In my web travels, I found this. I have to re"print" it. With minimal comment.
"What do homosexuality, the health-care overhaul and British advertising standards all have in common? They're all things that have ticked God off, some religious leaders say, and he's venting his frustration with the angry fires of Iceland's Eyjafjallajokull volcano.
Moscow's Interfax newswire reported that the Association of (Russian) Orthodox Experts called the April 14 eruption -- whose gigantic cloud of ash grounded transatlantic flights for more than a week -- a response to gay rights in Europe and Iceland's tolerance of "neo-paganism." Conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh said God was angry over health-care legislation. San Antonio megachurch pastor John Hagee, founder of Christians United for Israel, said God was unleashing his wrath on Britain for deciding that Israeli tourism ads featured parts of the disputed Palestinian territories, not Israel."
Blogger Omar Sacirbey splashed this on the Washington Post's site on May 1. I'm simply passing it along for your enjoyment, with the completely unnecessary postscript that all the parties named therein deserve your scorn and ridicule. Laugh away.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
You Don't Ask, Don't Tell, What Do You Do? / 5-25-10
Let's combine two stories here. And I think I now owe royalties to the Adam And the Ants or something.
Story One: Dude who claims homosexuals can be cured of the disease of being gay, and who once charged taxpayers $120,000 for an appearance in court to serve as an expert witness, goes on 10-day vacation to Europe with gay male escort he found online. Good story all on its own. Juicy and everything. Follow the links. They're great. But wait. There's more.
Story Two: Same dude's activist group, the Family Research Council (co-founded with fellow gay-hater James Dobson), placed an ad in Politico Tuesday, asking oh so rhetorically, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." (It's nice they answered their own question. I was worried they'd just let it sit out there, lonely and ambiguous.)
Superfluous But Fun Background: Elena Kagan is President Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee. Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. Nancy Pelosi, you may have heard, is the Speaker of the House. Her district is in San Francisco, so she's automatically evil and is to be opposed as a matter of principle, no matter what.
Combo Story: The FRC is worried that Congress might repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that gives gays the distinct privilege of being dishonorably discharged from the military for being, well, you know, GAY. Which has happened to 13,000 homosexuals since the policy's implementation. Rekers may have conveniently "left" the FRC and its subsidiaries, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try and deny equal rights to gay citizens. (Wonder how Rekers feels about their efforts now.)
Congress is in fact considering a repeal, which would take effect Dec. 1 if approved by important people such as the President, the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Gays would be allowed to serve openly, as they do in places like Israel, Russia, and Great Britain. I should mention, however, that those nations have been tragically invaded by non-gay armies in recent years and will soon cease to exist entirely.
My unsolicited advice to gay-rights opponents, in Congress or otherwise: Don't get in the way of this repeal. It's hateful and you're on the wrong side of history. Oh, and the wrong side of public opinion, too, but that's kind of inconsequential here, as far as the ethics of the situation go. As far as your re-election efforts go, that's up to you. Yes, I'm speaking to you, Scott Brown.
One way I've been considering the validity of DADT is by framing it through the lens of equal opportunity employment practices. Ask yourself if you agree with the statement: "Should the U.S. military be allowed to not hire gay men and women?" Then, for fun, substitute the military for Microsoft. Or Jamba Juice. Or Wal-Mart.
I realize the job description of "armed forces operative" isn't exactly equivalent to that of "superstore greeter." (There may be plenty of crossover. I've never been either of those things, so feel free to enlighten me.) Bottom line: discrimination is discrimination, no matter its professional location. And I don't think that's what I want my country to be about.
Story One: Dude who claims homosexuals can be cured of the disease of being gay, and who once charged taxpayers $120,000 for an appearance in court to serve as an expert witness, goes on 10-day vacation to Europe with gay male escort he found online. Good story all on its own. Juicy and everything. Follow the links. They're great. But wait. There's more.
