Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
12/06/2011
8/23/2011
Do you remember?
So, while waiting for Toby Keith to create a flag-wrapped theme song for today's events, I thought I would give it a whirl. Sing the lyrics below to any melodramatic, over the top emotional country ballad you happen to know. Really hammer the choruses. Make sure to use proper southern inflection. Have fun!
Do you remember?
It was bright and clear, the Summer sky shinin blue,
And the eagles soared above DC, above me, above you
Then the world changed, our souls ripped to the core
The ground shook our city for ten seconds, maybe more
(chorus)
Do you remember where you were,
When the first rumbles could be heard,
And a minor trembler shook the ground,
As the people casually fled that subtle sound
Do you remember there wasn't much to see
On that day the newsman will always call, 8/23?
They said it wasn't far from here, down old Virginia way
But the tv only showed us DC, and around the beltway
They said it was light as earthquakes go, but some will always know
That it was nothing like we were prepared for, especially traffic flow
(chorus)
Do you remember on tv could be hear'd,
Reports by Wolf Blitzer and his beard
Do you remember seein his fear
As the soaring eagle shed a tear
From sea to shining sea
We all lived through 8/23
(spoken)
Seriously, we all lived
There were no casualties
Property damage was light
Maybe some books off a shelf
(chorus)
Do you remember where you were,
When the first rumbles could be heard,
And a minor trembler shook the ground,
As the people casually fled that subtle sound
Do you remember there wasn't much to see
On that day the newsman will always call, 8/23?
Do you remember on tv could be heard,
Reports by wolf blitzer and his beard
Do you remember hearing his fear
As the soaring eagle shed a tear
From sea to shining sea
We all lived through 8/23
7/03/2011
A Decade of Fear
An article by Mark Penn for Time (reprinted below and available here) makes the case that the decade since 9/11 has seen the US fall into a tailspin of pessimism and shaken confidence. He based his assessment on the results of a poll which show the majority of Americans having very negative views on the present and future of the country. Many believe another terrorist attack on our soil is likely. Still other see economic worries threatening our future.
In all, Mark seems to be wanting the comparison to Carter's "malaise" speech (despite the fact that Carter never used the word "malaise") in order to create the assumption that we have a vacuum of leadership in the country. In fact, I think the primary issue here is much simpler and direct. We have had terrorist attacks before, we have had economic woes, and we have had uncertainty about the future. During all those times, however, we also had Presidents and a Congress who stood up and reassured the American people that we would get through it. We were tough and could take the heat. President Obama pretty much ran his campaign on such Roosevelt-type of reassurances and to this day ends his speeches on a similar high note.
Contrast that to the 8 years of the Bush administration. This is the administration that declared war on "terror", thereby solidifying "terror" into an entity for us. He never said "don't be afraid, we got this". He said continually "be afraid because they are coming to attack us and these Democrats hate our troops" (paraphrased). He handed us a color coded chart which never, ever went below yellow in terms of caution. He resurrected Cold War era fears of impending massive attacks using "suitcase nukes" or bio weapons or chemical agents. People were actually buying hermitic bomb shelters again.
This shows the simple, singular difference between our previous national crises and that created by 9/11: the willing and rather open exploitation of fear for political advantage.
Read Mark's article:
The Pessimism Index
By Mark J. Penn
Just 10 years into a new century, more than two-thirds of the country sees the past decade as a period of decline for the U.S., according to a new TIME/Aspen Ideas Festival poll that probed Americans on the decade since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda seriously weakened, but the impact of the 9/11 attacks and the decisions that followed have, in the view of most Americans, put the U.S. in a tailspin that the country has been unable to shake during two administrations and almost 10 years of trying.
The poll confirms that the country is going through one of its longest sustained periods of unhappiness and pessimism ever. Today's teenagers hardly remember a time before 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and constant economic upheaval. Baby boomers, the generation known for continuous reinvention, are filled with worry and doubt about their future and the future of their children. (See TIME's cover story: "The Optimism Bias.")
It is hard to overstate what a fundamental change this represents. A country long celebrated for its optimism amid adversity is having trouble finding the pluck and the spirit that have seen it through everything from world wars to nuclear threats to space races. The U.S. usually bounces back after a few years of difficulty, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate or recessions. After two or three years of anxiety and worry, the electorate normally returns to its innate optimism. Yet the forces now aligned against the American people seem much more formidable to those we surveyed; the poll uncovered the kinds of attitudes we saw among Europeans during the decade after World War II.
According to the poll, only 6% of more than 2,000 Americans believe the country has completely recovered from the events of 9/11. Some of this pessimism can be tied to fears of more terrorist attacks. Despite the death of bin Laden, most Americans think another terrorist attack in the U.S. is likely. Americans generally supported the post-9/11 measures to secure the homeland, like those in the Patriot Act, and have confidence in the military to deal with terrorists — and yet they see an attack coming anyway. America's feelings of invincibility have been replaced by a new sense of inevitable vulnerability. Nearly 8 in 10 believe there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade. When asked which major city would most likely be the target of such an attack, 30% selected Washington and 27% chose New York City.
A startling 71%, including a majority of every major demographic group other than African Americans, see the U.S. as worse off now than it was a decade ago. Americans blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline. The Bush Administration takes the most heat — 23% named it as the cause — followed closely by the Obama Administration (20%) and the U.S. Congress (16%). In contrast, only 6% blame Wall Street. (See the case for optimism in TIME's special report: "10 Ideas That Will Change the World.")
If there is widespread agreement that the U.S. is in bad shape, there is also a perception that not everyone has experienced the difficult decade in exactly the same way. Those surveyed say middle- and working-class Americans, followed by seniors and younger people, have borne the brunt of the decline — an ominous sign for any incumbent, regardless of political party. Yet those surveyed said some demographic groups were better off than they were a decade ago; they say the quality of life has improved most for gays and lesbians, the affluent, Hispanics and immigrants. And while overall the U.S. is seen as becoming more socially and politically tolerant in the past decade, the majority agreed that 9/11 set off a wave of suspicion against Muslim Americans.
Post-9/11 America is also a more isolationist country. Americans recognize that the election of President Obama brought with it a renewed sense of respect for the U.S. around the world. However, the effect of those improved relationships is overshadowed by the finding that most respondents have no desire to be more involved in global affairs. Almost two-thirds (62%) believe the U.S. today is too involved overseas. Americans are particularly impatient with U.S. policy toward Pakistan. With 69% believing that Pakistani officials knowingly harbored bin Laden, it is not surprising that 3 in 4 Americans — older Americans and Republicans especially — want the U.S. to cut back its military and nonmilitary aid to that country.
But whatever the U.S.'s worries about external forces, the biggest threats today are widely regarded as self-made. It's the enemy within that Americans register the most concern about: runaway deficits, political gridlock, skyrocketing health care costs and other structural problems. A full two-thirds of Americans see the greatest long-term threats to national stability as coming from within the U.S. This too is an enormous change from the days and months after September 2001. (See the U.S. optimism deficit.)
President Jimmy Carter — at the urging of his pollster — rather famously gave a speech in mid-1979 suggesting that a crisis of confidence had befallen America. It took several years and a new President to return the country to its optimistic ways. President Bill Clinton faced a similar moment in 1995 and turned the mood of the country around a year later. This poll suggests we are at another malaise moment, one even longer and deeper than the mid-1970s', presenting even greater challenges — and opportunities — for leadership.
Penn is CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the strategic-research firm that conducted the TIME/Aspen poll. He was a pollster for six years under President Clinton.
In all, Mark seems to be wanting the comparison to Carter's "malaise" speech (despite the fact that Carter never used the word "malaise") in order to create the assumption that we have a vacuum of leadership in the country. In fact, I think the primary issue here is much simpler and direct. We have had terrorist attacks before, we have had economic woes, and we have had uncertainty about the future. During all those times, however, we also had Presidents and a Congress who stood up and reassured the American people that we would get through it. We were tough and could take the heat. President Obama pretty much ran his campaign on such Roosevelt-type of reassurances and to this day ends his speeches on a similar high note.
Contrast that to the 8 years of the Bush administration. This is the administration that declared war on "terror", thereby solidifying "terror" into an entity for us. He never said "don't be afraid, we got this". He said continually "be afraid because they are coming to attack us and these Democrats hate our troops" (paraphrased). He handed us a color coded chart which never, ever went below yellow in terms of caution. He resurrected Cold War era fears of impending massive attacks using "suitcase nukes" or bio weapons or chemical agents. People were actually buying hermitic bomb shelters again.
This shows the simple, singular difference between our previous national crises and that created by 9/11: the willing and rather open exploitation of fear for political advantage.
