Disaster politics

In the wake of recent atrocities, most notably the despicable massacre of children in Connecticut, calls for gun control and limitations on gun ownership have become ubiquitous.  In support of such calls, facts and figures suggest that gun violence has increased, while the prevalence of gun ownership is down.  If violence has increased and ownership is down, perhaps guns are not the sole agents of this violence.  Isn’t it time we looked for reasons that such violent actions are on the rise instead of thinking we can merely outlaw the tools these miscreants misuse (if I am not mistaken, the Columbine massacre occurred while the "Federal Assault Weapons ban" was in force)?  Are there other changes over the past several decades that should be examined?  As with the war on drugs, we, as a society, find it much more palatable to blame the means as opposed to the milieu which has bred this behavior.  We are a culture in which violence and images of violence are everywhere, in movies, video games, music, our evening news; a tragedy like this gets wall to wall coverage on 20 networks, making a posthumous (anti)hero of the perpetrator, giving other wayward, hopeless, invisible youth an opportunity to die a television star, to go from suffering in obscurity to fame in a blaze of glory.  We did not ban air travel or box cutters when terrorists used those tools to kill thousands, but condemned an ideology, a distorted and inhuman way of thinking.  The issue is not the how of the killing, but the why.  The gun is not why this happened; suppose Lanza had driven a car into the school and emerged with 10 gallons of gasoline?  Where would we focus then?

It is a great abdication of responsibility to think that addressing the hard issues of our time, the economic, social and mental health issues, is less crucial in this than denying rights to the many because of the actions of a few.  Thus, from the other side of this argument, the pro(gun)-choice side, the sanctity of the personal rights enumerated in the constitution is asserted.  Reflecting the polarized nature of our society, what is not recognized is the fact that accusations about the evil of guns and their owners are an insult to every gun owner who follows the law and abhors such violence.  It merely makes the violence itself appear to be a tool to be used for some gain.  Is it a coincidence that such events occur in places where it is virtually assured that no law-abiding person will be armed to defend themselves and that law enforcement personnel appear after the fact (in Newtown, the shooter killed himself at the approach of the police – they ended it merely by showing up, not by taking any decisive action).  They prevent nothing and protect little - through no fault of their own - yet in the absence of the legal means to protect ourselves, they are our only recourse.

How disingenuous it is for liberal commentators, when discussing issues like gay rights, to assert that polls and votes do not matter – that we should not allow the citizenry to vote on individual inalienable rights – but then turn to polls to justify gun control.  How disingenuous it is for gun control advocates to propose widespread, far-reaching, anti(gun)-choice, alarmist limitations of gun ownership rights because of the death of 20 children, when they argue in favor of choice in abortion rights, a process that one (anti-choice advocates) could say preemptively ends the lives of so many more on a regular basis.  A women’s right to choose, as protected by Roe v. Wade, has no more sanctity than the right of any individual citizen to bear arms.  Losses associated with both are a tragedy and can be addressed without the need to limit rights in either case, by addressing the true shortcomings of our culture.

Bad, deranged, evil people do despicable things with a variety of tools; they drive cars into crowds, bomb federal buildings, they use knives and other means to kill and maim - sometimes they even use drones that then kill innocents.   These are our terrorists, our suicide bombers, the malcontents and maladjusted that we have bred who come to wreak savagery on our society.  The twisted, the torn, those in need of help and without hope.  Those who would go into a school and commit such an act are, by their very nature, not concerned with law, which is a social covenant they do not recognize.  The law prohibited the carry of firearms into this school – and those who obeyed the law died at the hands of someone who did not.  Do we then believe that a new law will change this?  Law only affects the behavior of those who obey it.