Story Two: Same dude's activist group, the Family Research Council (co-founded with fellow gay-hater James Dobson), placed an ad in Politico Tuesday, asking oh so rhetorically, "What do Kagan, Levin and Pelosi have in common? Using the military to advance their radical social agenda." (It's nice they answered their own question. I was worried they'd just let it sit out there, lonely and ambiguous.)
Superfluous But Fun Background: Elena Kagan is President Obama's most recent Supreme Court nominee. Carl Levin is the chairman of the Senate's Armed Services Committee. Nancy Pelosi, you may have heard, is the Speaker of the House. Her district is in San Francisco, so she's automatically evil and is to be opposed as a matter of principle, no matter what.
Combo Story: The FRC is worried that Congress might repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," the law that gives gays the distinct privilege of being dishonorably discharged from the military for being, well, you know, GAY. Which has happened to 13,000 homosexuals since the policy's implementation. Rekers may have conveniently "left" the FRC and its subsidiaries, but that doesn't stop them from continuing to try and deny equal rights to gay citizens. (Wonder how Rekers feels about their efforts now.)
Congress is in fact considering a repeal, which would take effect Dec. 1 if approved by important people such as the President, the SecDef and the Joint Chiefs. Gays would be allowed to serve openly, as they do in places like Israel, Russia, and Great Britain. I should mention, however, that those nations have been tragically invaded by non-gay armies in recent years and will soon cease to exist entirely.
My unsolicited advice to gay-rights opponents, in Congress or otherwise: Don't get in the way of this repeal. It's hateful and you're on the wrong side of history. Oh, and the wrong side of public opinion, too, but that's kind of inconsequential here, as far as the ethics of the situation go. As far as your re-election efforts go, that's up to you. Yes, I'm speaking to you, Scott Brown.
One way I've been considering the validity of DADT is by framing it through the lens of equal opportunity employment practices. Ask yourself if you agree with the statement: "Should the U.S. military be allowed to not hire gay men and women?" Then, for fun, substitute the military for Microsoft. Or Jamba Juice. Or Wal-Mart.
I realize the job description of "armed forces operative" isn't exactly equivalent to that of "superstore greeter." (There may be plenty of crossover. I've never been either of those things, so feel free to enlighten me.) Bottom line: discrimination is discrimination, no matter its professional location. And I don't think that's what I want my country to be about.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Rand Um Chance? / 5-23-10
Pun geeks get the hottest girls. Didn't you know?
But on to the meat of this post. (Although to be honest, it's more of a tofu dish. Stir-fried, with veggies. Mushrooms and peppers and those baby corn thingies. Smothered in hot chili lime sauce. With sesame seeds. Free advice to self: eat well FIRST. THEN write blog.)
Rand Paul, the son of extreme left-wing presidential candidate Ron Paul, dipped his toe into national politics this month by winning the Republican primary in the race to succeed outgoing Senator Jim Bunning, who has been seniling his way right out of office for some time now.
Rand, who I'll hopelessly hope is not named for Ayn, falls neatly within political parameters set by Tea Party activists. (I think they should officially go with the slogan, "Give me libertarianism or give me death," but they so seldom listen to me these days.)
Whatever. You get the idea. Rand is reflexively anti-tax, anti-deficit and opposes basically any federal governmental power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. And that sounds great. In theory. Until you get into actual governance, and the feds decide that maybe it's not a good idea to keep discriminating against nonwhites or the disabled. So we get legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, designed to tell people with the power to act bigoted, "No, we really mean it when we say you should treat folks with dignity and equality. Now shape up."
Only Rand opposes and/or criticizes these laws.
Can you see how this might pose a problem in a general election? Sure, Rand can excite the conservative base in a primary. He's a fresh face with a pedigree. He's brilliant in certain ways -- I mean, the man's an ophthalmologist who has a degree from the Duke School of Medicine, for Hippocrates' sake.