Read Mark's article:
The Pessimism Index
By Mark J. Penn
Just 10 years into a new century, more than two-thirds of the country sees the past decade as a period of decline for the U.S., according to a new TIME/Aspen Ideas Festival poll that probed Americans on the decade since the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is dead and al-Qaeda seriously weakened, but the impact of the 9/11 attacks and the decisions that followed have, in the view of most Americans, put the U.S. in a tailspin that the country has been unable to shake during two administrations and almost 10 years of trying.
The poll confirms that the country is going through one of its longest sustained periods of unhappiness and pessimism ever. Today's teenagers hardly remember a time before 9/11, the war on terrorism, the war in Iraq and constant economic upheaval. Baby boomers, the generation known for continuous reinvention, are filled with worry and doubt about their future and the future of their children. (See TIME's cover story: "The Optimism Bias.")
It is hard to overstate what a fundamental change this represents. A country long celebrated for its optimism amid adversity is having trouble finding the pluck and the spirit that have seen it through everything from world wars to nuclear threats to space races. The U.S. usually bounces back after a few years of difficulty, such as the Vietnam War, Watergate or recessions. After two or three years of anxiety and worry, the electorate normally returns to its innate optimism. Yet the forces now aligned against the American people seem much more formidable to those we surveyed; the poll uncovered the kinds of attitudes we saw among Europeans during the decade after World War II.
According to the poll, only 6% of more than 2,000 Americans believe the country has completely recovered from the events of 9/11. Some of this pessimism can be tied to fears of more terrorist attacks. Despite the death of bin Laden, most Americans think another terrorist attack in the U.S. is likely. Americans generally supported the post-9/11 measures to secure the homeland, like those in the Patriot Act, and have confidence in the military to deal with terrorists — and yet they see an attack coming anyway. America's feelings of invincibility have been replaced by a new sense of inevitable vulnerability. Nearly 8 in 10 believe there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. soil in the next decade. When asked which major city would most likely be the target of such an attack, 30% selected Washington and 27% chose New York City.
A startling 71%, including a majority of every major demographic group other than African Americans, see the U.S. as worse off now than it was a decade ago. Americans blame their leaders and politicians for the decade of decline. The Bush Administration takes the most heat — 23% named it as the cause — followed closely by the Obama Administration (20%) and the U.S. Congress (16%). In contrast, only 6% blame Wall Street. (See the case for optimism in TIME's special report: "10 Ideas That Will Change the World.")
If there is widespread agreement that the U.S. is in bad shape, there is also a perception that not everyone has experienced the difficult decade in exactly the same way. Those surveyed say middle- and working-class Americans, followed by seniors and younger people, have borne the brunt of the decline — an ominous sign for any incumbent, regardless of political party. Yet those surveyed said some demographic groups were better off than they were a decade ago; they say the quality of life has improved most for gays and lesbians, the affluent, Hispanics and immigrants. And while overall the U.S. is seen as becoming more socially and politically tolerant in the past decade, the majority agreed that 9/11 set off a wave of suspicion against Muslim Americans.
Post-9/11 America is also a more isolationist country. Americans recognize that the election of President Obama brought with it a renewed sense of respect for the U.S. around the world. However, the effect of those improved relationships is overshadowed by the finding that most respondents have no desire to be more involved in global affairs. Almost two-thirds (62%) believe the U.S. today is too involved overseas. Americans are particularly impatient with U.S. policy toward Pakistan. With 69% believing that Pakistani officials knowingly harbored bin Laden, it is not surprising that 3 in 4 Americans — older Americans and Republicans especially — want the U.S. to cut back its military and nonmilitary aid to that country.
But whatever the U.S.'s worries about external forces, the biggest threats today are widely regarded as self-made. It's the enemy within that Americans register the most concern about: runaway deficits, political gridlock, skyrocketing health care costs and other structural problems. A full two-thirds of Americans see the greatest long-term threats to national stability as coming from within the U.S. This too is an enormous change from the days and months after September 2001. (See the U.S. optimism deficit.)
President Jimmy Carter — at the urging of his pollster — rather famously gave a speech in mid-1979 suggesting that a crisis of confidence had befallen America. It took several years and a new President to return the country to its optimistic ways. President Bill Clinton faced a similar moment in 1995 and turned the mood of the country around a year later. This poll suggests we are at another malaise moment, one even longer and deeper than the mid-1970s', presenting even greater challenges — and opportunities — for leadership.
Penn is CEO of Penn Schoen Berland, the strategic-research firm that conducted the TIME/Aspen poll. He was a pollster for six years under President Clinton.
7/01/2011
Michele Bachmann: Hiding in the Bushes
This is old, but worth reposting just for the entry at #9 on the list. Scroll down for more.
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
(No. 193)
April 11, 2005
Spouting Thomas Edition
Tom DeLay (1,6) tops the list again this week after a tough week for ethics violators, but Fox News (2) is more than happy to give him an assist. Mel Martinez (3) owned up to the Terri Schiavo memo - sort of - not that The Forgery Shovelers (4) cared of course. And John Cornyn (5) suggested that perhaps judges should tone down the old "judging" thing if they cared about their safety. Yup, it's been a prime week for conservative idiocy. Elsewhere, Republican Hypocrites (7) seem to have gone silent on the issue of high gas prices, The Jeff Gannon Show (8) rolled into town for an encore, Michelle Bachman (9) hid in some bushes, and what happens when you mix professional wrestling with right-wing whackery? You get my new all-time favorite conservative idiot in the form of Warrior And Chums (10). Enjoy, and don't forget the key!
Tom DeLay 
This might be the understatement of the year, but Tom DeLay is in the shit. Last week the Campaign for America's Future put up a handy cheat sheet of DeLay's recent scandals, which include taking fancy business trips paid for by lobbyists, taking campaign contributions for favors, using a federal agency (the FAA) for partisan purposes, and alleged money laundering, among other things. In the past week it was also revealed that since 2001 DeLay's wife and daughter have personally received more than $500,000 from his political action committees, and in 1997 DeLay took a trip to Russia which was "underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government," according tothe Washington Post. He later cast votes in support of those same business interests. DeLay has done what he can to clear himself of the charges by, um, trying to change House ethics rules to make the whole thing go away. But let's face it, that doesn't really make him look any better. So what's a poor, downtrodden House Majority Leader to do when the heat is on? Why, blame somebody else, of course! Last week DeLay called the reports about his scandalous behavior "just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me." Aww, poor baby. But let it be known that the GOP is backingTom DeLay all the way, so hats off to the Republican party for standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bugman, and we'll just wait and see where their firm conviction for being led by an unethical megalomaniac gets them in 2006.
Fox News 
Of course, DeLay's pals at Fox News have been doing their best to disabuse the public of the notion that he might bear just a tiny bit of responsibility for his alleged ethics violations. Media Matters noted that several Fox News hosts went out of their way last week to assist DeLay in his attempt to blame the media for his problems: Brit Hume reported that, "Here in Washington, the press is after Tom DeLay again, but wait 'til you hear the facts," and, "speaking of Tom DeLay, the mainstream media were out after him again today." John Gibson said, "The liberal media is hammering 'The Hammer' - Tom DeLay under a microscope and under the gun. Is this simply a media hit job?" (In order to get a fair and balanced answer he interviewed Rich Lowry, editor of the right-wing National Review.) And our old friend Sean Hannity referred to the "liberal allegations" against DeLay and asked, "Is he the target of a smear campaign?" So if you want to know the details of the charges against Tom DeLay, don't bother asking Fox News. They're more concerned about protecting their buddy than they are about actually reporting the facts.
Mel Martinez 
Last week conservative pundits and bloggers were agog with the possibility that the infamous "Terri Schiavo memo" - which instructed Republican senators to make political hay out of her case - might have been a fake passed around by - booo! - Democrats in order to make Republicans look bad. Because surely Republicans simply aren't capable of playing such awful political games. Yeah right. But the whole thing fell apart at the seams last week when it wasrevealed that the memo actually came from the office of freshman GOP senator Mel Martinez. Of course, Martinez was completely in the dark about the memo - which explains why he was, uh, carrying it around in his pocket - and fired his aide Brian Darling for taking action "unilaterally." At this point it's probably worth mentioning that the St. Petersburg Times said back in November 2004 that "When challenged, Martinez was too eager to assign blame to his staff or to groups he said he couldn't control. As a senator, he will need an office and a staff that speaks with the measured and centrist tone he says will be his own. He can't pretend to be above it all if the people he employs are not." It certainly appears that Martinez hasn't taken that advice to heart. But in case you were worried about the future of poor Brian "Unilateral" Darling, don't fret. He used to work for the Alexander Strategy Group, whose chairman Edwin A. Buckham (former chief of staff to - ta da! - Tom DeLay) said last week that "He is still going to have a bright future in this town." Why am I not surprised...
