funding or she could have refused the money, but she didn't.
And believe it or not, this courageous, stalwart opponent of "Big Government" wanted some of the money, intended to stimulate job creation for her fellow Alaskans, instead to go to Medicaid reimbursement and child support enforcement in the state's operating budget, required (as in most states) to be balanced. She could have cut spending or dipped into the state surplus. Instead, she wanted to go the easy route- apply federal money to meet state responsibilities. The legislature, more committed to increasing job opportunities for Alaskans, refused to go along.
Sarah Palin's credo: it's immoral! It's obscene! Let's do it!
What's She Going To Do?
Soon after Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell either came up with a great scoop utilizing her sources- or was suckered. As many of us heard live and thinkprogress.org reports here, Mitchell maintained
Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels like she has to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she is stepping down in order to figure the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.
This runs counter to what most others are predicting. Veteran Republican fundraiser and Palin adviser Fred Malek told Rick Klein of ABC that the Governor is not precluding a return to politics and
She’s not going to go hide in a cave. She’ll continue to be a major friend and force for Republican figures in this country.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote definitively
I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.
Ed Schultz of MSNBC, arguing that Palin has decided to run, insightfully referred to this passage in the Governor's speech
In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that...
A response of "hell yeah!" (ain't she folksy?) is not elicited by asking one's loved ones "should I resign as governor so I can spend more time with you?" or even "should I resign so you and I can travel around the country while I work for the election of other conservative politicians?" It might, though, be the response to "how about if I drop everything so we have a chance to go live in that big white house in Washington surrounded by good-looking bodyguards and servants?" And if that sounds superficial, why is she (allegedly) relying on her children's advice? And who are we dealing with, anyway?
A few people in the media have contended that because Sarah Palin cares so much for her family and is such a good mother, that perhaps she wouldn't do anything, such as a run for national office, which would detract from the time she can spend with her children. But consider this possibility: Palin already has decided to go for the top job, or at least to build up iou's she can cash in later if she wishes; given that, which affords her more time to spend with her family- functioning as governor or not?
Maybe Sarah Palin has decided against a run for the presidency. But if so, given the evidence and educated opinion to the contrary, Andrea Mitchell deserves to be considered one of the finest correspondents of our time.
Soon after Sarah Palin announced her resignation as Governor of Alaska, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell either came up with a great scoop utilizing her sources- or was suckered. As many of us heard live and thinkprogress.org reports here, Mitchell maintained
Talking to people who are very close to Sarah Palin, I have been told that she has told her supporters that she is out of politics, period. She is fed up with politics. She doesn’t like her life. She feels like she has to raise her family. She’s sick of the commute from Wasilla to the capital and she really does not want to run for higher office. This is not the case where she is stepping down in order to figure the way for a presidential run. In fact, she has told some of her biggest backers in the national Republican Party that they are free to choose other candidates for 2012.
This runs counter to what most others are predicting. Veteran Republican fundraiser and Palin adviser Fred Malek told Rick Klein of ABC that the Governor is not precluding a return to politics and
She’s not going to go hide in a cave. She’ll continue to be a major friend and force for Republican figures in this country.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote definitively
I have covered politics for a long time. I can tell when someone is running for president. Sarah Palin is running for president.
Ed Schultz of MSNBC, arguing that Palin has decided to run, insightfully referred to this passage in the Governor's speech
In fact, this decision comes after much consideration, and finally polling the most important people in my life - my children (where the count was unanimous... well, in response to asking: "Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children's future from OUTSIDE the Governor's office?" It was four "yes's" and one "hell yeah!" The "hell yeah" sealed it - and someday I'll talk about the details of that...
A response of "hell yeah!" (ain't she folksy?) is not elicited by asking one's loved ones "should I resign as governor so I can spend more time with you?" or even "should I resign so you and I can travel around the country while I work for the election of other conservative politicians?" It might, though, be the response to "how about if I drop everything so we have a chance to go live in that big white house in Washington surrounded by good-looking bodyguards and servants?" And if that sounds superficial, why is she (allegedly) relying on her children's advice? And who are we dealing with, anyway?
A few people in the media have contended that because Sarah Palin cares so much for her family and is such a good mother, that perhaps she wouldn't do anything, such as a run for national office, which would detract from the time she can spend with her children. But consider this possibility: Palin already has decided to go for the top job, or at least to build up iou's she can cash in later if she wishes; given that, which affords her more time to spend with her family- functioning as governor or not?