But statewide elections don't favor extremists. Even in Kentucky, which went for McCain by 16 points (!), Libertarians poll between 0 and 6 percent, depending on the epoch. That being said, had Rand run for U.S. Congress in a friendly district, I believe he could have waltzed into office. He is technically a Republican. I guess. (I should rephrase. This is Kentucky; he's more likely to do-si-do into a congressional seat, to a backdrop of an absolutely bitchin' bluegrass band.) Oh, and Rand's opponent, Jack Conway, is well-known as the state's Attorney General.
That being said part deux, I don't think it's outside the realm that Rand could win anyway. Midterms are all about enthusiasm, and the TPers are nothing if not energetic. Enough Kentuckians (Kentuckers?) are eager to put the brakes on the Ovalest Socialist (I just made that up and I am frakking proud of it, thank you very much) that they might just go for anyone with an R next to his (not her) name.
(Three asides in one sentence? Rrho boy.)
Additionally, Democrats outnumber Republicans in KY by 600,000, although I confess that's a bit of a misleading statistic. Still, that's a lot of moderately moderate Dempublicrats Rand would have to attract. At least he's going it about it the right way so far: his election website is splashed with Obama blue.
Oh yeah, but those unfortunate statements about how we don't really need to step in and stop injustice, it'll just stop itself, like it always has. The free market will take care of it. No, in that department, help is flooding in. Sarah Palin weighed in for Rand, that's got to be good for something. "You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment, and that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul," Palin said over the weekend. Sarah is a helpful lady, if you're trying to win an election. Great track record. Stayed away from Scott Brown so he could win; campaigned for that stooge in New York last year who lost. Also, that 2008 thing. Mmm hmm. Dispatch her immediately.
Rand is also pro-life. This seems like a plus in Kentucky. He's so pro-life, in fact, that he even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is ideologically pure. After all, if life begins at conception, abortion is murder no matter how the conception came about. But try selling that opinion on a large scale. Not a lot of buyers.
It's not all bad, though. Rand, like his famouser dad, is smartly in favor of legalizing marijuana. That ought to shore up Kentucky's substantial evangelical vote just fine. You tell 'em, Rand!
But on to the meat of this post. (Although to be honest, it's more of a tofu dish. Stir-fried, with veggies. Mushrooms and peppers and those baby corn thingies. Smothered in hot chili lime sauce. With sesame seeds. Free advice to self: eat well FIRST. THEN write blog.)
Rand Paul, the son of extreme left-wing presidential candidate Ron Paul, dipped his toe into national politics this month by winning the Republican primary in the race to succeed outgoing Senator Jim Bunning, who has been seniling his way right out of office for some time now.
Rand, who I'll hopelessly hope is not named for Ayn, falls neatly within political parameters set by Tea Party activists. (I think they should officially go with the slogan, "Give me libertarianism or give me death," but they so seldom listen to me these days.)
Whatever. You get the idea. Rand is reflexively anti-tax, anti-deficit and opposes basically any federal governmental power not expressly outlined in the Constitution. And that sounds great. In theory. Until you get into actual governance, and the feds decide that maybe it's not a good idea to keep discriminating against nonwhites or the disabled. So we get legislation like the Civil Rights Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act, designed to tell people with the power to act bigoted, "No, we really mean it when we say you should treat folks with dignity and equality. Now shape up."
Only Rand opposes and/or criticizes these laws.
Can you see how this might pose a problem in a general election? Sure, Rand can excite the conservative base in a primary. He's a fresh face with a pedigree. He's brilliant in certain ways -- I mean, the man's an ophthalmologist who has a degree from the Duke School of Medicine, for Hippocrates' sake.
But statewide elections don't favor extremists. Even in Kentucky, which went for McCain by 16 points (!), Libertarians poll between 0 and 6 percent, depending on the epoch. That being said, had Rand run for U.S. Congress in a friendly district, I believe he could have waltzed into office. He is technically a Republican. I guess. (I should rephrase. This is Kentucky; he's more likely to do-si-do into a congressional seat, to a backdrop of an absolutely bitchin' bluegrass band.) Oh, and Rand's opponent, Jack Conway, is well-known as the state's Attorney General.