The Forgery Shovelers 
The news that the memo was in fact not a fake, and did in fact originate from the office of a Republican senator, was somewhat embarrassing to the folks who'd been shoveling the forgery meme. After the "Democratic fakery" angle had played out on right-wing talk radio during the week - without any actual evidence, of course - The Washington Times ran a front page, above-the-fold story alleging that the memo could have been a dirty trick. The Times' claim that the memo was fake was based, incredibly, on this: "A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her." Which obviously cleared up the whole matter. Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh announced that "it appears it's a forged memo all over again!" quoting the American Spectator who wrote, "It's Rathergate all over again, and the same vigilant entities that brought about the collapse of CBS News could now also cause heads to roll among Democratic Senate leadership staffers and further shame multiple news organizations that would appear to have fallen for another document hoax." Crowed Rush, "The memo was made up by Democrat staffers." Whoops. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has a greatscreenshot of a page from Rush's website which tells the world to "Listen to Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence." Aravosis also noted that one of the American Spectator's aforementioned vigilant entities, "blog of the year" Powerline - who went nuts accusing the Democrats of faking the Schiavo memo - were still clinging desperately to the possibility that they could turn it against the left byblaming the media for misreporting the story. Nice try, morons.
John Cornyn 
What could be the reason for the recent wave of violence against judges? Just a few weeks ago, a judge's family was murdered. And there was that incident where a man on trial for rape and murder stole a gun and shot a judge dead in court. What could be prompting this crime wave? Have no fear: Sen. John Cornyn has the answer. "I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection," he pondered on the Senate floor last week, "but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in – engage in violence." Don't worry though - apparently Cornyn didn't mean it. According tothe UK Guardian, he wrote a letter last week saying he was "not aware of evidence linking judges' decisions with possible violence. 'I certainly hope that people will not construe my remarks on Monday to state otherwise,' he said." Oh, perish the thought. So I guess you were talking about... what, exactly, Senator? The good news though is that John Cornyn has learned a lesson from all this. And here it is: "The lesson I learned is that Washington is a very tough political environment and if people can take what you say out of context and use it against you, they will." Seriously. He actually said that.
Tom DeLay
One more entry for the Bugman this week, and it relates directly to the John Cornyn entry above. Cornyn may not be able to legitimately blame the most recent incidents of violence against judges and their families as some sort of revenge for their supposed judicial activism - but he soon will if Tom DeLay keeps it up. We already noted DeLay's not-so-veiled threats to the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case ("The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior") and last week he kicked it up a notch. DeLay said that the judiciary has "run amok" and "overstepped its authority on countless occasions." His solution? Unclear. But he also said that "Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric." Various conservative leaders decided to pick up that ball and run with it, meeting in Washington last week to discuss "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny." Phyllis Schafly and Michael P. Farris - chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association - both agreed that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ought to be impeached for his opinion that juveniles shouldn't be executed. But it was Edwin Vieira who seemed to be taking Tom Delay's comments to their logical conclusion, citing Joseph Stalin in his "bottom line" for dealing with judges. "[Stalin] had a slogan," said Viera, "and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem.'" The full quote that Viera paraphrased, in case you were wondering, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." So, uh, is anyone else bothered that leading conservatives are now using Joe Stalin as an example of how to deal with their enemies?
Republican Hypocrites 
Special thanks here to the Top Ten reader (you know who you are, sir!) who sent me a list of links featuring Republicans whining about high gas prices in 2000. I'm sure most of you are aware that average gas prices have been topping $2.50 per gallon recently, with San Franciscans recently reporting more than $3 per gallon for regular unleaded:
Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Now let's take a look at what some of those Republicans had to say in 2000, when gas was around a full dollar cheaper per gallon than it is today:
Rep. Terry Everett: "The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps."
Dennis Hastert: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest."
Rep. Wally Herger: "Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration's complacency during the current gas price crisis. 'Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,' Herger said. 'The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.'"
Larry Kudlow: "The Clinton-Gore administration’s hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC’s oil-price hike. ... While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer."
Glenn Spencer: "In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. ... With the Clinton-Gore administration's policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore's camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration."
Various Repubs: "Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps."
So, gas is about 60-75% per gallon more at the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whining about how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked, but now George W. Bush is the president - why, his shit don't stink. Perhaps they're still waiting for him to "jawbone" OPEC? Either that or they don't care about gas prices now that he's, y'know, got the gays on the run.
The Jeff Gannon Show
We noted last week that our old pal Jeff Gannon was going to be appearing at a National Press Club panel on journalism and blogging, and pondered why he was invited to be there since he wasn't a journalist or a blogger. Well it turns out that Gannon was apparently asked along for the purposes of providing hilarious comic relief. Among Gannon's classic gags from last Friday's event were the suggestion that simply reprinting administration press releases is the same as real journalism, and that the government had to pay Armstrong Williams to write a positive story on No Child Left Behind because nobody else would. Funny stuff! He even held up one of those stupid red counties vs. blue counties maps which right-wingers love to use to demonstrate how "red" the country is, except - and this is the mark of a comedy genius at work - the red states were all green, because apparently his printer was running out of ink. But the laugh of the day was surely reserved for this absolute corker: "You can hardly call Fox News conservative." Oh Jeff, you are a clown!
Michelle Bachmann 
Last week Minnesota State Senator Michelle Bachmann (R-Obviously) tried to force a vote on a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage; Democrats said she was trying to end-run Senate rules for political gain. That she chose to do this on the same day that the local gay community was rallying for their rights on the grounds of the Capitol was certainly dubious.According to Eleventh Avenue South, "Even Senate Republicans thought it was in poor taste to try to go around Senate rules on the same day GLBT citizens were making their voice heard. Her move was overwhelmingly defeated." But one of Eleventh Avenue South's eagle-eyed readers happened to catch something rather strange that day - it turned out that Michelle Bachmann had gone to take a look at the rally, but, obviously feeling very frightened of the scary homosexuals, decided to hide in some bushes. Fortunately, the reader got pictures:
Peek-a-boo! What a coward. You know, that photo kind of reminds me of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during Vietnam.
Warrior And Chums 
And finally, the artist formerly known as "The Ultimate Warrior" (now apparently just plain "Warrior" for some reason) made a professional wrestling-sized ass of himself at the University of Connecticut last week, choke-slamming the UConn College Republicans in the process. Former WWF star Warrior had apparently been invited by the College Republicans to speak about... well, actually that's not entirely clear. But Warrior is a radical right-wing nutcase, so presumably that's all the reason they needed. Unfortunately Warrior was a little too nutty even for the College Republicans, "screaming and stomping on the stage," according to liveaudiowrestling.com, and provoking the crowd into a frenzy. The evening turned sour when Warrior answered an Iranian student's question by telling him that he needed to "get a towel," and pontificated on such subjects as why "Queering don't make the world work." Which is a bit odd coming from a guy who used to make a living publicly groping a steady stream of greased-up bodybuilders in leotards.
Anyway, it turns out that the UConn College Republicans were a tad embarrassed by the debacle, issuing a profoundly apologetic press release the next day. They made sure to mention that they were sending individual letters of apology to, "the Rainbow Center, AQUA, QUAD, the African American Cultural Center, the Asian American Cultural Center, the Puerto Rican/Latin American Cultural Center, the Iranian Students Association, and the Women's Center." Oh, and in case you were wondering, "this is not a complete list of the groups that will receive a direct written apology from the College Republicans." Good lord.
But the story doesn't end there: the College Republicans' press release provoked a hilarious outburst "From the Desk Of Warrior" where he announced (in the third person!) that "All of the above notwithstanding, it is somewhat sad to see how utterly spineless the UConn College Republicans have turned out to be. Not a single UConn CR voiced any objection to Warrior after the event. The detailed emails between Warrior and the UConn CRs reveal that the CRS repeatedly encouraged Warrior to single out the Tent City Trash for some re-education. Yet, it now seems that the CRS have collectively decided to bow down and beg forgiveness from various extremist, anti-American, left-wing groups who infest the UConn campus. Perhaps the UConn CRS should refrain from engaging in political activism until such time as they develop enough backbone to be able to withstand not being liked by their opponents." Ooh, smackdown! See you next week!