I am a citizen who exercises my right to bear arms and protect myself.  I abhor the violence I have seen perpetrated in the last year, committed using a tool that I myself choose to own and be proficient with.  But I am not a murderer and would not commit such violence and I resent the implication that anyone who owns guns is a potential threat to society.  It is my right to protect myself – and it probably would have gone differently in Newtown had it been the right or responsibility of someone on the school grounds to protect themselves and innocent life there.  Is it the best answer?  I do not know, but it is an answer.  If it were, two adults would not have had to die trying to rush an armed madman but instead could have engaged him from distance.  Yet this is the guidance we see in most educational institutions - legal carry is outlawed and we are told to hide, cower or throw things at an armed assailant.  Well, in this case, law-abiding citizens followed the law and did not carry weapons into a place where they were prohibited – unfortunately Adam Lanza did not obey the law, as well. I know, I teach at such an institution and during a lock-down students looked to me to protect them.  Had it been necessary I would have died trying, albeit it in a woefully ineffective manner.

Armed citizens, gun owners, do need to take responsibility for securing their weapons from theft or from unauthorized use by others.  A parent of a child like Adam Lanza, with the history this case seems to portray, must know better than to leave weapons where they can be easily accessed.  A locked safe is a requirement for any gun owner and gun owners should be held responsible for the actions of those they allow – even via theft – access to their firearms.  The vast majority of guns used in crime is not legally purchased by the user, but are stolen property. 

I will not be giving up my firearms or my right to have them, law or not.  I simply refuse to let the misdeeds of others – no matter how grievous – besmirch my own reputation and limit my rights.  I will not be defenseless waiting for the authorities to come and investigate the crime when I may be able to prevent it myself.  I refuse to join the chorus who prefer to hide their head in the sand about our culture’s role in creating such animals, who think that if only there were no guns, evil would not happen.  So it seems that the desire to expand laws in the face of such atrocities, to use such catastrophes to achieve long-desired ends, will expand the borders of law sufficiently so that, at last, it will make a criminal of me through no action of my own.  I never thought I would say it "But when guns are outlawed..." rings true.

Let us do all we can to prevent such atrocities in the future.  However, it is unclear to me how laws against firearms will prevent murder when laws against murder do not.  Where does this trip down the rabbit hole end?

Post this under...

...lying sacks of shit.

Watch out - scary black men are after you.

This on the heels of so many humorless right-wing morons (I think they have to be humorless to be in the club) when ape shit over Bill Maher's comments about black people knowing where Romney voters live.  Yes, white folks, those evil minorities have been hoarding all those free welfare checks and buying guns and they will be out on election day to intimidate - and maybe even the day after to even the score.  Really - Sharon Angle's "second amendment remedies" was harmless but a joke is scary.

You silly fucks will think up any shit you can and it makes you look so stupid.

You stay classy, Bozo

Moron alert - never could've guessed this response!

Well, there was a time when Colin Powell was well-respected and above the fray - even after he was conned into lying his ass off at the UN.  His reputation still survived as a man of integrity - and for any one who served in thr Bush administration that is quite a feat.

To most of us, he still is considered a man of integrity, a general officer with integrity who is willing to do what he thinks is right, not what others want him to do.  Perhaps even more so because he was so dismissively abused by the W regime.  But, of course, in Modern Republican world (you know, I do not think all republicans are idiots - just the ones they pout on TV) all it takes to go from respected to condemned is to be thoughtful, speak your mind, think for yourself, be honest and not toe the party line if you think it sucks. 

Ah, yes, there was a time we were supposed to listen to the generals - still get told to when some numb-nuts is sure the general will agree with him - there was a time when our military heroes deserved our respect without having to comply with the whims of heroes of the home-front.  To most of us, they still do and a man like Powell has earned to right to endorse anyone he so chooses without having to listen to a slug like Sununu give him a ration of shit.  Sure, Sununu has now tried to back away from this - just like every crazed right-wing ideologue has had to issue a next day apology for some sincere but incredibly stupid comment he uttered before he realized that his true opinion was toxic.

This is the world the Republicans and Romneyites live in and want all of us to join them in - that place where you can either agree with them or be denigrated.  That world where you blurt out what you really feel - for cameras or for secretly videotaped rooms of your ultra-rich benefactors - and then deny you meant it.