Maybe Sarah Palin has decided against a run for the presidency. But if so, given the evidence and educated opinion to the contrary, Andrea Mitchell deserves to be considered one of the finest correspondents of our time.
Palin Quits, McCain Recalled
David Waldman's post July 3 on dailykos about Sarah Palin was intended to slam the Governor. That is always a worthy, and enticingly easy, endeavor, but the piece is valuable for two other reasons.
Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska reminds Waldman of John McCain's non-suspension suspension of his presidential campaign over the financial crisis, noting he is "astonished that they were ever considered a legitimate presidential ticket."
But of course that is in large measure why McCain-Palin was defeated by Obama-Biden. When the Arizona Senator panicked, the contrast with the other ticket, of calm, competent adults, became apparent.
The best part, however, is Waldman's conclusion: "Rumor has it that you quit for an offer of $50 an hour to go pick lettuce in Yuma for the whole season. But I think you can't do it, my friend." Like Palin's bewildering abdication of her job on
July 3, that reference to an April, 2006 appearance (video below) before a union audience by the 2008 Republican presidential nominee is a reminder of the catastrophe that was averted on November 4, 2008.
David Waldman's post July 3 on dailykos about Sarah Palin was intended to slam the Governor. That is always a worthy, and enticingly easy, endeavor, but the piece is valuable for two other reasons.
Palin's abrupt resignation as Governor of Alaska reminds Waldman of John McCain's non-suspension suspension of his presidential campaign over the financial crisis, noting he is "astonished that they were ever considered a legitimate presidential ticket."
But of course that is in large measure why McCain-Palin was defeated by Obama-Biden. When the Arizona Senator panicked, the contrast with the other ticket, of calm, competent adults, became apparent.
The best part, however, is Waldman's conclusion: "Rumor has it that you quit for an offer of $50 an hour to go pick lettuce in Yuma for the whole season. But I think you can't do it, my friend." Like Palin's bewildering abdication of her job on
July 3, that reference to an April, 2006 appearance (video below) before a union audience by the 2008 Republican presidential nominee is a reminder of the catastrophe that was averted on November 4, 2008.
Friday, July 03, 2009
Article Of The Week
The incomparable Digby (at least according to some in the left blogosphere, exaggerating. I think.) posted on June 28 under the title "They Never Quit" a well-deserved attack on "the Fiscal Scold propaganda that says we have to dismantle the safety net because the baby boomers ruined the economy." She describes as "a building meme" what others have identified as a journalistic compulsion to convince Americans there is a crisis in Social Security.
Concerned that "younger people don't fall for" such disinformation, Digby quotes portions of two CNN interviews from the previous day and notes
what we have is the idea that the boomers were a bunch of spendthrifts who gambled all their money thus causing the recession, but now they are going into retirement and are not going to be spending as much money so they are prolonging the recession. You can't win. And the youngest boomers who are turning 45 will be spending into the fund for the next 23 years or so are chopped liver whose contributions into the system count for nothing --- as do those who paid all that extra money in over the past 25 years so the government could put it in a "lockbox" for our retirement, which they promptly spent on wars and tax cuts for rich people.
Lest you think that about says it all, Digby quotes a portion of an article, "The Granny Bashers- Different Facts, Same Policy," written by Dean Baker and appearing on his Center for Economic Policy and Research website on March 16, 2009. Baker notes the "enormous transfer of wealth from the old to the young" and explains
Finally, the recent collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting stock market plunge have reduced the wealth of older workers and retirees by close to $15 trillion. This is a transfer to the young, since they will be able to buy the housing stock and the corporate capital stock for a far lower price than they would have expected to pay just two years ago.
Inspired by Baker's analysis, Digby concludes, pointedly if humorously
Keep in mind that if these cranks (and who can forget this "crank"- not President Obama, who expects to call on his advice- ed.) actually succeed in destroying the safety net, you youngsters are going to need that big house you thought you could never afford because your aging parents are going to be living in the basement. And you'll be changing their bedpans because medicare won't be worth a damn either. It's in every American's long and short term self-interest to make sure the safety net is strong.
Happy Independence Day!