The Top 10 Conservative Idiots
(No. 193)
April 11, 2005
Spouting Thomas Edition
Tom DeLay (1,6) tops the list again this week after a tough week for ethics violators, but Fox News (2) is more than happy to give him an assist. Mel Martinez (3) owned up to the Terri Schiavo memo - sort of - not that The Forgery Shovelers (4) cared of course. And John Cornyn (5) suggested that perhaps judges should tone down the old "judging" thing if they cared about their safety. Yup, it's been a prime week for conservative idiocy. Elsewhere, Republican Hypocrites (7) seem to have gone silent on the issue of high gas prices, The Jeff Gannon Show (8) rolled into town for an encore, Michelle Bachman (9) hid in some bushes, and what happens when you mix professional wrestling with right-wing whackery? You get my new all-time favorite conservative idiot in the form of Warrior And Chums (10). Enjoy, and don't forget the key!Tom DeLay This might be the understatement of the year, but Tom DeLay is in the shit. Last week the Campaign for America's Future put up a handy cheat sheet of DeLay's recent scandals, which include taking fancy business trips paid for by lobbyists, taking campaign contributions for favors, using a federal agency (the FAA) for partisan purposes, and alleged money laundering, among other things. In the past week it was also revealed that since 2001 DeLay's wife and daughter have personally received more than $500,000 from his political action committees, and in 1997 DeLay took a trip to Russia which was "underwritten by business interests lobbying in support of the Russian government," according tothe Washington Post. He later cast votes in support of those same business interests. DeLay has done what he can to clear himself of the charges by, um, trying to change House ethics rules to make the whole thing go away. But let's face it, that doesn't really make him look any better. So what's a poor, downtrodden House Majority Leader to do when the heat is on? Why, blame somebody else, of course! Last week DeLay called the reports about his scandalous behavior "just another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me." Aww, poor baby. But let it be known that the GOP is backingTom DeLay all the way, so hats off to the Republican party for standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the Bugman, and we'll just wait and see where their firm conviction for being led by an unethical megalomaniac gets them in 2006.
Fox News Of course, DeLay's pals at Fox News have been doing their best to disabuse the public of the notion that he might bear just a tiny bit of responsibility for his alleged ethics violations. Media Matters noted that several Fox News hosts went out of their way last week to assist DeLay in his attempt to blame the media for his problems: Brit Hume reported that, "Here in Washington, the press is after Tom DeLay again, but wait 'til you hear the facts," and, "speaking of Tom DeLay, the mainstream media were out after him again today." John Gibson said, "The liberal media is hammering 'The Hammer' - Tom DeLay under a microscope and under the gun. Is this simply a media hit job?" (In order to get a fair and balanced answer he interviewed Rich Lowry, editor of the right-wing National Review.) And our old friend Sean Hannity referred to the "liberal allegations" against DeLay and asked, "Is he the target of a smear campaign?" So if you want to know the details of the charges against Tom DeLay, don't bother asking Fox News. They're more concerned about protecting their buddy than they are about actually reporting the facts.
Mel Martinez Last week conservative pundits and bloggers were agog with the possibility that the infamous "Terri Schiavo memo" - which instructed Republican senators to make political hay out of her case - might have been a fake passed around by - booo! - Democrats in order to make Republicans look bad. Because surely Republicans simply aren't capable of playing such awful political games. Yeah right. But the whole thing fell apart at the seams last week when it wasrevealed that the memo actually came from the office of freshman GOP senator Mel Martinez. Of course, Martinez was completely in the dark about the memo - which explains why he was, uh, carrying it around in his pocket - and fired his aide Brian Darling for taking action "unilaterally." At this point it's probably worth mentioning that the St. Petersburg Times said back in November 2004 that "When challenged, Martinez was too eager to assign blame to his staff or to groups he said he couldn't control. As a senator, he will need an office and a staff that speaks with the measured and centrist tone he says will be his own. He can't pretend to be above it all if the people he employs are not." It certainly appears that Martinez hasn't taken that advice to heart. But in case you were worried about the future of poor Brian "Unilateral" Darling, don't fret. He used to work for the Alexander Strategy Group, whose chairman Edwin A. Buckham (former chief of staff to - ta da! - Tom DeLay) said last week that "He is still going to have a bright future in this town." Why am I not surprised...
The Forgery Shovelers The news that the memo was in fact not a fake, and did in fact originate from the office of a Republican senator, was somewhat embarrassing to the folks who'd been shoveling the forgery meme. After the "Democratic fakery" angle had played out on right-wing talk radio during the week - without any actual evidence, of course - The Washington Times ran a front page, above-the-fold story alleging that the memo could have been a dirty trick. The Times' claim that the memo was fake was based, incredibly, on this: "A survey by The Washington Times found that every Republican said the memo was not crafted or distributed by him or her." Which obviously cleared up the whole matter. Meanwhile Rush Limbaugh announced that "it appears it's a forged memo all over again!" quoting the American Spectator who wrote, "It's Rathergate all over again, and the same vigilant entities that brought about the collapse of CBS News could now also cause heads to roll among Democratic Senate leadership staffers and further shame multiple news organizations that would appear to have fallen for another document hoax." Crowed Rush, "The memo was made up by Democrat staffers." Whoops. John Aravosis at AmericaBlog has a greatscreenshot of a page from Rush's website which tells the world to "Listen to Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence." Aravosis also noted that one of the American Spectator's aforementioned vigilant entities, "blog of the year" Powerline - who went nuts accusing the Democrats of faking the Schiavo memo - were still clinging desperately to the possibility that they could turn it against the left byblaming the media for misreporting the story. Nice try, morons.
John Cornyn What could be the reason for the recent wave of violence against judges? Just a few weeks ago, a judge's family was murdered. And there was that incident where a man on trial for rape and murder stole a gun and shot a judge dead in court. What could be prompting this crime wave? Have no fear: Sen. John Cornyn has the answer. "I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection," he pondered on the Senate floor last week, "but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in – engage in violence." Don't worry though - apparently Cornyn didn't mean it. According tothe UK Guardian, he wrote a letter last week saying he was "not aware of evidence linking judges' decisions with possible violence. 'I certainly hope that people will not construe my remarks on Monday to state otherwise,' he said." Oh, perish the thought. So I guess you were talking about... what, exactly, Senator? The good news though is that John Cornyn has learned a lesson from all this. And here it is: "The lesson I learned is that Washington is a very tough political environment and if people can take what you say out of context and use it against you, they will." Seriously. He actually said that.
Tom DeLay One more entry for the Bugman this week, and it relates directly to the John Cornyn entry above. Cornyn may not be able to legitimately blame the most recent incidents of violence against judges and their families as some sort of revenge for their supposed judicial activism - but he soon will if Tom DeLay keeps it up. We already noted DeLay's not-so-veiled threats to the judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case ("The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior") and last week he kicked it up a notch. DeLay said that the judiciary has "run amok" and "overstepped its authority on countless occasions." His solution? Unclear. But he also said that "Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric." Various conservative leaders decided to pick up that ball and run with it, meeting in Washington last week to discuss "Remedies to Judicial Tyranny." Phyllis Schafly and Michael P. Farris - chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association - both agreed that Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy ought to be impeached for his opinion that juveniles shouldn't be executed. But it was Edwin Vieira who seemed to be taking Tom Delay's comments to their logical conclusion, citing Joseph Stalin in his "bottom line" for dealing with judges. "[Stalin] had a slogan," said Viera, "and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem.'" The full quote that Viera paraphrased, in case you were wondering, is "Death solves all problems: no man, no problem." So, uh, is anyone else bothered that leading conservatives are now using Joe Stalin as an example of how to deal with their enemies?
Republican Hypocrites Special thanks here to the Top Ten reader (you know who you are, sir!) who sent me a list of links featuring Republicans whining about high gas prices in 2000. I'm sure most of you are aware that average gas prices have been topping $2.50 per gallon recently, with San Franciscans recently reporting more than $3 per gallon for regular unleaded:
Photo: San Francisco Chronicle
Now let's take a look at what some of those Republicans had to say in 2000, when gas was around a full dollar cheaper per gallon than it is today:
Rep. Terry Everett: "The Clinton Administration has failed in its duty to develop a policy to deal with our national energy supply and is therefore directly accountable for the higher prices Americans are now paying at the gas pumps."
Dennis Hastert: "House Speaker Dennis Hastert accused the Clinton administration Friday of misleading members of Congress about the causes of skyrocketing gas prices in the Midwest."
Rep. Wally Herger: "Congressman Wally Herger recently denounced the Clinton-Gore Administration's complacency during the current gas price crisis. 'Northern Californians are being held hostage at the gas pump,' Herger said. 'The Clinton-Gore Administration has demonstrated a complete and total lack of leadership in preventing this problem. It is a clear failure of domestic and foreign policy.'"