Integrity - a lost American value.

You stay classy, asshole - you and Ann Coulter - you folks are the perfect example for why Romney should not be elected.

What a jerk-off

Why in hell does anyone even give this shithead the time of day.  This is one SMF, egomanic and attention-whore.

I'd love to write a more insightful post, but this dickhead is not worth it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/donald-trump-announcement_n_2009914.html

Really?

Wow...skinny dude...maybe you should request a refund from Tony Horton and kick up those calories a bit.  See lots of guys like this in the gym, admiring themselves in the mirror and clearly seeing something the rest of us can't see.  Makes a sad statement on the physical fitness of our populace when they look at this and think, "Wow, I wish I could look like that!"  Why, because he's not obese?

And the hat on backward?  Priceless.  Just one of us normal folks.

Ah...for the love of the other 53%: Bow to your masters!

Republicans thought their path to winning this election was calling the president a Muslim, un-American, apologist (failed strategies from 2008) and asking if we were better off now than 4 years ago.  Believing strongly in that strategy, they felt they could nominate an animatronic candidate who lacked humanity and empathy (hence, is right on the Republican message).  Problem is that they are so out of touch, so in the echo chamber that they only talk to each other and had no sense of how bad off most people were 4 years ago and how better off most now think they are; not recovered, not where they want to be, but better off and unwilling to hear about how destitute they are from some rich stick figure.  Most of us remember the Bush years, even if the Republicans prefer that we not do so.  Sure, some 30% of the country, their base, believes that the president is a “foreigner aiming to destroy the nation” – if Obama saved their mother from drowning, they would say his goal was to make her dependent on the “nanny state”.  Still this strategy has thus far failed because one things most people wanting their president is some sense of humanity - something either Romney never had or he has sworn to suppress to stay in the good graces of his party.  Problem is there is much more money to be spent to try to sell him to us and, failing in that, the Republicans have another clandestine strategy that could steal the election via suppression of the vote.  Romney’s high profile gaffs have distracted attention from efforts by Republicans at the state level (e.g., Rick Scott) to, in the name of saving the vote, block average Americans from exercising this most basic right.  Be it new exotic IDs or dropping people form rolls and forcing them to prove they belong, chances are many will be disenfranchised this election; the Republicans involved have brazenly admitted this.  Yes, the party that wraps itself in the flag and Bill of Rights is actively working to deny government “by the people”.  Of course, they admit this and it is logical to the elitist Republican mind, convinced as it is of its moral rectitude; as revealed in Mitt Romney’s 47% fundraising comments, they believe there are people who will always disagree with Republican ideology and they consider that a disqualifying condition - those people hate freedom and thus do not deserve to vote.  Hence, they see nothing wrong in denying the right to vote of those who do not agree with them.  This is the American future the Republicans envision where only their base, their constituency matters.  If this is not reminiscent of the "Hunger Games", I am not sure what is.

To all those burning US Embassies

It is abundantly clear that you have lived under one form or another of totalitarian rule (whether secular or sacred) for many centuries, that most of you now protesting have not known anything else for your whole lives.  You obviously expect a government to tell you how to live, what to say, who to worhip and so on.  Hence your seeming cluelessness about the US - your idea of freedom is terribly immature.  Your behavior evidences your unpreparedness for real freedom - as with many of our own conservatives here, your under-developed idea of freedom begins and ends at what you want, not what others may do.  The freedom to be me and, quite frankly, fuck with you.  I know you might say that you are not so different than those zealots who shoot physicians or bomb their clinics for religious reasons.  I'd like to disagree, but....

I would like to let you in on a secret (it's not really secret, but you - and like minded folks here - don't seem to get it).  Our government here in the US does not tell us what we can say or what religion to practice  or God to pray to (even though some of our own people do not seem to realize this either and frequently seem to bemoan it).  We are free to piss each other off and do so on a regular basis.  Fortunately only a few crazies kill each other over it.  Here in America, any asshole with a camera and a few bucks and a desire to start shit can make any piece of shit film he wants (please note that this looks like it was made by a 5 year old with a video camera - this is not our best work!) and put it on the web.  The government does not control this nor does it censor the web.  I am not sure what is sadder - that jackasses do this or you look at it and think it is art.

