2011/03/27
Deficit Reduction by Traffic Ticket
Anecdotal evidence proving that Tom Corbett's master plan to balance the budget consists of issuing massive numbers of speeding tickets. I have never seen so many state troopers on a round trip from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh on the Turnpike.
Chris Wallace: Whiner
Chris Wallace over at Fox News is super sad today. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made the Sunday talk show rounds this morning, but noticeably skipped out on Fox News. This prompted Wallace to complain on air, saying that they wanted the interviews but that the White House refused despite the fact that Fox News has the second highest number of viewers out of the four major network shows.
First point: what a cry baby. I can't believe an alleged journalist is so thin skinned that he felt the need to complain to his entire nationwide audience because he couldn't book the big interview he wanted.
Second: why is he surprised? Fox News has spent every on air moment since Obama's inauguration making itself an thinly veiled opposition outlet and the official media/propaganda arm of the GOP. Is he really surprised that the White House isn't keen on giving plum interviews to a "news" station that barely even tries to mask its contempt for him?
Finally, a somewhat unrelated point.
I'm really tired of Fox News acting as if ratings and number of viewers is some measure of the accuracy and veracity of the message they are broadcasting. When challenged for being a conscious liar and deceiver, O'Reilly will frequently cite his and Fox's ratings as some sort of evidence to the contrary. By this logic, the number of Big Macs sold is evidence the McDonald's is the best dining in the world, American Idol is the greatest program in the history of television, and crack is an absolutely great thing for people to do.
First point: what a cry baby. I can't believe an alleged journalist is so thin skinned that he felt the need to complain to his entire nationwide audience because he couldn't book the big interview he wanted.
Second: why is he surprised? Fox News has spent every on air moment since Obama's inauguration making itself an thinly veiled opposition outlet and the official media/propaganda arm of the GOP. Is he really surprised that the White House isn't keen on giving plum interviews to a "news" station that barely even tries to mask its contempt for him?
Finally, a somewhat unrelated point.
I'm really tired of Fox News acting as if ratings and number of viewers is some measure of the accuracy and veracity of the message they are broadcasting. When challenged for being a conscious liar and deceiver, O'Reilly will frequently cite his and Fox's ratings as some sort of evidence to the contrary. By this logic, the number of Big Macs sold is evidence the McDonald's is the best dining in the world, American Idol is the greatest program in the history of television, and crack is an absolutely great thing for people to do.
Michele Bachmann: Revisionist Historian
The right's most famous wide-eyed loon is at it again.
This weekend marked a big event in Iowa that was a veritable parade of GOP presidential hopefuls. They were all there to woo the conservatives activists that will decide the nation's first primary. Of course, Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann had to show up to lay some of her usual crazy on the audience.
One thing that she said struck me as so foolishly ignorant that I needed to mention it. Bachmann claimed that, "The preservation of our nation is too important to entrust it to mere politicians. The founders recognized that it could only be entrusted to the brain trust, and that's the people of this nation." Yet again, Bachmann is showing that all of her grandstanding aside, she has no understanding whatsoever of the founding of our country.
The men who wrote the Constitution did not entrust the maintenance of our freedom to the people. One wonders if Bachmann has ever heard of the Electoral College. In case she hasn't, let me explain. The Founders hated the idea that the common man would be in charge of the political process. They thought that most people were simple, uneducated rubes who basically needed to be governed by their betters, for their own good. One of the ways they ensured that was to create the Electoral College. As everyone who has taken a 4th grade history classes knows, the Constitution created a body of "politicians" that would select the president based up on the popular election results from the people. This is just one example of how the Founders placed barriers in the way of direct rule by the "brain trust" that Bachmann referenced.
Want more examples? How about the fact that only white, property owning men over a certain age were allowed to vote. Does that sound like the policy of a group that wanted "the people" to be guarantors of the nation? How about the fact that Senators were chosen not by the people, but by the politicians in state legislatures. Anyone who knows American history knows these things and knows that the Founding Fathers did not want the people to have unconstrained control over the country.