That being said part deux, I don't think it's outside the realm that Rand could win anyway. Midterms are all about enthusiasm, and the TPers are nothing if not energetic. Enough Kentuckians (Kentuckers?) are eager to put the brakes on the Ovalest Socialist (I just made that up and I am frakking proud of it, thank you very much) that they might just go for anyone with an R next to his (not her) name.
(Three asides in one sentence? Rrho boy.)
Additionally, Democrats outnumber Republicans in KY by 600,000, although I confess that's a bit of a misleading statistic. Still, that's a lot of moderately moderate Dempublicrats Rand would have to attract. At least he's going it about it the right way so far: his election website is splashed with Obama blue.
Oh yeah, but those unfortunate statements about how we don't really need to step in and stop injustice, it'll just stop itself, like it always has. The free market will take care of it. No, in that department, help is flooding in. Sarah Palin weighed in for Rand, that's got to be good for something. "You know, they're looking for that 'gotcha' moment, and that's what it evidently appears to be that they did with Rand Paul," Palin said over the weekend. Sarah is a helpful lady, if you're trying to win an election. Great track record. Stayed away from Scott Brown so he could win; campaigned for that stooge in New York last year who lost. Also, that 2008 thing. Mmm hmm. Dispatch her immediately.
Rand is also pro-life. This seems like a plus in Kentucky. He's so pro-life, in fact, that he even opposes abortion in cases of rape and incest. This is ideologically pure. After all, if life begins at conception, abortion is murder no matter how the conception came about. But try selling that opinion on a large scale. Not a lot of buyers.
It's not all bad, though. Rand, like his famouser dad, is smartly in favor of legalizing marijuana. That ought to shore up Kentucky's substantial evangelical vote just fine. You tell 'em, Rand!
12 Snarkeys / 5-23-10
Got to see this movie again. Once is not nearly enough.
Snarkey 1: Not that the Democratic leadership is smart enough to do this, but imagine a very simple TV ad this fall, one that shows this graph: The stock market tanking in a red downward arrow in the fall of 2008, followed by a switch to blue at Obama's inauguration and a set of pleasant "ping" sound effects as the Dow steadily crosses 7,000, then 8,000, then 9,000, then 10,000, then 11,000 and maybe even past it again... that would be an effective ad. "Let's not go back there again. Keep Democrats in office this fall" is all the text you'd need, in a reassuring tone.
Like I said: Not that the leadership will ever do anything of the sort. No, they'll get "clever" and "subtle" and "high-minded" and forget to ram home the very basic fact that most people's retirement funds were painful to look at 18 months ago, and now they aren't.
My party's incompetence already hurts, in advance.
Snarkey 2: This morning, Google News shows 2,219 stories related to Linsday Lohan's most recent dustup with the law; the number of stories covering how U.S. scientists made a living cell from scratch tops out at 1,438.
Yes, more coverage for a has-been movie star's semi-illegal trip to Cannes than for the fact that we created a piece of life animated by synthetic DNA. Draw your own conclusions.
Snarkey 3: Hey looky here, that guy in the Oval Office got to nominate another Supreme Court justice. Another reason to be thankful for the absence of a Republican chief exec. Imagine if Souter and Stevens had been replaced by a President McCain. Or, hell forbid, a President P... P-p-p-pa-pal... prlni#$llllllllllna^%... Pliplapnaananalin... *brain seizure
Snarkey 4: I'm back. And so is the Big Cat. Tiger Woods returned to golf last month after a 374-year hiatus and finished fourth at the Masters. Longtime commentator Jim Nantz was impressed with Woods' final round, a gutsy up-and-down sort of day sprinkled with bogeys and birdies, three under par through 18 holes. Nantz' compliment: Tiger "somehow managed a 69 out of all of this." Giggle giggle giggle snort giggle. A 69? Impressive indeed. Yes, I am immature. There is no known cure.
Snarkey 5: We passed health care reform. Deal with it already.
Snarkey 6: A multi-state poll conducted by a UW prof shows negative views of African Americans are more commonplace among Tea Party supporters. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed politics for the past year.