Larry Kudlow: "The Clinton-Gore administration’s hapless and incoherent management of foreign policy is nowhere as evident as in their bungling on OPEC’s oil-price hike. ... While crude oil prices could drop to $25 per barrel, they will stay well above the average $20 real price of oil registered over the past ten years. And way above the $10 worldwide average marginal cost of producing new oil. Meanwhile gas prices at the pump are likely to be upwards of $2 per gallon well into the summer."
Glenn Spencer: "In recent weeks, gas prices have surged to their highest level in a decade. Prices for home heating oil and natural gas are expected to rise by about 30 percent this winter. ... With the Clinton-Gore administration's policies largely to blame for the pain being felt by consumers, Vice President Gore's camp has pulled out all the stops to shift blame away from his own administration."
Various Repubs: "Representatives Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls), Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac), Paul Ryan (R-Janesville), and Mark Green (R-Green Bay) today blasted Energy Secretary Bill Richardson and the Clinton-Gore Administration for their failure to implement a comprehensive energy policy to deal with staggering gas prices Wisconsin consumers continue to face at the pumps."
So, gas is about 60-75% per gallon more at the pump and oil is about 100% more per barrel than it was when these moaning minnies were whining about how much Bill Clinton and Al Gore sucked, but now George W. Bush is the president - why, his shit don't stink. Perhaps they're still waiting for him to "jawbone" OPEC? Either that or they don't care about gas prices now that he's, y'know, got the gays on the run.
The Jeff Gannon Show We noted last week that our old pal Jeff Gannon was going to be appearing at a National Press Club panel on journalism and blogging, and pondered why he was invited to be there since he wasn't a journalist or a blogger. Well it turns out that Gannon was apparently asked along for the purposes of providing hilarious comic relief. Among Gannon's classic gags from last Friday's event were the suggestion that simply reprinting administration press releases is the same as real journalism, and that the government had to pay Armstrong Williams to write a positive story on No Child Left Behind because nobody else would. Funny stuff! He even held up one of those stupid red counties vs. blue counties maps which right-wingers love to use to demonstrate how "red" the country is, except - and this is the mark of a comedy genius at work - the red states were all green, because apparently his printer was running out of ink. But the laugh of the day was surely reserved for this absolute corker: "You can hardly call Fox News conservative." Oh Jeff, you are a clown!
Michelle Bachmann Last week Minnesota State Senator Michelle Bachmann (R-Obviously) tried to force a vote on a state constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage; Democrats said she was trying to end-run Senate rules for political gain. That she chose to do this on the same day that the local gay community was rallying for their rights on the grounds of the Capitol was certainly dubious.According to Eleventh Avenue South, "Even Senate Republicans thought it was in poor taste to try to go around Senate rules on the same day GLBT citizens were making their voice heard. Her move was overwhelmingly defeated." But one of Eleventh Avenue South's eagle-eyed readers happened to catch something rather strange that day - it turned out that Michelle Bachmann had gone to take a look at the rally, but, obviously feeling very frightened of the scary homosexuals, decided to hide in some bushes. Fortunately, the reader got pictures:
Peek-a-boo! What a coward. You know, that photo kind of reminds me of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney during Vietnam.
Warrior And Chums And finally, the artist formerly known as "The Ultimate Warrior" (now apparently just plain "Warrior" for some reason) made a professional wrestling-sized ass of himself at the University of Connecticut last week, choke-slamming the UConn College Republicans in the process. Former WWF star Warrior had apparently been invited by the College Republicans to speak about... well, actually that's not entirely clear. But Warrior is a radical right-wing nutcase, so presumably that's all the reason they needed. Unfortunately Warrior was a little too nutty even for the College Republicans, "screaming and stomping on the stage," according to liveaudiowrestling.com, and provoking the crowd into a frenzy. The evening turned sour when Warrior answered an Iranian student's question by telling him that he needed to "get a towel," and pontificated on such subjects as why "Queering don't make the world work." Which is a bit odd coming from a guy who used to make a living publicly groping a steady stream of greased-up bodybuilders in leotards.
Anyway, it turns out that the UConn College Republicans were a tad embarrassed by the debacle, issuing a profoundly apologetic press release the next day. They made sure to mention that they were sending individual letters of apology to, "the Rainbow Center, AQUA, QUAD, the African American Cultural Center, the Asian American Cultural Center, the Puerto Rican/Latin American Cultural Center, the Iranian Students Association, and the Women's Center." Oh, and in case you were wondering, "this is not a complete list of the groups that will receive a direct written apology from the College Republicans." Good lord.
But the story doesn't end there: the College Republicans' press release provoked a hilarious outburst "From the Desk Of Warrior" where he announced (in the third person!) that "All of the above notwithstanding, it is somewhat sad to see how utterly spineless the UConn College Republicans have turned out to be. Not a single UConn CR voiced any objection to Warrior after the event. The detailed emails between Warrior and the UConn CRs reveal that the CRS repeatedly encouraged Warrior to single out the Tent City Trash for some re-education. Yet, it now seems that the CRS have collectively decided to bow down and beg forgiveness from various extremist, anti-American, left-wing groups who infest the UConn campus. Perhaps the UConn CRS should refrain from engaging in political activism until such time as they develop enough backbone to be able to withstand not being liked by their opponents." Ooh, smackdown! See you next week!
6/19/2011
Is Michele Bachmann smarter than a 10th grader?
Via Buzzfeed:
[caption id="attachment_1225" align="aligncenter" width="465" caption="The gauntlet has been thrown down, and how."]
[/caption]
[caption id="attachment_1226" align="aligncenter" width="378" caption="Epic winner and the object of my high school crush if I were high school age again."]
[/caption]
The winner of the debate would undoubtedly be Miss Myers and I can just imagine the judge scolding Rep. Bachmann thusly:
[caption id="attachment_1225" align="aligncenter" width="465" caption="The gauntlet has been thrown down, and how."]
[/caption][caption id="attachment_1226" align="aligncenter" width="378" caption="Epic winner and the object of my high school crush if I were high school age again."]
[/caption]The winner of the debate would undoubtedly be Miss Myers and I can just imagine the judge scolding Rep. Bachmann thusly:
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
6/17/2011
Herman Cain: Different Kind of Bigot
Outstanding.
http://www.slate.com/id/2296998/
Colored Judgment
Why does Herman Cain think about Muslims the way racists think about blacks?
By William Saletan
Herman Cain
Herman Cain says Republicans should nominate him for president in part because "my candidacy would take race off the table." Cain, a former CEO and president of the National Restaurant Association, is black. Therefore, he argues, he can't be accused of prejudice when he criticizes President Obama.
It's a plausible argument, as far as race goes. But prejudice is bigger than race. Prejudice gets peeled one layer at a time. You give black men the vote but don't see why ladies need it. You open the military to women but can't imagine homosexuals defending your country. You congratulate yourself on being an enlightened liberal even as you ridicule Mormons.
Or, if you're Cain, you rise from segregation and defy black political stereotypes while treating Muslims with the same crude bias that was once applied to you.
Three months ago, Scott Keyes of Think Progress asked Cain: "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?" Cain answered: "No, I will not. And here's why. There is this creeping attempt … to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government."
A few days ago, during the GOP debate in New Hampshire, Cain denied having said this. "The statement was, would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one," Cain told John King. "That's the exact transcript."
No, it isn't. The video clearly shows Cain saying, "I will not." If he had been talking about discomfort, he would have said, "I would not." And in case his meaning wasn't clear enough, here's video of him a few days later, saying: "I was asked by a reporter, would I appoint a Muslim to my cabinet? I said no." And again, in another video: "I made the statement that I would not put a Muslim in my cabinet, or in my administration." And again, on Fox News: "A reporter asked me, would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no."
Cain is familiar with this kind of group exclusion. It was done to him 60 years ago. He had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from "colored" water fountains. He graduated second in his high school class but was refused admission by the University of Georgia. It didn't matter how smart Cain was or how hard he worked. He was black, and the white society around him had decided that blacks were inferior. He was treated as a member of a group, not as an individual. In a word, he was prejudged.
Advertisement
Today, the Ku Klux Klan is still around, but its racism has become more sophisticated. It uses data. "The black male is the greatest perpetrator of both petty crimes and violent crimes in the black communities," says a Klan Web site. Even "Jesse Jackson said that when he's walking down the street at night and he hears footsteps behind him, he's relieved to turn around and see a white person instead of a black person." From this, the Klan concludes, "Minorities … as a people (though there are always exceptions to the rule) are incapable of maintaining or even comprehending the rule of law and order."