ASIDE:
On a mostly unrelated note, Bachmann also drew huge applause with a little quip that she had, "...introduced the light bulb freedom of choice act!" I can't understand the fixation of the movement right on these types of issues. They apparently don't consider it a violation of our rights and freedoms for the government to impose warrantless wiretaps, rendition, etc. But they consider it a huge infringement if they can't buy incandescent light bulbs? Of course, the real issue isn't that they hate CFLs. The real issue is that they know that phasing out incandescents (a policy introduced by the Bush administration, by the way) is about reducing energy usage and dealing with climate change. The Tea Party crowd firmly believes that climate change is a hoax and that any action taken to correct it, even if it imposes no burden on them, is a priori a bad idea and an infringement upon their liberties.
This weekend marked a big event in Iowa that was a veritable parade of GOP presidential hopefuls. They were all there to woo the conservatives activists that will decide the nation's first primary. Of course, Tea Party favorite Michele Bachmann had to show up to lay some of her usual crazy on the audience.
One thing that she said struck me as so foolishly ignorant that I needed to mention it. Bachmann claimed that, "The preservation of our nation is too important to entrust it to mere politicians. The founders recognized that it could only be entrusted to the brain trust, and that's the people of this nation." Yet again, Bachmann is showing that all of her grandstanding aside, she has no understanding whatsoever of the founding of our country.
The men who wrote the Constitution did not entrust the maintenance of our freedom to the people. One wonders if Bachmann has ever heard of the Electoral College. In case she hasn't, let me explain. The Founders hated the idea that the common man would be in charge of the political process. They thought that most people were simple, uneducated rubes who basically needed to be governed by their betters, for their own good. One of the ways they ensured that was to create the Electoral College. As everyone who has taken a 4th grade history classes knows, the Constitution created a body of "politicians" that would select the president based up on the popular election results from the people. This is just one example of how the Founders placed barriers in the way of direct rule by the "brain trust" that Bachmann referenced.
Want more examples? How about the fact that only white, property owning men over a certain age were allowed to vote. Does that sound like the policy of a group that wanted "the people" to be guarantors of the nation? How about the fact that Senators were chosen not by the people, but by the politicians in state legislatures. Anyone who knows American history knows these things and knows that the Founding Fathers did not want the people to have unconstrained control over the country.
ASIDE:
On a mostly unrelated note, Bachmann also drew huge applause with a little quip that she had, "...introduced the light bulb freedom of choice act!" I can't understand the fixation of the movement right on these types of issues. They apparently don't consider it a violation of our rights and freedoms for the government to impose warrantless wiretaps, rendition, etc. But they consider it a huge infringement if they can't buy incandescent light bulbs? Of course, the real issue isn't that they hate CFLs. The real issue is that they know that phasing out incandescents (a policy introduced by the Bush administration, by the way) is about reducing energy usage and dealing with climate change. The Tea Party crowd firmly believes that climate change is a hoax and that any action taken to correct it, even if it imposes no burden on them, is a priori a bad idea and an infringement upon their liberties.
2011/03/22
Certifiable Conservatism
When I think that my blood pressure is too low, I head over to The Fox Nation in an act of self-flagellation. This evening, I was rewarded with the type of insane, paranoid delusions that I usually think are reserved for Glenn Beck.
Over at Jewish World Review, Frank Gaffney completely loses his fucking shit.
This column consists of Gaffney going off on a dark, surreal fantasy in which President Obama, advised by his "anti-Israel troika of female advisers" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power) uses the precedent set by our intervention in Libya to declare war on Israel.
This is certifiably loony. The United States has spent the last several decades vetoing every UN resolution that had anything to do with Israel. We provide them with enormous amounts of military, financial, logistical and diplomatic support. Our leaders have to make a clear show of constantly expressing how willing they are to intervene on Israel's behalf.
And yet now we're going to invade them to defend the Palestinians at the behest of the Arab League.
It shows something creepy and dangerous about the mentality of the ultra right wing in American politics. The conspiratorial, apocalyptic fantasies that they dream up are absolutely beyond comprehension.
Over at Jewish World Review, Frank Gaffney completely loses his fucking shit.
This column consists of Gaffney going off on a dark, surreal fantasy in which President Obama, advised by his "anti-Israel troika of female advisers" (Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, UN Ambassador Susan Rice and National Security Council member Samantha Power) uses the precedent set by our intervention in Libya to declare war on Israel.