(Disclaimer: the extreme right does not have anywhere near a monopoly on racism. We lefties are completely capable of prejudice, thank you very much. That is not the thrust of this particular snark. The real point is in the next sentence.)
Here's what I don't get: Really, who answers "I agree" to the following question: "If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as Whites"? 68 percent of TP sympathizers agreed. 33 of TP disapprovers answered in the same way. My mind is re-blown. (Just as much by the 33 percent as by the 68, but like I already predisclaimed, not the point.)
I mean, I understand that some folks hold racist attitudes, and that's something a society of humans will deal with until the end of time. Wait, let me amend that: after the computerized overlords eradicate the planet of the virus we like to call "humanity," the surviving Apples will probably enslave the few PC's left, renewing a grand cycle all over again. But back to reality: For one political group to admit to racism, openly, two-thirds of the time, in a survey or a poll, how does that happen? It doesn't compute.
I mean, yes, the question is poorly worded. But 68 percent? I mean, what the hell?
(I'm done meaning things.)
Snarkey 7: Mariners this season. 16-27 overall. Endured a 20-inning scoring drought in April, scored 3.3 runs per game for the first quarter of the season. Exploded for 17 runs across five innings Thursday and Friday night. Practically lead the league in ERA. Bunch of guys hitting below their career average. Can't win the close ones. So I really can't figure this team out. The M's are headed for a depressing 64-98 season, a so-so 80-82 year of transition, or a 91-71 record capped by a division title. Nothing in between.
Snarkey 8: More Obamaterial, connected to baseball, because I like to pretend I can transition seamlessly when I want to. Heard his Opening Day ceremonial first pitch described as "effeminate." Got me thinking. "Effeminate." It takes me back to the glory days of the 2008 campaign, when the Scary Black Man Who Dared to Run for President got called all kinds of things, like a secret gay Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists. Good times, those were.
So what if Obama WERE gay? He's not. (That one time he and I made out, it was just to give him reassurance, in the wake of Massachusetts voting in a Republican to replace Teddy. And Barack was fine a few days later. Sooo fine. You're welcome, by the way.) But if he were, you know, into men besides just me, and Michelle came foward and admitted their marriage was one of convenience, how would reasonable people react? I don't have a good answer to that one. And I'm not asking what the crazies on either side would say. They'd have a field day, no, year, no, decade with it. I just wonder how people with functional brains would approach that hypo-hyper-hypo-thetical event.
It would be scandalous, I suppose. But I can't figure out why exactly. We'll probably vote in an atheist President before a gay one. Although we might just never elect either.
Snarkey 9: The Republicans will probably retake the House (not the Senate) this fall. Enthusiasm is on their side. I remember how stoked I was to vote against Bush in 2006 and in 2008... even without that farcically underwhelming President on the ballot. Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, only with a ferocity they had usually reserved for persons named Clinton. The real action will be in 2012, when the R's put up some sacrificial lamb and hope turnout doesn't swing back the other way... which it will...
Snarkey 10: Some time back (old news, but I can't let it go) a facebook group formed with the purpose of praying for Obama's death. Oh, Christians, your love never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, what to do here? Well, the one thing I never considered was that facebook should just shut the group down. It's in poor taste, it's hateful, it's in unambiguously direct opposition to Christ's teachings, it could encourage some crazy person to actually try and assassinate the president, and yet I think it ought to exist.
Free speech is a constitutional guarantee, and I want to keep it that way. Purely out of selfish motives. I'd like to advocate for the impeachment of a President in the distant future, some chief exec who does things like start wars without justification, politicizes the Justice Department, tries to dismantle Social Security, stands by while a hurricane levels a major American city, lets the deficit balloon even past his term's end, assaults the environment, lets his subordinates fire people for being gay, lets his subordinates out spies, and is clueless on how to respond when a terrorist attack kills 3,000 citizens.
I want to conserve freedom of dissent, and for that reason, you so-called Christians can gather and thank God for the sunny weather in the same breath you call for another Christian to rendezvous with death. (Although "rendezvous" is a French word, so that's probably out of bounds.)