That's how prejudice works in the information age. You use statistical averages to generate stereotypes and ultimately to justify differential treatment of people by category.
This is what Cain is now doing to Muslims. Last week, Glenn Beck asked him whether Muslims would have to show "loyalty proof" to serve in a Cain administration. Cain said yes. Beck pressed: "Would you do that to a Catholic, or would you do that to a Mormon?" Cain replied: "Nope, I wouldn't. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions."
If you measure dangerousness by sympathy for al-Qaida or the belief that suicide bombing can be justified, it's true that Muslims are, on average, more dangerous. It's a silly way to think, since this is just an average, and the percentages are very low. Islamic faith, per se, tells you nothing about the individual. But Cain doesn't want to take chances. "This nation is under attack constantly by people who want to kill all of us," he told CNN's John King shortly after the Beck show. Therefore, Cain concluded, "I am going to take extra precautions if a Muslim person who is competent wants to work in my administration."
The same goes for Sharia. "Many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country," Cain told Neil Cavuto. "Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country. And, so, yes, I did say it [that I wouldn't appoint a Muslim], and that is because I don't have time to be watching someone on my administration if they are not totally committed to the Declaration and the Constitution." On Laura Ingraham's radio show, Cain added: "I don't want any inkling of anybody in my administration who would put Sharia law over American law. … I don't want anybody in my administration that I'm going to have to be looking over my shoulder to figure out if they are going to try to do something against the principles that I believe in."
Hence the loyalty test or, better yet, simple exclusion of Muslims. It spares Cain the trouble of evaluating them individually and eliminates the risk that a bad one might slip through. It saves him time and worry, just as segregation relieved the University of Georgia of having to evaluate Cain's college application.
When Cain was growing up, whites used their majority status not just to hold power but to claim authority. Now Cain is in the Christian majority, and he's leveraging that power to keep Muslims in their place. "We are a Judeo-Christian nation," he told Christianity Today. "One percent of the practicing religious believers in this country are Muslim. And so I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. … I do not want us, as a nation, to lose our Judeo-Christian identity." On Ingraham's show, Cain said of Muslim U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison: "If you take an oath on the Quran, that means that you support Sharia law. I support American law. Our laws were derived from principles that are biblically based." If Cain gets his way, public servants will swear on a holy book, but it'll be Christian: "Anybody that takes the oath of office in a Herman Cain administration will put their hand on the Bible, not the Koran."
Now that Cain has climbed the corporate ladder and is running for president, he faces a new kind of racism: the assumption that a black man must be liberal. Cain ridicules this stereotype. "Some black people can think for themselves," he says.
But Muslims? They all think alike. "I have not found a Muslim that has said that they will denounce Sharia law [and] support the Constitution," Cain told Ingraham. In another interview, he explained: "The reason I made the statement that I would not put a Muslim in my cabinet, or in my administration, is because I want people that are dedicated to the Constitution. … I don't know one Muslim who will denounce Sharia Law and then say that they can support the Constitution."
Herman, you really need to get out more.
Cain's distrust doesn't stop at Muslims. He's skeptical of foreign heritage in general. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Cain called President Obama "an international" and argued that "he's out of the mainstream and always has been. Look, he was raised in Kenya, his mother was white from Kansas, and her family had an influence on him, it's true, but his dad was Kenyan." Speaking at a Georgia church, Cain recalled the time he went in for surgery with a doctor named Abdallah. Cain asked the doctor's assistant: "That sounds a little foreign. What is that?" She replied: "He's from Lebanon. … But don't worry, he's a Christian." Upon hearing this, Cain told the congregants: "I said Amen. I felt a whole lot better."
But feeling better is exactly the problem. It isn't Cain's discomfort that should worry us. It's his comfort. He thinks he has risen above prejudice. He thinks his experience of discrimination protects him from doing to others what was done to him. He doesn't recognize in himself the same habits of group judgment, blindness to individual differences, and majoritarian claims to national identity.
This doesn't make Cain a bad person. It just means that he, like the rest of us, still has a lot to learn.
(Readings I recommend: Zuhdi Jasser in the Daily Caller urges Cain to distinguish aggressive "Islamists" from Muslims who respect the Constitution. Tim Murphy in Mother Jones debunks Cain's claim that a Texas court allowed Sharia to override U.S. law. Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic calls Cain's loyalty test preposterous since "an actual terrorist would lie." Robert George at Mirror of Justice warns Cain that his challenge to Islamic religious freedom could threaten Catholics. Roger Simon at Politico notes with dismay that "the entire Republican field to date refused to speak out for Muslim-Americans" in Monday's GOP debate. Peter Wehner in Commentary calls on the Republican candidates to condemn Cain's "indiscriminate attacks on American Muslims." And check out the Battle of the Black Conservatives, in which Alan Keyes points out that Cain's proposed test to ascertain Muslims' loyalty to the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.)
http://www.slate.com/id/2296998/
Colored Judgment
Why does Herman Cain think about Muslims the way racists think about blacks?
By William Saletan
Herman Cain
Herman Cain says Republicans should nominate him for president in part because "my candidacy would take race off the table." Cain, a former CEO and president of the National Restaurant Association, is black. Therefore, he argues, he can't be accused of prejudice when he criticizes President Obama.
It's a plausible argument, as far as race goes. But prejudice is bigger than race. Prejudice gets peeled one layer at a time. You give black men the vote but don't see why ladies need it. You open the military to women but can't imagine homosexuals defending your country. You congratulate yourself on being an enlightened liberal even as you ridicule Mormons.
Or, if you're Cain, you rise from segregation and defy black political stereotypes while treating Muslims with the same crude bias that was once applied to you.
Three months ago, Scott Keyes of Think Progress asked Cain: "Would you be comfortable appointing a Muslim, either in your cabinet or as a federal judge?" Cain answered: "No, I will not. And here's why. There is this creeping attempt … to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government. It does not belong in our government."
A few days ago, during the GOP debate in New Hampshire, Cain denied having said this. "The statement was, would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn't appoint one," Cain told John King. "That's the exact transcript."
No, it isn't. The video clearly shows Cain saying, "I will not." If he had been talking about discomfort, he would have said, "I would not." And in case his meaning wasn't clear enough, here's video of him a few days later, saying: "I was asked by a reporter, would I appoint a Muslim to my cabinet? I said no." And again, in another video: "I made the statement that I would not put a Muslim in my cabinet, or in my administration." And again, on Fox News: "A reporter asked me, would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no."
Cain is familiar with this kind of group exclusion. It was done to him 60 years ago. He had to sit in the back of the bus and drink from "colored" water fountains. He graduated second in his high school class but was refused admission by the University of Georgia. It didn't matter how smart Cain was or how hard he worked. He was black, and the white society around him had decided that blacks were inferior. He was treated as a member of a group, not as an individual. In a word, he was prejudged.
Advertisement
Today, the Ku Klux Klan is still around, but its racism has become more sophisticated. It uses data. "The black male is the greatest perpetrator of both petty crimes and violent crimes in the black communities," says a Klan Web site. Even "Jesse Jackson said that when he's walking down the street at night and he hears footsteps behind him, he's relieved to turn around and see a white person instead of a black person." From this, the Klan concludes, "Minorities … as a people (though there are always exceptions to the rule) are incapable of maintaining or even comprehending the rule of law and order."
That's how prejudice works in the information age. You use statistical averages to generate stereotypes and ultimately to justify differential treatment of people by category.
This is what Cain is now doing to Muslims. Last week, Glenn Beck asked him whether Muslims would have to show "loyalty proof" to serve in a Cain administration. Cain said yes. Beck pressed: "Would you do that to a Catholic, or would you do that to a Mormon?" Cain replied: "Nope, I wouldn't. Because there is a greater dangerous part of the Muslim faith than there is in these other religions."
If you measure dangerousness by sympathy for al-Qaida or the belief that suicide bombing can be justified, it's true that Muslims are, on average, more dangerous. It's a silly way to think, since this is just an average, and the percentages are very low. Islamic faith, per se, tells you nothing about the individual. But Cain doesn't want to take chances. "This nation is under attack constantly by people who want to kill all of us," he told CNN's John King shortly after the Beck show. Therefore, Cain concluded, "I am going to take extra precautions if a Muslim person who is competent wants to work in my administration."
The same goes for Sharia. "Many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country," Cain told Neil Cavuto. "Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country. And, so, yes, I did say it [that I wouldn't appoint a Muslim], and that is because I don't have time to be watching someone on my administration if they are not totally committed to the Declaration and the Constitution." On Laura Ingraham's radio show, Cain added: "I don't want any inkling of anybody in my administration who would put Sharia law over American law. … I don't want anybody in my administration that I'm going to have to be looking over my shoulder to figure out if they are going to try to do something against the principles that I believe in."
