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.]
Monday, March 22, 2010
Linkage / 3-22-10
All you get here are links. Some of my favorites from the HCR debate, in random order. Click on some. They generally are related to the title of their link. So trust me: you won't be redirected to any porn sites, offshore casinos, or mature swingin' adult dating services. (All together now: "Not That There's Anything Wrong With That.")
You might land in a place that makes you better informed, or just makes you cringe.
Table of Contents
There Will Be Blood
State is broke; so's the system
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Ick
Play-by-Play, Sunday night
Kids don't need insurance! They have Medicaid!
Who you callin' unconstitutitutitutional?
Polling Place
Man Date
Recap
You might land in a place that makes you better informed, or just makes you cringe.
Table of Contents
There Will Be Blood
State is broke; so's the system
Shout! Shout! Let it all out!
Attention: Deficit Disorder
Ick
Play-by-Play, Sunday night
Kids don't need insurance! They have Medicaid!
Who you callin' unconstitutitutitutional?
Polling Place
Man Date
Recap
Feeeelings / 3-22-10
No facts here. Go to the other post for actual content. This is just a list of emotions I've gone through in the past 36 hours.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
Relief: Upon figuring out Sunday afternoon that Pelosi had the votes to pass the bill, I let out a deep sigh and waited for the moment.
Excitement: Knowing that history was in the making, I got a little tingly following the news, checking my phone every 15 minutes to see if the vote had been tallied yet.
Energy: As befits the moment after a political victory. Hasn't been a stellar winter for my side of the aisle.
Dread: What if the bill has some really really sucky yucky stuff inside of it? What if this great legislative victory is bad for the country? Bad for me? Bad for my kids?
Impatience: With those who interjected abortion into the debate. (Newsflash: Ending a pregnancy is a medical procedure. A legal one. Its elective nature may vary. It may be highly objectionable in certain cases. Call it what you want, it still falls under the umbrella of health care.)
Shame: For letting myself be duped into believing the bill was virulently anti-business. It's not. Go to the other post for details. For letting myself believe the individual mandate would be an unfair hardship. It's not set up that way. For listening to people tell me this bill wasn't liberal enough. Hey. The perfect is the enemy of the good. Somebody said that once.
Impatience Renewed: With how easily people accept the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine. At least when we Dems are lied to by our politicians, we know it and roll with it, or we rebel and turn on them mercilessly.
Shame, Part Deux: For not having blogged in two months. (There are extenuating circumstances, but to all my countless fans - 11 - all over the world, I'm truly sorry. And not Tiger Woods sorry. Sorry sorry.)
Relief, Part Deux: That my kids, both of whom have a better than even chance of inheriting my very serious heart condition, will be able to obtain coverage if they need it, and can stay on the family plan until age 26.
Relief, Part C: That should my wife, for some glopfaloobaloogurglespurk reason, lose her job or her coverage, then my family will still be able to get us some 'surance.
Pride: In my country, which could now start to pull itself, one piece of legislation at a time, from the clutches of crippling health care costs. Much work remains to be done, but the end result, whatever it is, would have been impossible without this step.
Thankfulness: Without a D President and a D Congress, this doesn't happen. Thanks voters.
Sheepishness: That I don't know everything that's in the bill, that I can only recite about half of it off the top of my head, and that I'm pretending to be some sort of expert on it.
Hope: Self-explanatory.
To Our Health / 3-22-10
We have a health care reform bill. After 14 months of partisan yelling, obfuscation, delay, dishonesty, and malodorous behavior all around.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
And that was just from the "journalists."
Seriously, has there ever been a topic as misreported as this one? Willfully or not, the debate raging since Obama's inauguration has seemingly consisted of "I don't want no Urpeein' socialized med'cine, you stupid America-hating Marxist idjits!" vs. "Why do you ignorant loud-mouthed racists despise our children?"
I may not be as old as the Republic, or even as the Watergate scandal, but I know a piss-poor job of collective journalism when I see one.
If I want panicked shrieking about how a mandate to buy insurance will void the Constitution and bankrupt our children, I can get that at any number of panicked shrieking-filled websites. or "news" programs. (Shrieking at phood4thot is subject to federal guidelines of no more than 10 percent panic, 80 percent outrage and 10 percent just-for-the-hell-of-it.)