Snarkey 11: Scott Brown, the Republican who replaced Teddy Kennedy, is an interesting fellow. Representing Massachusetts, he might be the only dude in Congress who has to be as far to the right as he can while being as far to the left as he can. He joined the D's recently in supporting a financial regulation bill, out of pure self-preservation; the road to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination runs through him and others. I just want to know if he'll survive 2012, when a competent Democrat will challenge him. (I reserve the right to rule again on the matter of said Democrat's competence in 30 months.) So yeah, he's interesting. Like liver and onions interesting.
Snarkey 12: With archconservative and even libertarian candidates on key Senate ballots for the R's this fall (I'm thinking specifically of Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah), November may well decide the fate of the Tea Party. The R's hold three of those four seats right now, and as recently as last year, had their hands on all four. If they come away with only two wins in a climate favorable to them, they will have pissed away a good chunk of power.
With proper management, the right-wingers ought to be able to win all four. Three victories, that they can probably live with. Two is bad. One (it's possible, I'll explain) is very very bad. Zero? Catastrophe. (From one perspective.)
But John, you'll say, that's two deep-red states (KY and UT), one swing state (FL) and another one usually decorated with a pretty shade of sky blue (PA) but with a history of electing Republican senators. They're going to go mostly, if not all, blood-red. In a midterm election, no less.
Not so fast. In KY, an actual libertarian is on the ballot. When was the last time one of those won a statewide race, uh, anywhere? In UT, the sitting senator was deemed not conservative enough and got himself primaried right out of it. In FL, it's a three-way race with two guys from the right and one from the left. In PA, the conservative candidate is facing an uphill battle to begin with, and it turns out he's from the very far-right Club For Growth. (Not going to provide a link to their site. Don't feel like it.)
Gut feeling: Utah stays R, Crist wins in FL, and the D's take KY and PA. Net gain for the left, even if Crist caucuses with the conservatives. Socialism wins again!
Snarkey 13: It's not been a good year for doomsayers. The market is up, recent lull notwithstanding, unemployment has flattened while hiring picks up steam, the Large Hadron Collider failed to spawn a black hole and devour the earth, health care reform passed, inflation hasn't skyrocketed, an amateur terrorist attack was thwarted, and even the Chile gigaquake misfired on its potential Hawai'i-engulfing tsunami. And when the BP oil spill dragged on for a month, the environmental disaster became "just" that: another disaster, albeit a serious one... but as unflippantly as possible, it was just one of those things that happens, not part of a trend of some sort.
So don't repent. The end is not near.
[EDIT: This post accidentally ballooned out of control, to a whopping 13 Snarkeys. The extra content is provided free, courtesy of our generous sponsors. Don't say I never did anything for you, my loyal customer.]
Snarkey 1: Not that the Democratic leadership is smart enough to do this, but imagine a very simple TV ad this fall, one that shows this graph: The stock market tanking in a red downward arrow in the fall of 2008, followed by a switch to blue at Obama's inauguration and a set of pleasant "ping" sound effects as the Dow steadily crosses 7,000, then 8,000, then 9,000, then 10,000, then 11,000 and maybe even past it again... that would be an effective ad. "Let's not go back there again. Keep Democrats in office this fall" is all the text you'd need, in a reassuring tone.
Like I said: Not that the leadership will ever do anything of the sort. No, they'll get "clever" and "subtle" and "high-minded" and forget to ram home the very basic fact that most people's retirement funds were painful to look at 18 months ago, and now they aren't.
My party's incompetence already hurts, in advance.
Snarkey 2: This morning, Google News shows 2,219 stories related to Linsday Lohan's most recent dustup with the law; the number of stories covering how U.S. scientists made a living cell from scratch tops out at 1,438.
Yes, more coverage for a has-been movie star's semi-illegal trip to Cannes than for the fact that we created a piece of life animated by synthetic DNA. Draw your own conclusions.