To be honest, some of those making such films want nothing more than to cause trouble, create chaos and further their own ends - I am sure they appreciate you joining in their cause by fulfilling their image of you and your religion.  They want you to act just as you are, in a way that most civilized people find abhorrent, to act out their pre-conceived notions and unflattering images.  It may be that the real violence is not your doing, that you are merely content to burn home-made American flags and throw bottles, write catchy slogans on walls, and hang up black banners.  But the violence being done in the name of your outrage does you discredit, just as the bull shit being said in ours does to us.

Man debates chair to a stalemate

Clint Eastwood’s man v. chair improvisational theater was a sad commentary on his current mental status; I guess making movies with a script and time to think and do a second take is easier than extemporaneous character assassination.  But even more than that, it provided a great revelation for anyone who has consistently pondered the Republican (mis)perception of and hyperbolic rhetoric toward the President.  Eastwood’s “debate” with an imaginary President revealed his own biases and his party’s distorted vision of President Obama; it is a perfect metaphor for the ongoing dynamic between the Obama that Republicans rail against versus what many of us see.  If, like me, you have as often as not disagreed with Obama’s choices but have found the vision of him as “Muslim, socialist, unpatriotic hater of America, apologist, not one of us” inaccurate and hyperbolic and bizarre, then take heart - you now have some insight into this clash of perceptions.  Republicans have, for 4 years now, been arguing with and against that empty chair, projecting their fears, frailties and hatred onto it and imbuing it with positions and properties that are untrue and distorted.  That they do so also stokes the fears and frailties of their base, creating a primal, unyielding hatred of a manufactured inaccurate image.  To be honest they have always done this, but this time there is a twist.  Obama is not simply a blank or ambiguous canvas like an empty chair. He is not a neutral stimulus; his distinct defining characteristic (his race) inherently taps into their fears of “the other”, those less definable fears about a changing nation that is racing past them, their diminished place and power in it and the frailty of their vision.  It is hard to divorce their nostalgia for simpler times from the substance of those fears - their America is, for better or worse, a thing of the past and it is not coming back.  They see the enemy they desperately want and need to see in Obama; his race is a symbol of all that frightens them.  They are like small children, seeing shadows in the closet.  The arguments they use against such racial interpretations are impassioned - it is not about race, they assert - but the spectacle was there, nonetheless, and it is Obama's race that gives their attacks substance with those who lap them up.  I am not a Freudian, but even modern cognitive research shows that humans process very few stimuli and do so rapidly in "deciding" how to react to a stimulus.  Such limited but salient stimuli activate certain anticipatory schemata that include behavioral and emotional responses.  It is clear that some political strategists are aware of this process and know how to use it to get the reactions they want from their constituents.  In fact, this process is likely the basis of politics.  Hence, while excruciating to watch if one has ever enjoyed an Eastwood movie, the two empty images debating on stage was an excellent demonstration of a skewed, self-constructed perception of reality and a glimpse into the collective conservative mind that shares it, the fear that they feel and are trying to tap into, and the distorted vision they possess in response to the "Obama-stimulus".  The revelation was not comforting, but it was illuminating.  Indeed it was an entire convention that railed against opposing positions it has created out of thin air using lies it has manufactured from the same; Eastwood simply brought this duplicity into stark relief.

Trials and tribulations of a non-right wing gun owner

I am a veteran.  I am not a democrat, nor am I a republican.  I am not a liberal or a conservative.  Like most people would acknowledge, if they look closely enough, I hold certain ideas that are considered liberal (e.g., would love to see universal health care, see no reason to prohibit gay marriage or contraception) and others that are decidedly conservative (e.g., I have no problem with capital punishment and believe in the second amendment).  I like being thoughtful enough that I do not need a label to describe my perspective and am adult enough to handle this inconsistency; but, damn, does it lead to a rather chaotic life.