If I want to hear two spinmeisters distort the intent and wording of a bill, as if it didn't really matter who was right, there are innumerable forums for that. If I want to read a poll about how Americans feel about an issue, pollster.com, gallup.com and fivethirtyeight.com are great destinations.
But now, as I said, we have an actual bill. And there are provisions inside of it. Where has that been, and maybe can we talk about that, no?
(Spoiler alert: the HCR bill contains no death panels, forced assisted-suicide, mandatory abortions, expansion of medical marijuana limits, or random mass sterilizations. As of yet.)
Snarky section complete. Informative section begins. The stuff that sits below, I compiled it from a few sources across the web, from newspapers scattered across the country, from editors who bothered to print a synopsis of the actual contents of the actual bill. There is no commentary attached for the following 13 paragraphs. (Pontification and soapboxery ensue shortly thereafter.)
The Mandate: Kicks in in 2014, when all citizens will be required to have health insurance, or pay additional tax of $95 at first, rising to $695 or 2.5 percent of income, by 2016. Some poor persons exempt.
The Subsidies: Starting in 2014 as well, for individual buyers. Households earning up to $88,200 for a family of four can qualify; the lower the income, the higher the subsidy.
The Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurers are immediately barred from declining coverage to minors based on pre-existing illnesses. The same provision applies to adults beginning in 2014.
The Taxes: Beginning in 2012, households earning more than $250,000 a year (the cutoff is $200,000 for single taxpayers) will pay 0.9 percent higher Medicare payroll tax and a 3.8 percent tax on investment income (dividends plus interest). Then in 2018, the fanciest insurance policies get hit with a 40 percent tax. Indoor tanning salons face a 10 percent tax. The insurance companies pay a joint $8 billion annual fee, starting in 2014.
The Small Business Owner: Receives tax breaks starting this year for offering health insurance. Again in 2014, employers with more than 50 workers may be, in certain cirumstances, penalized up to $2,000 per full-time worker if they fail to offer affordable health insurance and the worker receives government subsidies. No employer mandate. There are more details here, but very small businesses will not be penalized in any way, they only gain incentives and subsisdies should they choose to offer health insurance.
Medicare cuts: Some providers' payments will be cut; Medicare Advantage will receive less funding. (Obama is not fond of that Bush-era program, which he says is too advantageous to the pharmaceutical corporations.) On the other hand, prescription drug coverage will be expanded by closing the "doughnut hole," a gap in benefits that prevents discounts on certain drugs.
More Medicaid: As of 2014, Medicaid will be open to everyone earning up to 133 percent of the federal poverty level, or $29,300 for a family of four. Primary-care physicians treating Medicaid patients will see higher reimbursement rates, starting in 2013.
The exchange: People without employer coverage will be allowed to shop for insurance from a wider selection. Begins in 2014.
High-risk pool: Gets going in 2010. The government will set up a high-risk insurance pool for those who have a pre-existing health condition and have been uninsured for at least six months. The buy-in cost would be limited to $5,950 per individual.
Older kids: As soon as this year, but possibly next, dependent children up to age 26 must be allowed to continue coverage on Mom and/or Dad's policy.
Lifetime limits: Kicks off later this year. Insurers will no longer be permitted to limit the amount of coverage granted you in your lifetime.
Revenue: Also this year, insurance plans must pay at least 80 percent of their revenue in benefits or choose to give rebates to customers starting next year.
Other: Boosts experimental medical programs, require standardization of insurance forms, calls for higher payments for preventive care. A brand-new commission is created to review the administration of Medicare. Long-term care savings program is established. Some medical devices begin to be taxed in 2013.
(Soapbox in 3, 2, 1...)
I did not remove any significant items from that list. I didn't add anything. What you see is what you get.