The incomparable Digby (at least according to some in the left blogosphere, exaggerating. I think.) posted on June 28 under the title "They Never Quit" a well-deserved attack on "the Fiscal Scold propaganda that says we have to dismantle the safety net because the baby boomers ruined the economy." She describes as "a building meme" what others have identified as a journalistic compulsion to convince Americans there is a crisis in Social Security.
Concerned that "younger people don't fall for" such disinformation, Digby quotes portions of two CNN interviews from the previous day and notes
what we have is the idea that the boomers were a bunch of spendthrifts who gambled all their money thus causing the recession, but now they are going into retirement and are not going to be spending as much money so they are prolonging the recession. You can't win. And the youngest boomers who are turning 45 will be spending into the fund for the next 23 years or so are chopped liver whose contributions into the system count for nothing --- as do those who paid all that extra money in over the past 25 years so the government could put it in a "lockbox" for our retirement, which they promptly spent on wars and tax cuts for rich people.
Lest you think that about says it all, Digby quotes a portion of an article, "The Granny Bashers- Different Facts, Same Policy," written by Dean Baker and appearing on his Center for Economic Policy and Research website on March 16, 2009. Baker notes the "enormous transfer of wealth from the old to the young" and explains
Finally, the recent collapse of the housing bubble and the resulting stock market plunge have reduced the wealth of older workers and retirees by close to $15 trillion. This is a transfer to the young, since they will be able to buy the housing stock and the corporate capital stock for a far lower price than they would have expected to pay just two years ago.
Inspired by Baker's analysis, Digby concludes, pointedly if humorously
Keep in mind that if these cranks (and who can forget this "crank"- not President Obama, who expects to call on his advice- ed.) actually succeed in destroying the safety net, you youngsters are going to need that big house you thought you could never afford because your aging parents are going to be living in the basement. And you'll be changing their bedpans because medicare won't be worth a damn either. It's in every American's long and short term self-interest to make sure the safety net is strong.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Rush On Crime: More!
"I come not to bury Caesar but to praise him."
- Brutus, in William Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar"
I come not to buy Rush Limbaugh but to praise him.
Rush is no hypocrite, at least not on the matter of drugs. America's favorite, or at least most famous, former drug addict is no fan of the War on Drugs. Here he is on the first day of July:
They are rounding up guns in Houston. Have you seen this? Now, the guys here, they are rounding up guns in Houston, the feds are going door-to-door in Houston because they say they're trying to round up guns that are being used in drug deals. Some woman had just bought four brand-new weapons and they found out about it and they went to take them away. Look, folks, what's the big deal about this now? I mean elections have consequences. Well, I'll tell you what, elections have consequences. It's about time people started facing up with what they did here. This is just the first-ever census for guns. You know, ACORN, AmeriCorps, going to be joining the feds soon, they'll sweep the country, they'll do an inventory, they'll get one or two more liberals on the bench, Supreme Court, they'll find a way to get rid of the Second Amendment, then they can confiscate guns like FDR confiscated gold in 1933.
The incident to which Rush referred at the beginning of his rambling (is he capable of any other?) complaint was chronicled (pun intended) in the June 30 Houston Chronicle, in which agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms approached a house
worth $35,000. A screen dangles by a wall-unit air conditioner. Porch swing slats are smashed, the smattering of grass is flattened by cars and burned yellow by sun.
On June 29 the ATF and Immigration and Customs Enforcement signed a memorandum in which the two agencies agreed to cooperate in investigating firearms, most of which orginate in Texas, Arizona, or California, smuggled to Mexican drug cartels. The Chronicle reports that in 2008 more than 12,000 weapons, over 7500 found at the scene of a crime, were traced to the ATF for tracing.
U.S. Attorney for the Western District of WashingtonJeffrey C. Sullivan notes that the violence pepetrated by rival drug cartels in Mexico has not been contained, threatening the U.S.A. by having
spilled over ... somewhat to the (U.S.) communities on the border. Our concern is that, with these kinds of weapons and with traffickers beginning to carry weapons on a more regular basis, we unfortunately could see the same kinds of things here.
U.S. and Mexican authorities have increasingly collaborated on itelligence, agents have been working the streets of neighborhoods in border states to ask about suspicious purchases, and the ATF is advising legitimate gun dealers on how to detect individuals who may be making purchases for criminals legally prohibited from buying firearms.