Snarkey 3: Hey looky here, that guy in the Oval Office got to nominate another Supreme Court justice. Another reason to be thankful for the absence of a Republican chief exec. Imagine if Souter and Stevens had been replaced by a President McCain. Or, hell forbid, a President P... P-p-p-pa-pal... prlni#$llllllllllna^%... Pliplapnaananalin... *brain seizure
Snarkey 4: I'm back. And so is the Big Cat. Tiger Woods returned to golf last month after a 374-year hiatus and finished fourth at the Masters. Longtime commentator Jim Nantz was impressed with Woods' final round, a gutsy up-and-down sort of day sprinkled with bogeys and birdies, three under par through 18 holes. Nantz' compliment: Tiger "somehow managed a 69 out of all of this." Giggle giggle giggle snort giggle. A 69? Impressive indeed. Yes, I am immature. There is no known cure.
Snarkey 5: We passed health care reform. Deal with it already.
Snarkey 6: A multi-state poll conducted by a UW prof shows negative views of African Americans are more commonplace among Tea Party supporters. This should not come as a surprise to anyone who's followed politics for the past year.
(Disclaimer: the extreme right does not have anywhere near a monopoly on racism. We lefties are completely capable of prejudice, thank you very much. That is not the thrust of this particular snark. The real point is in the next sentence.)
Here's what I don't get: Really, who answers "I agree" to the following question: "If Blacks would just try harder they would be as well off as Whites"? 68 percent of TP sympathizers agreed. 33 of TP disapprovers answered in the same way. My mind is re-blown. (Just as much by the 33 percent as by the 68, but like I already predisclaimed, not the point.)
I mean, I understand that some folks hold racist attitudes, and that's something a society of humans will deal with until the end of time. Wait, let me amend that: after the computerized overlords eradicate the planet of the virus we like to call "humanity," the surviving Apples will probably enslave the few PC's left, renewing a grand cycle all over again. But back to reality: For one political group to admit to racism, openly, two-thirds of the time, in a survey or a poll, how does that happen? It doesn't compute.
I mean, yes, the question is poorly worded. But 68 percent? I mean, what the hell?
(I'm done meaning things.)
Snarkey 7: Mariners this season. 16-27 overall. Endured a 20-inning scoring drought in April, scored 3.3 runs per game for the first quarter of the season. Exploded for 17 runs across five innings Thursday and Friday night. Practically lead the league in ERA. Bunch of guys hitting below their career average. Can't win the close ones. So I really can't figure this team out. The M's are headed for a depressing 64-98 season, a so-so 80-82 year of transition, or a 91-71 record capped by a division title. Nothing in between.
Snarkey 8: More Obamaterial, connected to baseball, because I like to pretend I can transition seamlessly when I want to. Heard his Opening Day ceremonial first pitch described as "effeminate." Got me thinking. "Effeminate." It takes me back to the glory days of the 2008 campaign, when the Scary Black Man Who Dared to Run for President got called all kinds of things, like a secret gay Muslim socialist who pals around with terrorists. Good times, those were.
So what if Obama WERE gay? He's not. (That one time he and I made out, it was just to give him reassurance, in the wake of Massachusetts voting in a Republican to replace Teddy. And Barack was fine a few days later. Sooo fine. You're welcome, by the way.) But if he were, you know, into men besides just me, and Michelle came foward and admitted their marriage was one of convenience, how would reasonable people react? I don't have a good answer to that one. And I'm not asking what the crazies on either side would say. They'd have a field day, no, year, no, decade with it. I just wonder how people with functional brains would approach that hypo-hyper-hypo-thetical event.
It would be scandalous, I suppose. But I can't figure out why exactly. We'll probably vote in an atheist President before a gay one. Although we might just never elect either.
Snarkey 9: The Republicans will probably retake the House (not the Senate) this fall. Enthusiasm is on their side. I remember how stoked I was to vote against Bush in 2006 and in 2008... even without that farcically underwhelming President on the ballot. Conservatives feel the same way about Obama, only with a ferocity they had usually reserved for persons named Clinton. The real action will be in 2012, when the R's put up some sacrificial lamb and hope turnout doesn't swing back the other way... which it will...