Hence the loyalty test or, better yet, simple exclusion of Muslims. It spares Cain the trouble of evaluating them individually and eliminates the risk that a bad one might slip through. It saves him time and worry, just as segregation relieved the University of Georgia of having to evaluate Cain's college application.
When Cain was growing up, whites used their majority status not just to hold power but to claim authority. Now Cain is in the Christian majority, and he's leveraging that power to keep Muslims in their place. "We are a Judeo-Christian nation," he told Christianity Today. "One percent of the practicing religious believers in this country are Muslim. And so I push back and reject them trying to convert the rest of us. … I do not want us, as a nation, to lose our Judeo-Christian identity." On Ingraham's show, Cain said of Muslim U.S. Rep. Keith Ellison: "If you take an oath on the Quran, that means that you support Sharia law. I support American law. Our laws were derived from principles that are biblically based." If Cain gets his way, public servants will swear on a holy book, but it'll be Christian: "Anybody that takes the oath of office in a Herman Cain administration will put their hand on the Bible, not the Koran."
Now that Cain has climbed the corporate ladder and is running for president, he faces a new kind of racism: the assumption that a black man must be liberal. Cain ridicules this stereotype. "Some black people can think for themselves," he says.
But Muslims? They all think alike. "I have not found a Muslim that has said that they will denounce Sharia law [and] support the Constitution," Cain told Ingraham. In another interview, he explained: "The reason I made the statement that I would not put a Muslim in my cabinet, or in my administration, is because I want people that are dedicated to the Constitution. … I don't know one Muslim who will denounce Sharia Law and then say that they can support the Constitution."
Herman, you really need to get out more.
Cain's distrust doesn't stop at Muslims. He's skeptical of foreign heritage in general. In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Cain called President Obama "an international" and argued that "he's out of the mainstream and always has been. Look, he was raised in Kenya, his mother was white from Kansas, and her family had an influence on him, it's true, but his dad was Kenyan." Speaking at a Georgia church, Cain recalled the time he went in for surgery with a doctor named Abdallah. Cain asked the doctor's assistant: "That sounds a little foreign. What is that?" She replied: "He's from Lebanon. … But don't worry, he's a Christian." Upon hearing this, Cain told the congregants: "I said Amen. I felt a whole lot better."
But feeling better is exactly the problem. It isn't Cain's discomfort that should worry us. It's his comfort. He thinks he has risen above prejudice. He thinks his experience of discrimination protects him from doing to others what was done to him. He doesn't recognize in himself the same habits of group judgment, blindness to individual differences, and majoritarian claims to national identity.
This doesn't make Cain a bad person. It just means that he, like the rest of us, still has a lot to learn.
(Readings I recommend: Zuhdi Jasser in the Daily Caller urges Cain to distinguish aggressive "Islamists" from Muslims who respect the Constitution. Tim Murphy in Mother Jones debunks Cain's claim that a Texas court allowed Sharia to override U.S. law. Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic calls Cain's loyalty test preposterous since "an actual terrorist would lie." Robert George at Mirror of Justice warns Cain that his challenge to Islamic religious freedom could threaten Catholics. Roger Simon at Politico notes with dismay that "the entire Republican field to date refused to speak out for Muslim-Americans" in Monday's GOP debate. Peter Wehner in Commentary calls on the Republican candidates to condemn Cain's "indiscriminate attacks on American Muslims." And check out the Battle of the Black Conservatives, in which Alan Keyes points out that Cain's proposed test to ascertain Muslims' loyalty to the Constitution is itself unconstitutional.)
6/04/2011
Rhianna is not "shocking"
First, watch this:
For those who can't or won't watch the above, it's the music video for Rhianna. In the video's narrative, Rhianna portrays a happy, about-town type of girl in an area likely reminiscent of her native Barbados. She seems to love her life and over the course of a single day, culminating in a late night street party, she fends off an overly-aggressive dancer. He later finds her and attempts to rape her (or succeeds in raping her, the video is unclear on that point). She runs back to her home, finds a hidden gun, and then stalks her attacker the following day, gunning him down in cold blood.
So, who is pissed? Well, the Parent Television Council, for starters:
This reaction seems puzzling to me. Music has a long history of people expressing the most violent or horrific events found in human nature and, in Rhianna's case, a cathartic way of expressing personal pain. Rhianna's personal history with domestic abuse doesn't give her a pass to show gratuitous and wanton violence, but I personally see no difference between her song (which I actually liked) and that of songs performed by Johnny Cash or Nick Cave:
What is the difference between the above songs/videos and Rhianna's? Males killing females? White people killing white people? I'm not sure what the PTC have against Rhianna's song and video that they couldn't have against decades old music.
It's a song, and an accompanying video for the song. It's a form of artistic expression and as such, it's not subject to some kind of puritanical nonsense which sterilizes the emotion, horror, and violence which is sometimes inherent in expression.
*UPDATE*
After speaking to my wife about this, she reminded me of a similar "controversy" which erupted around a tongue-in-cheek song by the Dixie Chicks:
The message the PTC appears to be sending is that because they apparently cannot control what their children view on television, nor can they adequately explain the difference between fantasy and reality to their own children, the rest of us are equally inept. Further still, their selective outrage over songs depicting violence perpetrated by women against men while ignoring long traditions of male-originated violence in songs, videos, and even poetry suggests their "outrage" isn't genuine but rather confused about the empowerment of women.
The PTC would do better to stop telling the rest of the world what to watch on television and maybe get off their lazy asses and turn their own televisions off.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEhy-RXkNo0
For those who can't or won't watch the above, it's the music video for Rhianna. In the video's narrative, Rhianna portrays a happy, about-town type of girl in an area likely reminiscent of her native Barbados. She seems to love her life and over the course of a single day, culminating in a late night street party, she fends off an overly-aggressive dancer. He later finds her and attempts to rape her (or succeeds in raping her, the video is unclear on that point). She runs back to her home, finds a hidden gun, and then stalks her attacker the following day, gunning him down in cold blood.
So, who is pissed? Well, the Parent Television Council, for starters:
“‘Man Down’ is an inexcusable, shock-only, shoot-and-kill theme song. In my 30 years of viewing BET, I have never witnessed such a cold, calculated execution of murder in primetime. Viacom’s standards and practices department has reached another new low,” said Paul Porter, co-founder of Industry Ears and a former voice of BET. (as reported by PTC)
This reaction seems puzzling to me. Music has a long history of people expressing the most violent or horrific events found in human nature and, in Rhianna's case, a cathartic way of expressing personal pain. Rhianna's personal history with domestic abuse doesn't give her a pass to show gratuitous and wanton violence, but I personally see no difference between her song (which I actually liked) and that of songs performed by Johnny Cash or Nick Cave:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeOPhh_DgPA
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chF244LWWqg
What is the difference between the above songs/videos and Rhianna's? Males killing females? White people killing white people? I'm not sure what the PTC have against Rhianna's song and video that they couldn't have against decades old music.
It's a song, and an accompanying video for the song. It's a form of artistic expression and as such, it's not subject to some kind of puritanical nonsense which sterilizes the emotion, horror, and violence which is sometimes inherent in expression.
*UPDATE*
After speaking to my wife about this, she reminded me of a similar "controversy" which erupted around a tongue-in-cheek song by the Dixie Chicks:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw7gNf_9njs
The message the PTC appears to be sending is that because they apparently cannot control what their children view on television, nor can they adequately explain the difference between fantasy and reality to their own children, the rest of us are equally inept. Further still, their selective outrage over songs depicting violence perpetrated by women against men while ignoring long traditions of male-originated violence in songs, videos, and even poetry suggests their "outrage" isn't genuine but rather confused about the empowerment of women.
The PTC would do better to stop telling the rest of the world what to watch on television and maybe get off their lazy asses and turn their own televisions off.
5/21/2011
Jim Lehrer and Me
I recently had the opportunity to be present for Jim Lehrer's announcement of his semi-retirement from the PBS NewsHour show he has anchored, in various forms, for almost 40 years. Jim is a tireless newsman and his personal code of journalistic ethics is legendary among media outlet:
I was honored to be his guest at the NewsHour HQ for his announcement, as was my iPad 2.
[gallery]
Speaking of my iPad 2, it was the recent guest on the NewsHour, again:
- Do nothing I cannot defend.
- Cover, write, and present every story with the care I would want if the story were about me.
- Assume there is at least one other side or version to every story.
- Assume the viewer is as smart and as caring and as good a person as I am.