Rush's apparent paranoia is ironic. These measures are especially critical because federal law prohibits the government from compiling databases on gun owners, a restriction Limbaugh would applaud. Unfortunately, that would run counter to his theme of a socialist federal government run amok, determined to confiscate firearms and force every American to worship Barack Obama.
Wednesday's rant was highly entertaining, with Limbaugh in one pargraph deftly slamming gun control, law enforcement, ACORN, AmeriCorps, and the Supreme Court. And he does it very cleverly, without actually blaming anyone, instead claiming "It's about time people started facing up with what they did here." It brings to mind the tactic of those whites who, before these more enlightened days, would always blame "them"- and then deny racist intent, having failed to specify who "they" or "them" were.
Rush Limbaugh is not always negative. Drug trafficking, it seems, is one activity he can support.
"I come not to bury Caesar but to praise him."
- Brutus, in William Shakespeare's play "Julius Caesar"
I come not to buy Rush Limbaugh but to praise him.
Rush is no hypocrite, at least not on the matter of drugs. America's favorite, or at least most famous, former drug addict is no fan of the War on Drugs. Here he is on the first day of July:
They are rounding up guns in Houston. Have you seen this? Now, the guys here, they are rounding up guns in Houston, the feds are going door-to-door in Houston because they say they're trying to round up guns that are being used in drug deals. Some woman had just bought four brand-new weapons and they found out about it and they went to take them away. Look, folks, what's the big deal about this now? I mean elections have consequences. Well, I'll tell you what, elections have consequences. It's about time people started facing up with what they did here. This is just the first-ever census for guns. You know, ACORN, AmeriCorps, going to be joining the feds soon, they'll sweep the country, they'll do an inventory, they'll get one or two more liberals on the bench, Supreme Court, they'll find a way to get rid of the Second Amendment, then they can confiscate guns like FDR confiscated gold in 1933.
The incident to which Rush referred at the beginning of his rambling (is he capable of any other?) complaint was chronicled (pun intended) in the June 30 Houston Chronicle, in which agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms approached a house
worth $35,000. A screen dangles by a wall-unit air conditioner. Porch swing slats are smashed, the smattering of grass is flattened by cars and burned yellow by sun.
On June 29 the ATF and Immigration and Customs Enforcement signed a memorandum in which the two agencies agreed to cooperate in investigating firearms, most of which orginate in Texas, Arizona, or California, smuggled to Mexican drug cartels. The Chronicle reports that in 2008 more than 12,000 weapons, over 7500 found at the scene of a crime, were traced to the ATF for tracing.
U.S. Attorney for the Western District of WashingtonJeffrey C. Sullivan notes that the violence pepetrated by rival drug cartels in Mexico has not been contained, threatening the U.S.A. by having
spilled over ... somewhat to the (U.S.) communities on the border. Our concern is that, with these kinds of weapons and with traffickers beginning to carry weapons on a more regular basis, we unfortunately could see the same kinds of things here.
U.S. and Mexican authorities have increasingly collaborated on itelligence, agents have been working the streets of neighborhoods in border states to ask about suspicious purchases, and the ATF is advising legitimate gun dealers on how to detect individuals who may be making purchases for criminals legally prohibited from buying firearms.
Rush's apparent paranoia is ironic. These measures are especially critical because federal law prohibits the government from compiling databases on gun owners, a restriction Limbaugh would applaud. Unfortunately, that would run counter to his theme of a socialist federal government run amok, determined to confiscate firearms and force every American to worship Barack Obama.
Wednesday's rant was highly entertaining, with Limbaugh in one pargraph deftly slamming gun control, law enforcement, ACORN, AmeriCorps, and the Supreme Court. And he does it very cleverly, without actually blaming anyone, instead claiming "It's about time people started facing up with what they did here." It brings to mind the tactic of those whites who, before these more enlightened days, would always blame "them"- and then deny racist intent, having failed to specify who "they" or "them" were.
Rush Limbaugh is not always negative. Drug trafficking, it seems, is one activity he can support.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
A Different Perspective
Back in 1990, after President George Herbert Walker Bush had raised income taxes, I gleefully pounced on his famous campaign pledge of "Read my lips. No new taxes" to approach a couple of acquaintances. How, they were asked, do they justify having voted for candidate Bush when he now has been exposed as a hypocrite? Their answer: at least Bush denounced the idea of an increase in taxes, proving that he did not want to raise them, unless completely unavoidable.