Snarkey 10: Some time back (old news, but I can't let it go) a facebook group formed with the purpose of praying for Obama's death. Oh, Christians, your love never ceases to amaze me. Anyway, what to do here? Well, the one thing I never considered was that facebook should just shut the group down. It's in poor taste, it's hateful, it's in unambiguously direct opposition to Christ's teachings, it could encourage some crazy person to actually try and assassinate the president, and yet I think it ought to exist.
Free speech is a constitutional guarantee, and I want to keep it that way. Purely out of selfish motives. I'd like to advocate for the impeachment of a President in the distant future, some chief exec who does things like start wars without justification, politicizes the Justice Department, tries to dismantle Social Security, stands by while a hurricane levels a major American city, lets the deficit balloon even past his term's end, assaults the environment, lets his subordinates fire people for being gay, lets his subordinates out spies, and is clueless on how to respond when a terrorist attack kills 3,000 citizens.
I want to conserve freedom of dissent, and for that reason, you so-called Christians can gather and thank God for the sunny weather in the same breath you call for another Christian to rendezvous with death. (Although "rendezvous" is a French word, so that's probably out of bounds.)
Snarkey 11: Scott Brown, the Republican who replaced Teddy Kennedy, is an interesting fellow. Representing Massachusetts, he might be the only dude in Congress who has to be as far to the right as he can while being as far to the left as he can. He joined the D's recently in supporting a financial regulation bill, out of pure self-preservation; the road to Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination runs through him and others. I just want to know if he'll survive 2012, when a competent Democrat will challenge him. (I reserve the right to rule again on the matter of said Democrat's competence in 30 months.) So yeah, he's interesting. Like liver and onions interesting.
Snarkey 12: With archconservative and even libertarian candidates on key Senate ballots for the R's this fall (I'm thinking specifically of Florida, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Utah), November may well decide the fate of the Tea Party. The R's hold three of those four seats right now, and as recently as last year, had their hands on all four. If they come away with only two wins in a climate favorable to them, they will have pissed away a good chunk of power.
With proper management, the right-wingers ought to be able to win all four. Three victories, that they can probably live with. Two is bad. One (it's possible, I'll explain) is very very bad. Zero? Catastrophe. (From one perspective.)
But John, you'll say, that's two deep-red states (KY and UT), one swing state (FL) and another one usually decorated with a pretty shade of sky blue (PA) but with a history of electing Republican senators. They're going to go mostly, if not all, blood-red. In a midterm election, no less.
Not so fast. In KY, an actual libertarian is on the ballot. When was the last time one of those won a statewide race, uh, anywhere? In UT, the sitting senator was deemed not conservative enough and got himself primaried right out of it. In FL, it's a three-way race with two guys from the right and one from the left. In PA, the conservative candidate is facing an uphill battle to begin with, and it turns out he's from the very far-right Club For Growth. (Not going to provide a link to their site. Don't feel like it.)
Gut feeling: Utah stays R, Crist wins in FL, and the D's take KY and PA. Net gain for the left, even if Crist caucuses with the conservatives. Socialism wins again!
Snarkey 13: It's not been a good year for doomsayers. The market is up, recent lull notwithstanding, unemployment has flattened while hiring picks up steam, the Large Hadron Collider failed to spawn a black hole and devour the earth, health care reform passed, inflation hasn't skyrocketed, an amateur terrorist attack was thwarted, and even the Chile gigaquake misfired on its potential Hawai'i-engulfing tsunami. And when the BP oil spill dragged on for a month, the environmental disaster became "just" that: another disaster, albeit a serious one... but as unflippantly as possible, it was just one of those things that happens, not part of a trend of some sort.
So don't repent. The end is not near.
[EDIT: This post accidentally ballooned out of control, to a whopping 13 Snarkeys. The extra content is provided free, courtesy of our generous sponsors. Don't say I never did anything for you, my loyal customer.]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)