No wonder the opposition won the messaging battle on this one. "No Gov't Takeover!" or "NObamacare" is catchy and easily reported, espeically when contrasted with "2.5 of taxable income, but technically, not until 2016" or "Only a $695 fine!" or even "Medicaid to 133 percent of poverty level just in four years!"There's work involved in understanding this bill. Nancy Pelosi got herself into some hot water earlier this month when she was quoted as saying "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." No, she really said that. But how about some context. Here is what she had just finished stating:
"You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
How dare she! To imply that opponents have drowned the issue in half-truths! To imply it's hard to get people to understand the bill because the coverage of it has been, to quote myself, piss-poor... the gall, I mean THE GALL of that uppity broad! (Yes, yes, the sarcasm's out of control again, I don't apologize.)
To sharpen my point: Of course people are opposed in principle to more government messing with their health care. We're Americans, after all. Of course the mandate is controversial. Nobody likes being forced to buy something. Of course the taxes will infuriate some rich people with connections and megaphones. We don't deal well with the idea of more taxes and more bureaucracy. Of course there's a risk of running up the deficit, despite the CBO's claims that the legislation is deficit neutral.
But ALL that good stuff in the bill. The subsidies for desperate families. The deliverance from insurance companies' repeated denials of coverage. The protections for kids and mom-and-pop businesses. Once all that info gets out there, conservatives had better hope independents forget how vehemently the right wing fought this incremental victory for common sense.
Saturday, January 23, 2010
Massacrechusetts / 1-23-10
No, I didn't work for Martha Coakley's campaign - I KNOW how to spell the state I live in, and even a few of the other ones. (What's that now you say about Tennesee?)
After Massachusetts voters replaced Teddy Kennedy this week with some dude who vowed to help tear down what Kennedy spent a lifetime trying to achieve, some despondency may be allowed among Democrats, or people who could use health care but can't get it, or people with kids, or people with compassion, or people who think the Republicans deserve more than one year in the wilderness for trying to bankrupt the country, or people with souls.
Well, I'd like to offer the mature response to losing that race. Right after I offer the juvenile one. (Notice I've already started with the juvenile name-calling portion. But on with it.)
I hate you Scott Brown! I hate you Massachusetteritianites! I hate you Martha Coakley! I hate you MA legislature for messing with the process! I hate you George W. Bush! (Just for old times' sake.)
Rage levels back to normal. Mature response in 3, 2, 1...
I. Brown will not last as a MA Senator with a hard-right agenda. He'll get booted. Ben Nelson survives in Nebraska only because he's a very, very, very centrist Democrat. Bluer-than-the-sky Rhode Island kept Republican Lincoln Chafee around for a long time because he liked to split the difference between the parties, and voters will respect that. Heck, Maine has two GOP Senators, somewow. (That last word was supposed to be "somehow," but I like the typo better.) So if Brown lasts for two-plus years - his term ends in 2012 - then it's not precisely the end of the entire whole wide wide world. He can't be a filibuster machine and keep his seat.
II. Democrats had better start fielding some decent candidates. Coakley failed to campaign after winning the primary, failed to connect with voters, took them for granted, and screwed up important stuff like Red Sox history. I'm completely serious, that's not OK in New England. Despite the fact she got herself elected AG not too long ago, she self-destructed, managing to lose a state Obama won 62-36 and where he still enjoyed a 15-point positive approval rating AMONG VOTERS WHO CAST BALLOTS ON TUESDAY.
III. This comes on the heels of Democrats losing two governor's races in November; one of those they had no business winning, that being Virginia, and the other one they had no business losing, that being New Jersey. But both times, the candidates were deeply flawed. In NJ, Jon Corzine's entire campaign seemed to be "My Opponent Is A Fat Slob," which might have been factually accurate, but was only serving the purpose of concealing Corzine's own past as CEO of Goldman Sachs... and in the throes of the financial meltdown and its aftershocks, he might as well have worn swastikas while happily sodomizing a statue of Lenin.
Over in Virginia, Craigh Deeds sucked. I don't want to elaborate. Seething might resume.
The last three Democrats to seek high-profile elected office have been complete stooges. It's really, really, really past time for that crap to come to an end. Really, Democrats? Really? Really??
IV. Some have called Brown's victory a referendum on health care. Balderdash. For one, Massachutypes already have universal health care, as set up by their Republican governor, once upon a time. Furthermore, if the President is viewed favorably by a strong majority of voters there, choosing a guy who'd clearly pledged to poke his finger in Obama's eye, that choice can't be about health care as much as everyone says. No, this was about the two candidates in the race, in large part. Of course, that's easy to say for the anti-Brown crowd.