This came to mind as I was reading the remarks by Paul Krugman and by Slate's Joe Conason about Republican sex scandals. Although helpfully avoiding the "h" word, Conason notes the apparent disconnect between Republican denunciation of private immorality and the wayward ways of some in their party:
The proof is in the penance, or lack thereof, inflicted on the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign and David Vitter, to cite a few names from the top of a long, long list. For ideologues who value biblical morality and believe in the efficacy of punishment, modern conservatives are as tolerant of their famous sinners as the jaded libertines of the left. Even after confessing to the most flagrant and colorful fornication, the worst that a conservative must anticipate is a stern scolding, followed by warm assurances of God's forgiveness and a swift return to business as usual.
Conason notes that David Vitter and John Ensign remain United States Senators while Mark Sanford (as of this writing) remains a state Governor and Newt Gingrich a party leader. He cites John Edwards (not the best example, given the dim prospects he otherwise faced) and then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer as Democrats who fell on their sword, and could have added then- New Jersey Governor James McGreevey.
Conason concludes "If they looked honestly at themselves, religious conservatives might notice that they are morally lax, socially permissive and casually tolerant of moral deviancy -- just like the liberals they despise." But Krugman demurs, arguing that the religious right is not "socially permissive and casually tolerant" in the way that liberals are," and observes
Because where liberals see gross hypocrisy, conservatives see men doing the Lord’s work — which partially excuses their own failings. Liberals think that a man who has an affair is worse if he preaches moral values; conservatives think he’s better. You might say that as they see it, if he interferes with what enough other people do in bed, it doesn’t matter what he does himself.
If Paul Krugman weren't a Nobel Prize-winning economist, he might have been a Nobel Prize-winning cultural anthropologist, if there were such an award. To some individuals on the cultural right, hypocrisy is simply not an issue, not a consideration. At least, the thinking goes, politician A believes the right things, holds the morally correct values, and simply fell short. (He/she might even be "doing the Lord's work," helping move the political argument to the right). And that's better, according to this view, than not believing in those values at all.
Finally, Krugman concludes
So left is left and right is right, and never the twain shall meet.
William Saletan, be advised.
Back in 1990, after President George Herbert Walker Bush had raised income taxes, I gleefully pounced on his famous campaign pledge of "Read my lips. No new taxes" to approach a couple of acquaintances. How, they were asked, do they justify having voted for candidate Bush when he now has been exposed as a hypocrite? Their answer: at least Bush denounced the idea of an increase in taxes, proving that he did not want to raise them, unless completely unavoidable.
This came to mind as I was reading the remarks by Paul Krugman and by Slate's Joe Conason about Republican sex scandals. Although helpfully avoiding the "h" word, Conason notes the apparent disconnect between Republican denunciation of private immorality and the wayward ways of some in their party:
The proof is in the penance, or lack thereof, inflicted on the likes of Mark Sanford, John Ensign and David Vitter, to cite a few names from the top of a long, long list. For ideologues who value biblical morality and believe in the efficacy of punishment, modern conservatives are as tolerant of their famous sinners as the jaded libertines of the left. Even after confessing to the most flagrant and colorful fornication, the worst that a conservative must anticipate is a stern scolding, followed by warm assurances of God's forgiveness and a swift return to business as usual.
Conason notes that David Vitter and John Ensign remain United States Senators while Mark Sanford (as of this writing) remains a state Governor and Newt Gingrich a party leader. He cites John Edwards (not the best example, given the dim prospects he otherwise faced) and then-New York Governor Elliot Spitzer as Democrats who fell on their sword, and could have added then- New Jersey Governor James McGreevey.
Conason concludes "If they looked honestly at themselves, religious conservatives might notice that they are morally lax, socially permissive and casually tolerant of moral deviancy -- just like the liberals they despise." But Krugman demurs, arguing that the religious right is not "socially permissive and casually tolerant" in the way that liberals are," and observes
Because where liberals see gross hypocrisy, conservatives see men doing the Lord’s work — which partially excuses their own failings. Liberals think that a man who has an affair is worse if he preaches moral values; conservatives think he’s better. You might say that as they see it, if he interferes with what enough other people do in bed, it doesn’t matter what he does himself.