A further indication that many could see me as a conservative; I am a gun owner, licensed to carry a concealed weapon, including a firearm, and I carry a pistol everywhere it is legal for me to do so - as is my right.  I do not believe that the solution to gun violence, such as seen at VT or recently in Aurora, is to ban possession of firearms.  If a person is inclined to break the law by slaughtering innocent people, do we really believe that a law would prevent them from obtaining and carrying a weapon?  I think our most dangerous tendency is to feel a false sense of security, to ever feel that we are truly and absolutely safe, to be oblivious to the dangers around us.  In the grand scheme of things, among the general populace, these ideas probably make me sound a bit extreme.

So, what trials and tribulations?  As a gun owner I am a member of several Internet gun forums.  I enjoy talking and learning all I can about concealed carry and personal defense.  Although I was an NRA member, I quite simply could not accept their incessant doomsday rhetoric and scenarios and fear mongering.  It all came to a head for me when Wayne LaPierre, said, basically "We know Obama will destroy our second amendment freedoms because he hasn't done so yet".  I do not know how you get there from here; this is the stuff of insanity.

So, when trying to read about one of my favorite topics, the use of firearms for personal defense  - I am also frequently exposed to rabid, right-wing, Obama is the anti-Christ, a socialist, taking away our freedoms tirades.  There is never any real data on this, no one can give much detail on any of it, just the emotional appeal to the tragedy that "Our America" is being taken away.  What really amazes me is that most were seemingly all right with the 8 years of GWB, the unnecessary wars paid for on credit and an increase in the deficit fed by foolhardy tax cuts.  Why wasn't the deficit a problem then?  Most did not seem to mind his executive orders, his signing statements, his encroachments on our freedoms and defiance of the Constitution, yet somehow can quite clearly see those terrible events now coming true.

I have pondered long how it is that 8 yeas of GWB were cool with these freedom-loving Americans, yet 4 of Obama, with no real curtailment of freedoms that I can see, are a sign of the coming apocalypse.  Oh, is it a loss of freedom to have a health care plan that provides coverage for all and enforces individual responsibility?  Didn't seem so years ago.  I see it as enhancing my freedom not to have to pay for the health care of those who are not covered and do not take responsibility for their own care.

I know how people react when you use the term "racism", but I have not been able to find any other explanation for this.  None of these freedom-lovers seemed to care about such issues when a white redneck was in office, but are now in complete terror when a black intellectual is in office.  Can it be that, just at a time when the census tells us that white Americans are not the majority of births in the country, the election of a black president ignited some primal fear, such a fear that he need only be black to be a threat?

So, I try to read the forums, looking for interesting tips and ideas on how to protect myself and my loved ones in dangerous times.  I wish dearly there were a good, second amendment organization that did not push thoughtful gun owners away.  I try not to wander into those zones where I realize that I am wading in a cesspool among a bunch of people who ignored 8 years of Bush/Cheney power-grabbing, but now see themselves in a cosmic battle of good v. evil.

It ain't easy!

Who are these "Real Americans" of which you speak...

So...when Romney Adviser Tara Wall was asked about criticisms of his lack of a detailed Afghanistan policy she noted:

"Unfortunately it’s disappointing that the attacks, these recent attacks on all these issues outside of what the issues are relative to Mitt Romney are diverting away from what real Americans want to talk about. And real Americans want to talk about getting back to work."

Hmmm...perhaps that is what the selfish Americans to whom Romney is trying to appeal want to talk about - what's in it for me - but I do not think that makes them real.  It kind of makes them surreal.  Caricatures maybe.  Evil doppelgangers.  Zombie Americans.  Bizarro Americans wearing American flag lapel pins.