V. Special elections are weird. Sh!t happens. The Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat in a congressional race in upstate NY last year. If one thinks one knows what's going to happen in one of these hastily arranged shindigs, one should rethink one's presuppositions. Just saying.
VI. It's not a good time to be an incumbent. Coakley was viewed, fairly or not, as the incumbent, due to party affiliation. Timing sucks sometime. She might have managed to eke out a win, warts and idiocy and all, this coming November. Or the previous one. Hard to say.
VII. The health-care bill was nothing special, from a traditionally liberal viewpoint. No public option, not even a public option with an opt-out or opt-in mechanism for states. No employer mandate. Lots of help for the poor and uninsured, but kind of a bummer for folks who don't want coverage. Granted, forcing insurers to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, that would have been a step in the right direction, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with blah blah blah cliche blah blah blah (I'm such a piss-poor bad Taoist right now), but the bill was extremely incremental. To lose it sucks, but we're not dismantling Medicaid or anything drastic along those lines.
Wish I could say I felt better. At least I feel more grown up.
(I apologize profusely for the total lack of links in this post. I'm trusty. You can believe me when I say there are no glaring factual errors here; I saved them all for my other posts.)
After Massachusetts voters replaced Teddy Kennedy this week with some dude who vowed to help tear down what Kennedy spent a lifetime trying to achieve, some despondency may be allowed among Democrats, or people who could use health care but can't get it, or people with kids, or people with compassion, or people who think the Republicans deserve more than one year in the wilderness for trying to bankrupt the country, or people with souls.
Well, I'd like to offer the mature response to losing that race. Right after I offer the juvenile one. (Notice I've already started with the juvenile name-calling portion. But on with it.)
I hate you Scott Brown! I hate you Massachusetteritianites! I hate you Martha Coakley! I hate you MA legislature for messing with the process! I hate you George W. Bush! (Just for old times' sake.)
Rage levels back to normal. Mature response in 3, 2, 1...
I. Brown will not last as a MA Senator with a hard-right agenda. He'll get booted. Ben Nelson survives in Nebraska only because he's a very, very, very centrist Democrat. Bluer-than-the-sky Rhode Island kept Republican Lincoln Chafee around for a long time because he liked to split the difference between the parties, and voters will respect that. Heck, Maine has two GOP Senators, somewow. (That last word was supposed to be "somehow," but I like the typo better.) So if Brown lasts for two-plus years - his term ends in 2012 - then it's not precisely the end of the entire whole wide wide world. He can't be a filibuster machine and keep his seat.
II. Democrats had better start fielding some decent candidates. Coakley failed to campaign after winning the primary, failed to connect with voters, took them for granted, and screwed up important stuff like Red Sox history. I'm completely serious, that's not OK in New England. Despite the fact she got herself elected AG not too long ago, she self-destructed, managing to lose a state Obama won 62-36 and where he still enjoyed a 15-point positive approval rating AMONG VOTERS WHO CAST BALLOTS ON TUESDAY.
III. This comes on the heels of Democrats losing two governor's races in November; one of those they had no business winning, that being Virginia, and the other one they had no business losing, that being New Jersey. But both times, the candidates were deeply flawed. In NJ, Jon Corzine's entire campaign seemed to be "My Opponent Is A Fat Slob," which might have been factually accurate, but was only serving the purpose of concealing Corzine's own past as CEO of Goldman Sachs... and in the throes of the financial meltdown and its aftershocks, he might as well have worn swastikas while happily sodomizing a statue of Lenin.
Over in Virginia, Craigh Deeds sucked. I don't want to elaborate. Seething might resume.
The last three Democrats to seek high-profile elected office have been complete stooges. It's really, really, really past time for that crap to come to an end. Really, Democrats? Really? Really??
IV. Some have called Brown's victory a referendum on health care. Balderdash. For one, Massachutypes already have universal health care, as set up by their Republican governor, once upon a time. Furthermore, if the President is viewed favorably by a strong majority of voters there, choosing a guy who'd clearly pledged to poke his finger in Obama's eye, that choice can't be about health care as much as everyone says. No, this was about the two candidates in the race, in large part. Of course, that's easy to say for the anti-Brown crowd.