If Paul Krugman weren't a Nobel Prize-winning economist, he might have been a Nobel Prize-winning cultural anthropologist, if there were such an award. To some individuals on the cultural right, hypocrisy is simply not an issue, not a consideration. At least, the thinking goes, politician A believes the right things, holds the morally correct values, and simply fell short. (He/she might even be "doing the Lord's work," helping move the political argument to the right). And that's better, according to this view, than not believing in those values at all.
Finally, Krugman concludes
So left is left and right is right, and never the twain shall meet.
William Saletan, be advised.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
An Invitation To Ridicule
Republican orthodoxy requires obeisance to the interests of the health insurance industry and the energy industry but there is no litmus test on cultural issues. Many Republicans, such as former New Jersey Governor and Bush 43 EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and former Pennsylvania Governor (though it cost him the V.P. nod last year) support abortion rights. Former McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt and former Vice-President Dick Cheney support gay marriage, though each having a close family member who is a lesbian has made it a principle of convenience.And one rarely hears a Repub criticize Hollywood anymore (perhaps in part because one of their own is governor of the largest state), presumably a wise tactic in a country in which the death of a bizarre performer has become the biggest news of themonth year decade century millenium. Sure, no Repub publicly supports gun control, but few Democrats do either; and enactment of gun control legislation would be a 50-50 shot in the event of simultaneous attacks upon 40 large American cities by Smith & Wesson-armed Muslim terrorists.
So perhaps we liberals should lay off applying the charge of "hypocrisy" whenever a party which once emphasized "family values" is caught in a sexual escapade. The term "family values" is no longer used (except when ridiculing Repubs) and the GOP has demonstrated little commitment to cutting the rate of abortion, eliminating same-sex marriage, or questioning the American fascination with celebrity. It shouldn't come as a surprise, for as Thomas Frank has noted of the GOP elite and opinion leaders "the needs of business stand like a rock; all else is convenience, opportunism, a bit of bushwah generated by some focus group session and forgotten the instant it is no longer convincing."
Still, some Republicans crave vulnerability, begging to be evaluated on the basis of their adherence to a strict set of moral values. Asked by David Gregory on Sunday's Meet The Press about the Mark Sanford affair, Lindsay Graham, the senior Senator from South Carolina and godchild to one of the Sanford children, made clear his criteria for effective governance:
I think if Mark can reconcile with Jenny, and that's not going to be easy, that he can finish his last 18 months. He's had a good reform agenda. And I do believe that if, if he can reconcile with his family and if he's willing to try, that the people of South Carolina would be willing to give him a second chance. But he's also got to reconcile the legislature. If he can get his family back together, I think he can continue out his term and maybe do some good things next year.
If a state employee in South Carolina, as almost everywhere, were to blow off his/her job for a few days, doesn't let anyone know where he will be, when he will return, or even that he's going to be away, he's in big trouble. Some places, they call that "job abandonment." A chief executive does so, and it's okay as long as he gets squared away with his wife, specifically "reconcile with his family."
The Governor on Monday revealed his own lack of seriousness as a public official when, after first suggesting he considered resignation, he claimed
A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise – that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride.”
Personally, as a supporter of then-President Clinton, I don't give a rodent's rear end what the Governor of South Carolina was doing in Argentina or with whom, and not only because there is plenty of tomfoolery (bad behavior, for those of you under 80) committed by members of both parties. But in good times and bad (and, especially in South Carolina, these are bad times), somebody ought to know where the Governor is and when he'll be back; that is the biggest reason most states have a Lieutenant Governor.
Mark Sanford can decide on his own whether to resign. But for him to suggest that God has asked him to stay on, that the deity is favoring him over Mark Bauer, is more than a little presumptuous and invites charges of hypocrisy. Perhaps God does have a dog in this fight; but if he does, Governor Sanford would have no way of knowing.