Does she mean that the millions who have been or will be directly or indirectly impacted by our foray into Afghanistan, and those of us who do care about them and want to hear what this candidate's plans are for them, are not real Americans?  Does she think that wars and tax cuts did not contribute to today's' problems?  So, when times are hard, real Americans cut their military loose, just give lip-service to the idea of "heroes" but only care about themselves?  Not the real Americans I know.  I do not think you know what a real American is...you are living in some weird alternate America.

Hello, Mitt.  I served my country in the military for 10 years - not in France on a religious mission.  I care about what is happening to my active duty brothers and sisters and want to know what your plans will be for them.  That's as real as it gets.

"You didn't build that..."

Did Mitt Romney, Jack Gilchrist and other business owners build the roads and bridges their products or personnel move on.  Did they pay for the education and training of their workers?  What the inspectors who ensure that the foods they eat meet some minimum standard?  How about the police and fire services that keep them safe, not to mention the military?  How about the subsidies for the fuels they use and crops they consume?  I am sure they would say, yes, they paid for this in the taxes they pay, but then I helped pay for them, too.  Such is the commitment all Americans have made to support the growth, wealth and security of our nation and the free enterprise system.

We all love the idea that we are self-made and self-sufficient, that we need no one and no one helped us, that our success is solely the work of our own hands or those of our ancestors.  We romanticize the "Rugged Individualist".  But in truth this has always been in the context of "One Nation...indivisible" and "Out of many, one".

Yes, Mr. Gilchrist, his son and father have worked hard to be where they are, the initiative, the ingenuity.  Acknowledging that this might not have been possible all on your own, in a country that did not provide a context that promotes and supports such effort, is not to denigrate such accomplishment.  It is to suggest that each of us owes at least some debt to the country that supports our efforts.  America, as a nation, has worked alongside you, worked hard and sacrificed, contributed to provide the opportunity, the infrastructure needed, to help hard workers like you and many others succeed.  It is no denigration of your efforts to suggest that they have been joined by your fellow Americans, by government funded by all of our citizens that arises from the shared will of the people to provide for such opportunity.

That I drive to work on roads that were built by and are owned by all of us, not by a corporation that can say "This is mine" and set an arbitrary toll that I must pay to survive may seem a small thing.  That my customers can do the same may seem trivial and easily taken for granted - in a land that has become more and more "All about me".  But your employees also enjoy this, as do your products.  Yes, I succeed by my own efforts - no one earned my degree for me or the position I hold, but the military benefits I earned and the student loans I used made it possible - and I know that all contribute in support of those.  No, they could not succeed for me, but I also know that it would have likely been impossible without them.  I did not earn it without help.

Neither did you build it on your own.  This selfish, self-centered, "I did this with no help from anyone else" attitude is simply not based on the real world.

Confirms what I have always thought of her...

Having watched S.E. Cupp on "Real Time" a few times and noticed the typical approach; that is, talk loud, say little, talk constantly and over anyone else who wants to speak, I could not help but think that her only real asset to the media must be the fact that she looks like a slightly under-done Sarah Palin clone.  You know, all "mavericky" and stuff...

Alas, the evidence became more clear as S.E. Cupp flexes her idiot for all to see...

This has simply become standard practice...no facts, no data, no thought, no lointendedbuzzwords inteneded to conjure images and emotions (esocialistectivist, cosialist, foreign, unAmerican, etc).  No, conservatives are not the only ones to do this, but they are certainly the masters of it and havon itrtainly relied onit for the longest - and it is about time they were outed.  I guess the younger ones lack the skill necessary to pull it off.

So...why might someone say that "The private sector is doing fine"?  Because it has done "better" since early 2010.  Public sector - not so much. 

BTW, teachers, cops and firefighters are regular Americans, Mr. Romney...

Health Care Hoopla - The Personal Responsibility Mandate

Most of the time I have discussions with conservatives they are all about personal responsibility.  In fact, in Massachusetts, the individual mandate was the "personal responsibility mandate".  We know that people who are uninsured get less preventive care, wait longer to seek care when they need it, and often end up in emergency departments being cared for once a problem becomes incapacitating or life-threatening.  The seeming role of the mandate is to ensure that those who can afford insurance but do not get it take some responsibility for their health care as opposed to leaving it to the rest of us to foot the bill in either higher taxes or higher health care costs to cover their unfunded care.