V. Special elections are weird. Sh!t happens. The Republican dropped out and endorsed the Democrat in a congressional race in upstate NY last year. If one thinks one knows what's going to happen in one of these hastily arranged shindigs, one should rethink one's presuppositions. Just saying.
VI. It's not a good time to be an incumbent. Coakley was viewed, fairly or not, as the incumbent, due to party affiliation. Timing sucks sometime. She might have managed to eke out a win, warts and idiocy and all, this coming November. Or the previous one. Hard to say.
VII. The health-care bill was nothing special, from a traditionally liberal viewpoint. No public option, not even a public option with an opt-out or opt-in mechanism for states. No employer mandate. Lots of help for the poor and uninsured, but kind of a bummer for folks who don't want coverage. Granted, forcing insurers to insure everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions, that would have been a step in the right direction, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with blah blah blah cliche blah blah blah (I'm such a piss-poor bad Taoist right now), but the bill was extremely incremental. To lose it sucks, but we're not dismantling Medicaid or anything drastic along those lines.
Wish I could say I felt better. At least I feel more grown up.
(I apologize profusely for the total lack of links in this post. I'm trusty. You can believe me when I say there are no glaring factual errors here; I saved them all for my other posts.)
Friday, January 22, 2010
Spring Bowl / 1-22-10
Remember the NFL's Pro Bowl?
Nah, me neither. I almost never watch it. For many years, it was held, rumor has it, on the week following the Big Game, in Hawai'i. Great way to end the season. Except everyone everywhere was all footballed out by then, including the Pro Bowlers themselves, so players skipped it, a bunch of injured superstar players skipped it out of necessity, and it's a freakin' exhibition. So lots of folks copied my original idea and failed to tune in to the game. In response to that well-deserved apathy, this year the league placed the Pro Bowl a week BEFORE the title game, in an effort to draw more attention and coverage.
Only now, a similar set of problems remains. It's still an exhibition. Injured players are still out. And players involved in the championship game get a pass... which could mean 15 players, or 20 percent of the entire roster, could opt out if Indianapolis and Minnesota win on Sunday. That's a joke.
Well, I have a drastic solution, which may not help one iota, but if the patient is terminal, it's not as if a few sessions of experimental treatment are going to harm the prognosis. It's been said before: Let's try that crazy thing. It'll either kill him or he'll get better. (Why yes, I have watched four seasons of "House." Why do you ask?)
Play the game in the spring. In mid-April. Yes, two-plus months AFTER the Big Game. (I can't even type the words "Super Bowl" without express written consent of the NFL, or my pants will be sued right off of me, which wouldn't be that terrible anyway since the webcam is broken. But anyway, enough Super Bowl chat.) Mid-April also happens to be four months before the preseason. It's right in the middle of nothing, sort of, for the players at least.
Because granted, this little thing called "the draft" is in late April, so some front offices like to use April to, you know, prepare 23 hours a day to select the wrong guy. That being said, several teams, including the suddenly inept Seahawks, hold April mini-camps, so many players are accustomed to some action that month. And scheduling the game before the draft allows for panicky teams to react a freak injury to their star left tackle, an event which, I'm told, can happen during actual football plays.
And now we're getting to the real problem with the Pro Bowl. Football players get hurt. The game is violent and demanding, even at the 50 percent speed utilized by Pro Bowl participants. If you're going to hold an exhibition, it needs to be as far removed from the season as possible, both to maximize participation and maximize potential recovery time.
And our collective national football hangover is usually done by April. Players have enjoyed multiple months off, and only a small amount of them have been arrested for shooting people. Baseball's opening days are through, the NBA and NHL have just embarked on their endless playoffs. The weather is even nice in places other than Hawai'i, Florida and California. You could have the game in almost any NFL stadium, even those places deemed "unfit" for the Big Game. (I'm not bitter or anything. Well, yes, I'm incensed.)
If you're going to play it at all, try it in April. Not that I'll watch anyway.
P.S. Super Bowl Super Bowl Super Bowl Super Bowl ... Bite me Goodell!