Republican orthodoxy requires obeisance to the interests of the health insurance industry and the energy industry but there is no litmus test on cultural issues. Many Republicans, such as former New Jersey Governor and Bush 43 EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and former Pennsylvania Governor (though it cost him the V.P. nod last year) support abortion rights. Former McCain campaign strategist Steve Schmidt and former Vice-President Dick Cheney support gay marriage, though each having a close family member who is a lesbian has made it a principle of convenience.And one rarely hears a Repub criticize Hollywood anymore (perhaps in part because one of their own is governor of the largest state), presumably a wise tactic in a country in which the death of a bizarre performer has become the biggest news of the
So perhaps we liberals should lay off applying the charge of "hypocrisy" whenever a party which once emphasized "family values" is caught in a sexual escapade. The term "family values" is no longer used (except when ridiculing Repubs) and the GOP has demonstrated little commitment to cutting the rate of abortion, eliminating same-sex marriage, or questioning the American fascination with celebrity. It shouldn't come as a surprise, for as Thomas Frank has noted of the GOP elite and opinion leaders "the needs of business stand like a rock; all else is convenience, opportunism, a bit of bushwah generated by some focus group session and forgotten the instant it is no longer convincing."
Still, some Republicans crave vulnerability, begging to be evaluated on the basis of their adherence to a strict set of moral values. Asked by David Gregory on Sunday's Meet The Press about the Mark Sanford affair, Lindsay Graham, the senior Senator from South Carolina and godchild to one of the Sanford children, made clear his criteria for effective governance:
I think if Mark can reconcile with Jenny, and that's not going to be easy, that he can finish his last 18 months. He's had a good reform agenda. And I do believe that if, if he can reconcile with his family and if he's willing to try, that the people of South Carolina would be willing to give him a second chance. But he's also got to reconcile the legislature. If he can get his family back together, I think he can continue out his term and maybe do some good things next year.
If a state employee in South Carolina, as almost everywhere, were to blow off his/her job for a few days, doesn't let anyone know where he will be, when he will return, or even that he's going to be away, he's in big trouble. Some places, they call that "job abandonment." A chief executive does so, and it's okay as long as he gets squared away with his wife, specifically "reconcile with his family."
The Governor on Monday revealed his own lack of seriousness as a public official when, after first suggesting he considered resignation, he claimed
A long list of close friends have suggested otherwise – that for God to really work in my life I shouldn’t be getting off so lightly. While it would be personally easier to exit stage left, their point has been that my larger sin was the sin of pride.”
Personally, as a supporter of then-President Clinton, I don't give a rodent's rear end what the Governor of South Carolina was doing in Argentina or with whom, and not only because there is plenty of tomfoolery (bad behavior, for those of you under 80) committed by members of both parties. But in good times and bad (and, especially in South Carolina, these are bad times), somebody ought to know where the Governor is and when he'll be back; that is the biggest reason most states have a Lieutenant Governor.
Mark Sanford can decide on his own whether to resign. But for him to suggest that God has asked him to stay on, that the deity is favoring him over Mark Bauer, is more than a little presumptuous and invites charges of hypocrisy. Perhaps God does have a dog in this fight; but if he does, Governor Sanford would have no way of knowing.
Making Immigration Policy The Worst It Can Be
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
Democracy is a little like our immigration/illegal immigration system. There are at least three bad ways to go about reform:
- "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" would enable illegal immigrants to gain legal status if certain conditions, such as paying a fine and learning English, were met;
- Amnesty, which, unlike "comprehensive immigration reform," would grant illegal immigrants immediate legal status, but is a term mostly used by immigration hawks to undermine liberalization of immigration policy. For obvious political reasons, no politician (and practically no one else) has the courage to advocate actual amnesty, though it is what comprehensive reform eventually would evolve into;
- Maintaining the status quo, which clearly is not working, given that nothing has had as much effect on stemming the flow of illegal immigrants as the severe recession we're currently undergoing north of the border.
But there is one other option- and it's much worse than all the others. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), mentioned it on the June 28 Fox News Sunday on GOP TV:
We're open to looking at immigration reform. We've tried it in the past. It's very tough. If we get the borders secure and we need -- we can go on from there and hopefully develop a guest worker program that actually works.
That's disturbing- or should be. In an article (apparently no longer available) appearing in the 4/17/06 issue, the editors of The New Republic explain
Indeed, to see the pernicious (and un-American) nature of a guest-worker program, one need only look across the Atlantic at the misery such programs have wrought in Europe. Spurred by extreme labor shortages in the 1950s, a host of European countries--including West Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands--adopted guest-worker programs. Those nations sought temporary immigrants to address their manpower problems, because they believed the labor shortages themselves were temporary and would end once the generation born after World War II entered the workforce. They also hoped that foreign workers would fill low-status jobs while allowing citizens to enjoy better-paying positions.