If not via the "personal responsibility" mandate, then what is the mechanism?  On one hand, conservatives want to enforce individual responsibility - all about rugged individualism - but on the other assert that the government telling you that you must be responsible is "taking away your freedom" - freedom as in "...right to screw up (or screw others)" I suppose.  It seems either we require all to pay for care (or pay a penalty that can help support their care) or we enforce responsibility by allowing those who do not buy coverage to die.  Obviously, during Republican primary debates earlier this year, the idea of allowing those who are uninsured or cannot afford care to die was a popular notion.  We ll know that is not going to happen and I have yet to meet a conservative who thinks it is a good idea when it comes to them or their loved ones; when their mothers and fathers are cared for on Medicare.  They hate the "Nanny state" when it takes care of others, but love it when it supports them.  I suppose it is an issue of deciding "Who are the freeloaders?" Can't be us!

It would really make a difference in how this process is viewed if people could hold consistent positions.  When it becomes clear that they change their positions for purely political purposes, it makes them look foolish and frivolous; Mitt Romney, passed and praised such legislation before he was against it.  For most of  us it is hard to overlook the lack of integrity; sadly for otehrs it is just a matter of telling them what they want to hear.

Opps, there goes another one!

I guess this is why groups like the Texas Republicans don't want adolescents to think on their own.  Great that he has not fallen into the trap of having to adopt a label and be one or the other!  I am sure he is next up for the "Roberts treatment".  Damn that free thought!  It will be fun to see how, when he gave his speech, he was a prodigy, but now, a few years later, he is just a dumb teenager who doesn;lt know anything.

A great example of what Piaget observed - yes, I know there are problems with his theory - as we mature our ability to go beyond simple dichotomies to consider complexities increases.

CPAC's boy wonder swings left

So, this is a picture of the kind of thing we hear about on a regular basis:



It is usually prefaced or followed by some comment to the extent that it is bad news for the president.

Folks, I am no Obama fan - not a hater, but not a fan.  I think he was born in Hawaii and do not think he is a socialist who is destroying our country or constitution or taking away our freedoms (I suppose to some that makes me a fan).  But to be honest, I distrust and dislike all politicians - some more than others (see my Romney post).  Given the right choice (ain't happening this time), I would consider another option.

I will tell you for free that I think the country is going in the wrong direction, is well off the right track.  Thing is, that has nothing to do with the President for me and everything to do with the massive crazy all around.  Let's see...the zealots who have decided to roll-back the times to when there were no women's rights, civil rights, abortion rights, union rights, no middle class, the rise in prominence of people with radical ideas and whose only way of selling them is to create enemies among their fellow citizens.  Those like the Texas Republicans I posted about recently who think that ignorance is the cure.  Those who think that it is proof that a President is going to steal your guns because he has not stolen your guns (and I am a gun owner and carrier).  Those who sat on their hands (where were their fingers?) for 8 years, smiling inanely and cheering for phone taps, detention of citizens, more war and tax cuts while the economy went up in flames and our brave troops bore the brunt of the war (everyone else went shopping). A congress that prioritizes its social issues over economic recovery and political agenda and power over patriotism and progress.  They banter, pander and we suffer.

Hell yes, wrong track - hard to see how it gets better - The Dark Time - due to the plague of crazy.

"John Roberts has evolved -- it didn't take him that long -- and the accolades from the left have already started. With the Obamacare and Arizona decisions, Roberts' activism is now firmly evident."

- Mark Levin

Let's see...

Activist Judge?

OR

Activist judge?

HINT:  You're only allowed to legislate from the bench if we agree with you!

I need a job where I can be as curmudgeonly, disdainful, and contrary as I want and your just stuck with me for life!  And a government employee at that!