Nah, me neither. I almost never watch it. For many years, it was held, rumor has it, on the week following the Big Game, in Hawai'i. Great way to end the season. Except everyone everywhere was all footballed out by then, including the Pro Bowlers themselves, so players skipped it, a bunch of injured superstar players skipped it out of necessity, and it's a freakin' exhibition. So lots of folks copied my original idea and failed to tune in to the game. In response to that well-deserved apathy, this year the league placed the Pro Bowl a week BEFORE the title game, in an effort to draw more attention and coverage.
Only now, a similar set of problems remains. It's still an exhibition. Injured players are still out. And players involved in the championship game get a pass... which could mean 15 players, or 20 percent of the entire roster, could opt out if Indianapolis and Minnesota win on Sunday. That's a joke.
Well, I have a drastic solution, which may not help one iota, but if the patient is terminal, it's not as if a few sessions of experimental treatment are going to harm the prognosis. It's been said before: Let's try that crazy thing. It'll either kill him or he'll get better. (Why yes, I have watched four seasons of "House." Why do you ask?)
Play the game in the spring. In mid-April. Yes, two-plus months AFTER the Big Game. (I can't even type the words "Super Bowl" without express written consent of the NFL, or my pants will be sued right off of me, which wouldn't be that terrible anyway since the webcam is broken. But anyway, enough Super Bowl chat.) Mid-April also happens to be four months before the preseason. It's right in the middle of nothing, sort of, for the players at least.
Because granted, this little thing called "the draft" is in late April, so some front offices like to use April to, you know, prepare 23 hours a day to select the wrong guy. That being said, several teams, including the suddenly inept Seahawks, hold April mini-camps, so many players are accustomed to some action that month. And scheduling the game before the draft allows for panicky teams to react a freak injury to their star left tackle, an event which, I'm told, can happen during actual football plays.
And now we're getting to the real problem with the Pro Bowl. Football players get hurt. The game is violent and demanding, even at the 50 percent speed utilized by Pro Bowl participants. If you're going to hold an exhibition, it needs to be as far removed from the season as possible, both to maximize participation and maximize potential recovery time.
And our collective national football hangover is usually done by April. Players have enjoyed multiple months off, and only a small amount of them have been arrested for shooting people. Baseball's opening days are through, the NBA and NHL have just embarked on their endless playoffs. The weather is even nice in places other than Hawai'i, Florida and California. You could have the game in almost any NFL stadium, even those places deemed "unfit" for the Big Game. (I'm not bitter or anything. Well, yes, I'm incensed.)
If you're going to play it at all, try it in April. Not that I'll watch anyway.
P.S. Super Bowl Super Bowl Super Bowl Super Bowl ... Bite me Goodell!
Supreme Corp. / 1-22-10
On Friday, the "Supreme" Court of the United States of America took a bold step, removing limits on how much dough corporations can donate to candidates for federal office.
You read that right. And the Court needs to swiftly find a way to undo this gross miscarriage of justice. I would call it practically an abortion of justice, but that would be tacky, so I'll leave that unsightly, inappropriate simile to some other angry blogger somewhere.
But maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you even like the ruling. Which is fine, kind of.
Perhaps you believe strongly that campaigns should be privately financed, out of fiscal responsibility. That's totally cool. Not everyone thinks public financing cuts down on corruption or the appearance of corruption, which is, after all, pretty ugly as well. Intelligent people disagree on this issue.
But surely you don't think businesses are people? I mean, they are run by people and occasionally employ people (in decent economic times), but they're entities, organizations, not humans.
Oh, you think that too? I guess I'll have to concede that debate is possible here, especially after Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on Friday that corporations are entitled to the same definition of free speech as citizens are. His words: "By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests." Equating the "rights" of corporations to actual human citizens of the United States seems like a stretch, but Tony's not exactly a dimwit all of the time. You can take his side if it makes sense to you.
But surely you don't think certain elected officials should be bankrolled by one or two business? Surely you could envision a problem or two arising from that setup?
And surely you don't think Joe Shareholder should have to watch HIS company stuff the campaign coffers of some random candidate? Especially if he and his wife Jane S. are both virulently opposed to that candidate's agenda?
For that matter, surely you don't think taxpayer-owned GM ought to toss a $3 million check to some influential Democratic politician who can help shape policy in a way advantageous to the nationalized car company?