But the guest-worker programs also reflected European notions of nationhood--attitudes that could not be more different than those of the United States. The guest-worker programs were a way in which these European countries could avoid becoming ethnically plural societies. Of course, those nations became ethnically heterogeneous when the guest workers did not go home. But the workers, while remaining in those European countries, never became of them. Consider Germany, for instance, where more than two million Muslims of Turkish origin--whose families came as guest workers four decades ago--live today. They live in Germany not as Germans, but in a strange sort of nationless limbo--afforded certain benefits of citizenship (such as health care) but denied the privilege of actually being citizens. Which, of course, denies them any incentive to assimilate to their new country. The prospect of such a thing happening in the United States with mexican guest workers is only too real.
At least European nations turned to guest worker programs during "extreme labor shortages." It is, therefore, curious at first glance, troubling thereafter, that McConnell would raise the spectre of a guest worker program at a period of great and growing unemployment and severe labor surplus in the U.S.A. Generally, we should learn from the Europeans and adopt, with modification, what is best in their societies- including health care- and reject what is worst. And the worst is guest worker programs. When the debate over reform of illegal immigration policy gets under way, we need to remember that as inadequate as our current policy is, and as dangerous as the euphemistic "comprehensive immigrative reform" (or dysphemistic "amnesty") would be, there is a far greater danger.
Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.
- Winston Churchill
Democracy is a little like our immigration/illegal immigration system. There are at least three bad ways to go about reform:
- "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" would enable illegal immigrants to gain legal status if certain conditions, such as paying a fine and learning English, were met;
- Amnesty, which, unlike "comprehensive immigration reform," would grant illegal immigrants immediate legal status, but is a term mostly used by immigration hawks to undermine liberalization of immigration policy. For obvious political reasons, no politician (and practically no one else) has the courage to advocate actual amnesty, though it is what comprehensive reform eventually would evolve into;
- Maintaining the status quo, which clearly is not working, given that nothing has had as much effect on stemming the flow of illegal immigrants as the severe recession we're currently undergoing north of the border.
But there is one other option- and it's much worse than all the others. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R.-Ky.), mentioned it on the June 28 Fox News Sunday on GOP TV:
We're open to looking at immigration reform. We've tried it in the past. It's very tough. If we get the borders secure and we need -- we can go on from there and hopefully develop a guest worker program that actually works.
That's disturbing- or should be. In an article (apparently no longer available) appearing in the 4/17/06 issue, the editors of The New Republic explain
Indeed, to see the pernicious (and un-American) nature of a guest-worker program, one need only look across the Atlantic at the misery such programs have wrought in Europe. Spurred by extreme labor shortages in the 1950s, a host of European countries--including West Germany, France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and the Netherlands--adopted guest-worker programs. Those nations sought temporary immigrants to address their manpower problems, because they believed the labor shortages themselves were temporary and would end once the generation born after World War II entered the workforce. They also hoped that foreign workers would fill low-status jobs while allowing citizens to enjoy better-paying positions.
But the guest-worker programs also reflected European notions of nationhood--attitudes that could not be more different than those of the United States. The guest-worker programs were a way in which these European countries could avoid becoming ethnically plural societies. Of course, those nations became ethnically heterogeneous when the guest workers did not go home. But the workers, while remaining in those European countries, never became of them. Consider Germany, for instance, where more than two million Muslims of Turkish origin--whose families came as guest workers four decades ago--live today. They live in Germany not as Germans, but in a strange sort of nationless limbo--afforded certain benefits of citizenship (such as health care) but denied the privilege of actually being citizens. Which, of course, denies them any incentive to assimilate to their new country. The prospect of such a thing happening in the United States with mexican guest workers is only too real.
At least European nations turned to guest worker programs during "extreme labor shortages." It is, therefore, curious at first glance, troubling thereafter, that McConnell would raise the spectre of a guest worker program at a period of great and growing unemployment and severe labor surplus in the U.S.A. Generally, we should learn from the Europeans and adopt, with modification, what is best in their societies- including health care- and reject what is worst. And the worst is guest worker programs. When the debate over reform of illegal immigration policy gets under way, we need to remember that as inadequate as our current policy is, and as dangerous as the euphemistic "comprehensive immigrative reform" (or dysphemistic "amnesty") would be, there is a far greater danger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