Buyer beware

For a moment - forget that this is a presidental candidate - forget who his incumbent competition is.

NOW - QUICKLY - TRUST YOUR GUT

Would you buy a used car from this person?

This guy has slightly less personality and believability than the animatronics at Disney's Hall of the Presidents.  I know he's trying to sell me something I don't want, trying to sell me one suit by telling me I can get another at half-price, plus two ties and two silk shirts!  "She's gonna like the way you look, I guarantee it!"  Man, the suit ain't gonna fix it.

And, damn, I wish I had invested in the American Flag lapel pin market in the late 90s. The damned things are ubiquitous. They get trotted out like some powerful talisman that, when you wear it, can protect you from all the stupid things you say and do.  Please people...any fool can stick a lapel pin on.

"Don't you dare learn to think for yourself!"

Ah, the celebration of ignorance continues.  It is one thing, however, for adults to assert their right to be stupid if they wish.  Although every ignorant American harms the rest of us by, in any of several ways, inflicting the consequences of their stupidity on the rest of us, in the end we have to admit that if an adult wants to know nothing, then they will do so.  And while it is scary to ponder the number of them who take pride in their ignorance, it is even more frightening when they want to insist that their children should also be raised to be stupid.  Yes, enter the Texas Republican Party - working hard to both out-pace the stupidity of the Republican my own home State of Florida.  On with the race to the bottom.  Yes, if the Texas Republicans have their way, the stupid parents will be the main source of information for their children.  Does anyone really believe that parents know best?  Have you looked around lately?  This whole idea stems from the idea that somehow children are the "property" of their parents and just like a parent might decide to let the weeds grow six feet high (or even worse do one of those take the grass out and put stone down - painted green of course) they should also decide to pass on their desire to know nothing.  And if that is not enough for you, the Texas Republicans follow that up by saying schools should not teach students to think critically - after all that might lead to things like realizing your parents and their idea are stupid, that they might come to question the question the indoctrination they received as parents and that, God forbid, that might undercut their parents' authority to force them to continue the tradition of ignorance.  It is not an accident that this mirrors the larger issues in our society - the notion of a parental society.  Funny how those who decry what they call a "nanny State" also what to act to ensure that future generations remain subject to the intellectual and emotional limits of their forebears.

If we want to understand what is going wrong with America (but, damn, that takes critical thinking skills) we might look to ideas that promulgate the notion that parents are justified in making their children little versions of themselves - you know, the same people that got us here.

“When a Republican President does it, that means it is not illegal”

Can we dispense with the disingenuous outrage?  I am suspect of executive privilege; while it may have its place, I didn’t like it when Bush used it (many times) and don’t like it when Obama uses it for the first time.  But for 8 years of the Bush administration we heard theories, most vociferously espoused by Dick Cheney, about the supreme executive, which lead to the assertion of privilege (remember that we could not know what energy executives met with Cheney to establish US energy policy), executive orders and signing statements.  Some feared, even then, this eerie echo of Nixon’s assertion that “When the President does it, that means it is not illegal”.  It is unfortunate that Obama, who espoused a different executive, an open and honest presidency, has now asserted this privilege, even for his first time.  But more disheartening and distasteful is the hypocrisy, the fake outrage of Republican lawmakers who once cheered Bush’s exercise of executive power only to now view it as dictatorial.  Behavior they once supported is now the end of American freedom.  We hear incessantly about “shredding the Constitution” from those who wanted Bush to listen in on Americans’ private phone conversations and detain citizens without due process.  Just as with many other Republican policies and strategies, when Obama endorses or uses them, they become cause for alarm and pseudo-outrage and panic, the end of our society as we know it.  Rush Limbaugh once played a song about the seemingly magic powers of Obama.  Although it was widely panned, it now seems we can see those powers on display; in what can only be considered a miracle, by the mere sound of his voice Obama has awakened large numbers of Republicans who spent the first 8 years of this century in a coma.  To borrow and update Nixon’s quote; “When a Republican President does it, that means it is not illegal”.