This is certifiably loony. The United States has spent the last several decades vetoing every UN resolution that had anything to do with Israel. We provide them with enormous amounts of military, financial, logistical and diplomatic support. Our leaders have to make a clear show of constantly expressing how willing they are to intervene on Israel's behalf.
And yet now we're going to invade them to defend the Palestinians at the behest of the Arab League.
It shows something creepy and dangerous about the mentality of the ultra right wing in American politics. The conspiratorial, apocalyptic fantasies that they dream up are absolutely beyond comprehension.
Greg Sargent Tells Us Everything We Need To Know About Mitt Romney
Take it away Greg:
"Call it the Dingbat Doctrine: If you think the world is a complicated place; if you think that navigating the most powerful military in human history through treacherous and ever-shifting geopolitical cross-currents involves difficult moral choices; if you think America can gain anything at all by recognizing that we have common interests with other nations; well, then you’re too weak to be president."
Greg also directed everyone to Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"Obama is “nuanced”? Yes, but can someone explain why that’s a bad thing? It’s a complex, “turbulent,” and ever-changing world. Having a chief executive who appreciates and is aware of “nuance” strikes me as positive."
These criticisms came in response to this little gem from Mitt Romney:
“I believe that it flows from his fundamental disbelief in American exceptionalism. In the President’s world, all nations have ‘common interests,’ the lines between good and evil are blurred, America’s history merits apology. And without a compass to guide him in our increasingly turbulent world, he’s tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.”
"Call it the Dingbat Doctrine: If you think the world is a complicated place; if you think that navigating the most powerful military in human history through treacherous and ever-shifting geopolitical cross-currents involves difficult moral choices; if you think America can gain anything at all by recognizing that we have common interests with other nations; well, then you’re too weak to be president."
Greg also directed everyone to Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"Obama is “nuanced”? Yes, but can someone explain why that’s a bad thing? It’s a complex, “turbulent,” and ever-changing world. Having a chief executive who appreciates and is aware of “nuance” strikes me as positive."
These criticisms came in response to this little gem from Mitt Romney:
“I believe that it flows from his fundamental disbelief in American exceptionalism. In the President’s world, all nations have ‘common interests,’ the lines between good and evil are blurred, America’s history merits apology. And without a compass to guide him in our increasingly turbulent world, he’s tentative, indecisive, timid and nuanced.”
Barack Obama: Imperial President
Glenn Greenwald provides a perfect takedown of the Obama Administration over its decision to engage in combat operation in Libya without the approval of Congress. In the process, he also attacks both Democrats and Republicans for having identical positions on the unilateral ability of the President to essentially start wars with consulting Congress despite the Constitution's clear delegation of war-making authority to Congress. That position of course, is that it is totally unacceptable and unconstitutional for a president of the opposite party to unilaterally start wars, but it is totally within the authority of a president from their own party.
This is yet one more manifestation of Barack Obama's complete agreement with many of the national security policies of George W. Bush. When it comes to supporting portions of FISA, extending the Patriot Act, and now engaging in military strikes without consulting Congress, Barack Obama obviously has the same conception of the imperial presidency that has been universal to almost every president since World War Two.
I find this incredibly unsurprising. The history of US foreign and national security policy is so remarkably consistent no matter which party is in control that it is difficult to imagine the president acting in any other way. However, I do have some pity for Obama voters who believed that we were going to get a serious break from the heavy handed views on national security policy that we endured during the aughts.
This is yet one more manifestation of Barack Obama's complete agreement with many of the national security policies of George W. Bush. When it comes to supporting portions of FISA, extending the Patriot Act, and now engaging in military strikes without consulting Congress, Barack Obama obviously has the same conception of the imperial presidency that has been universal to almost every president since World War Two.
I find this incredibly unsurprising. The history of US foreign and national security policy is so remarkably consistent no matter which party is in control that it is difficult to imagine the president acting in any other way. However, I do have some pity for Obama voters who believed that we were going to get a serious break from the heavy handed views on national security policy that we endured during the aughts.
Wisconsin Comes to the Commonwealth
I exaggerate slightly, but students and professors at Shippensburg were out protesting the higher education cuts in Gov. Corbett's budget. I would not be surprised if this spreads to other universities and to at least some K-12 schools. I don't foresee Pennsylvania experiencing the mass protests seen in Wisconsin, at least not until Corbett decides that he wants to try permanently crippling unions too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)