But surely you don't think individuals should be marginalized from the fund-raising process and made to feel powerless?
Oh. All of that is fine? OK.
But SURELY you can't be in favor of compromising national sovereignty?
Consider the Seattle Mariners. Yes, the baseball team. They're owned by Nintendo. Should the M's be allowed to pony up $2 million for a candidate who promises them a sweetheart deal of some sort? Should a bunch of Japanese businessmen, with whom I have no quarrel whatsoever, be able to practically own a lawmaker?
And that's a pretty tame example. So let's go a little farther. PDVSA is the Venezuelan oil company owned and operated by that country's government. Hugo Chavez, a name you might recognize, essentially runs that little business, which has some cash on hand from time to time... they do sell some oil here and there. How about they throw in a few million bones here or there to some guys and gals on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. How does that sound?
OK, now I'm fine with you defending the court's decision. Especially since I've established that you hate democracy, don't mind the appearance of corruption, are against the little guy while also not respecting shareholders, and to top it off, you oppose national security. In which case, I no longer can help you.
You read that right. And the Court needs to swiftly find a way to undo this gross miscarriage of justice. I would call it practically an abortion of justice, but that would be tacky, so I'll leave that unsightly, inappropriate simile to some other angry blogger somewhere.
But maybe you disagree with me. Maybe you even like the ruling. Which is fine, kind of.
Perhaps you believe strongly that campaigns should be privately financed, out of fiscal responsibility. That's totally cool. Not everyone thinks public financing cuts down on corruption or the appearance of corruption, which is, after all, pretty ugly as well. Intelligent people disagree on this issue.
But surely you don't think businesses are people? I mean, they are run by people and occasionally employ people (in decent economic times), but they're entities, organizations, not humans.
Oh, you think that too? I guess I'll have to concede that debate is possible here, especially after Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote on Friday that corporations are entitled to the same definition of free speech as citizens are. His words: "By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and non-profit, the government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests." Equating the "rights" of corporations to actual human citizens of the United States seems like a stretch, but Tony's not exactly a dimwit all of the time. You can take his side if it makes sense to you.
But surely you don't think certain elected officials should be bankrolled by one or two business? Surely you could envision a problem or two arising from that setup?
And surely you don't think Joe Shareholder should have to watch HIS company stuff the campaign coffers of some random candidate? Especially if he and his wife Jane S. are both virulently opposed to that candidate's agenda?
For that matter, surely you don't think taxpayer-owned GM ought to toss a $3 million check to some influential Democratic politician who can help shape policy in a way advantageous to the nationalized car company?
But surely you don't think individuals should be marginalized from the fund-raising process and made to feel powerless?
Oh. All of that is fine? OK.
But SURELY you can't be in favor of compromising national sovereignty?
Consider the Seattle Mariners. Yes, the baseball team. They're owned by Nintendo. Should the M's be allowed to pony up $2 million for a candidate who promises them a sweetheart deal of some sort? Should a bunch of Japanese businessmen, with whom I have no quarrel whatsoever, be able to practically own a lawmaker?
And that's a pretty tame example. So let's go a little farther. PDVSA is the Venezuelan oil company owned and operated by that country's government. Hugo Chavez, a name you might recognize, essentially runs that little business, which has some cash on hand from time to time... they do sell some oil here and there. How about they throw in a few million bones here or there to some guys and gals on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. How does that sound?
OK, now I'm fine with you defending the court's decision. Especially since I've established that you hate democracy, don't mind the appearance of corruption, are against the little guy while also not respecting shareholders, and to top it off, you oppose national security. In which case, I no longer can help you.
I feel like I should rest my case or something.
But here's one more post-scriptic comment, of high importance: the decision came down 5-4. For all the flak President Obama takes from the far left flank of the population, it's worth remembering that the kind of justice he will nominate will tend to dissent with the current Roberts-led majority.
And while I wish Obama to nominate at least one more justice, that's also part of the problem. The Court is far, far, far, far too partisan. Lifetime appointments are no longer having the effect sought by the Founding Fathers. A change in how we put people on the SCOTUS is in order. But that's a different post, better executed on a day I'm not nearly so incensed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)