- Assume the same about all people on whom I report.
- Assume personal lives are a private matter until a legitimate turn in the story absolutely mandates otherwise.
- Carefully separate opinion and analysis from straight news stories, and clearly label everything.
- Do not use anonymous sources or blind quotes except on rare and monumental occasions.
- No one should ever be allowed to attack another anonymously.
- And finally, I am not in the entertainment business.
I was honored to be his guest at the NewsHour HQ for his announcement, as was my iPad 2.
[gallery]
Speaking of my iPad 2, it was the recent guest on the NewsHour, again:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n82DUbpPgVo
5/10/2011
The Tea Party and Racism
The following video is not only an example of the inherently racial, if not racist thought endemic to the teabaggers, it's also an example of some cognitive dissonance. The man is claiming he isn't a racist while railing against blacks and hispanics.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOKs4UPt2Mw
5/04/2011
Terrorist Watch
The killing of Osama bin Laden and the clues which led US forces to his doorstep provided a welcome and interesting contrast to the methods the Bush administration touted as being essential to investigating would-be terrorists. Specifically, the fact that the clues leading to bin Laden weren't gathered via "enhanced interrogation" methods (AKA torture), but through normal interrogation and good old fashioned detective work.
Yet, one item from the Bush era and the Guantanamo Bay detainees illustrated just how petty and unfocused his team's approaches were:
Yes, merely having an inexpensive, durable, and basic watch like the Casio F-91W was enough to make you a suspect. Which is precisely why I ordered mine the day I heard about this stupid story.
[caption id="attachment_1158" align="aligncenter" width="717" caption="Terror Watch! (hehe, get it? GET IT?!)"]
[/caption]
Yet, one item from the Bush era and the Guantanamo Bay detainees illustrated just how petty and unfocused his team's approaches were:
If al-Qaida could learn anything from the latest classified documents released by WikiLeaks, it would be this: Lose the Casio watch. More specifically, lose the Casio F-91W — either the black plastic or silver bracelet version.
That particular watch came up nearly 150 times in the cache of Guantanamo prisoner assessments from the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo, which made up the bulk of the latest WikiLeaks release. It is clear from a review of those documents that if you have a Casio F-91 (selling for as little as $9.99 on Amazon.com), you're suspect.
Yes, merely having an inexpensive, durable, and basic watch like the Casio F-91W was enough to make you a suspect. Which is precisely why I ordered mine the day I heard about this stupid story.
[caption id="attachment_1158" align="aligncenter" width="717" caption="Terror Watch! (hehe, get it? GET IT?!)"]
[/caption]
Whereas Bush's people were running around checking your clothing accessories, Obama's people followed a much more disciplined and methodical approach to tracking down bad guys, which paid off for Obama's administration far more than it did for Bush. Maybe I will get added to this list of detainees making the fashion faux pas of wearing the same model watch?
5/02/2011
The End of a Boogeyman
Last night, President Obama made a remarkable late night announcement from the White House: Osama bin Laden, the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks in New York and the boogeyman always lurking out there ever since, had been killed in a firefight with US special forces.
The details of this story will be hashed out over the coming days, including the somewhat controversial decision to bury bin Laden's body at sea. For me, the real story was the complex set of emotions which swept through me upon hearing the news. Like most Americans, September 11, 2001 was one which will forever stick in my memory. I know precisely where I was, who I was with, what my plans for the day were prior to them abruptly being only to sit glued to a television watching the events unfold. I remember the blind anger I felt that day, the horrifying abyss of shared terror and sadness as I watched first the people fall from the towers and then the towers themselves come down with everyone who was left still trapped inside.
I remember riding in the passenger seat of my little Geo Tracker as my mother drove me to get my driver's license reinstated (stupid speeding tickets) and upon hearing that the second plane had hit on the radio, pounding the dashboard of the tiny truck in rage. From there, it was years of knowing Osama bin Laden had escaped our grasp for his crime. The most powerful nation on the planet and he managed to give us a bloody nose and then elude capture and justice.
Until this weekend.
Thus, it wasn't surprising to me that spontaneous celebrations erupted among college students in DC around the White House, with similar reports elsewhere, such as Times Square in NYC. These kids are young, 18 years old or so and up. For them, bin Laden has dominated their youth and young adulthood. He was the boogeyman they came to fear when, at around age 8, they saw their parents stricken with grief and a nation mourning. They heard the news stories of the bad man who did it and how he was still out there. They watched as people on TV discussed possibly seeing bin Laden in the same conspiratorial and sometimes hyperbolic way people discuss seeing Bigfoot and other monsters. For these college kids, Osama bin Laden was a childhood terror now destroyed. Being 36 years old now, I can both sympathize with the psychological load off their minds and reflect on the nuance of what this actually means for the US and the rest of the world.
While I share some of their relief in seeing the man ended, I would have still preferred he be caught, tried, convicted, and locked in a cage for as long as we could keep him alive. Death was too good for him and I have no assurance of a hell existing for him to be punished in. Instead, I accept the actions of our servicemen and their Commander in Chief in bringing an end to a decade of bump in the night, fear-based politics, and closing a chapter too many people had opened in their lives one fateful September day.
The details of this story will be hashed out over the coming days, including the somewhat controversial decision to bury bin Laden's body at sea. For me, the real story was the complex set of emotions which swept through me upon hearing the news. Like most Americans, September 11, 2001 was one which will forever stick in my memory. I know precisely where I was, who I was with, what my plans for the day were prior to them abruptly being only to sit glued to a television watching the events unfold. I remember the blind anger I felt that day, the horrifying abyss of shared terror and sadness as I watched first the people fall from the towers and then the towers themselves come down with everyone who was left still trapped inside.
I remember riding in the passenger seat of my little Geo Tracker as my mother drove me to get my driver's license reinstated (stupid speeding tickets) and upon hearing that the second plane had hit on the radio, pounding the dashboard of the tiny truck in rage. From there, it was years of knowing Osama bin Laden had escaped our grasp for his crime. The most powerful nation on the planet and he managed to give us a bloody nose and then elude capture and justice.
Until this weekend.
Thus, it wasn't surprising to me that spontaneous celebrations erupted among college students in DC around the White House, with similar reports elsewhere, such as Times Square in NYC. These kids are young, 18 years old or so and up. For them, bin Laden has dominated their youth and young adulthood. He was the boogeyman they came to fear when, at around age 8, they saw their parents stricken with grief and a nation mourning. They heard the news stories of the bad man who did it and how he was still out there. They watched as people on TV discussed possibly seeing bin Laden in the same conspiratorial and sometimes hyperbolic way people discuss seeing Bigfoot and other monsters. For these college kids, Osama bin Laden was a childhood terror now destroyed. Being 36 years old now, I can both sympathize with the psychological load off their minds and reflect on the nuance of what this actually means for the US and the rest of the world.
While I share some of their relief in seeing the man ended, I would have still preferred he be caught, tried, convicted, and locked in a cage for as long as we could keep him alive. Death was too good for him and I have no assurance of a hell existing for him to be punished in. Instead, I accept the actions of our servicemen and their Commander in Chief in bringing an end to a decade of bump in the night, fear-based politics, and closing a chapter too many people had opened in their lives one fateful September day.
4/29/2011
GOP Between Scylla and Charybdis
As the 2012 election seasons starts to warm up slowly, a few "issues" have emerged ahead of time which seem to fascinate the right wing. Donald Trump's carnival barking about Pres. Obama's birth certificate has brought the birthers their much sought after day in the sun.
"At last!" they exclaimed, "someone is taking us seriously and now the rest of the country will too!"
The problem for them, however, was the Obama is a masterful campaigner, despite whatever one might believe about his ability as president. The man plays a deep game. So, what does he do? He provides the very document the birthers (and Trump) claimed to have wanted. The birthers thus have a choice: accept the document and hold their heads high with intellectual honesty that their fears were abated or construct elaborate new conspiracies about the very document they requested.
Guess which route they chose.
Thus, the birthers expose themselves in their shining moment for the crazies they were from the beginning. Donald Trump, their hero, was tacitly called a "carnival barker" by the most powerful man in the world, and all their claims about wanting a specific document as the proof positive were shown to be false since even that didn't satisfy them.
So, what is a potential GOP nominee to do? He (or she) has two choices in this:
1. Embrace the birther, even mildly, and keep their hope alive that they still have a potential voice in the national conversation. This results in likely tepid interest in such a candidate from the independent and moderate voters out there. The candidate now bears the taint of crazy.
2. Reject the birther claims and then pray to whatever god he (or she) holds dear that the birthers don't rally their teabagger friends to leverage some weight at the GOP convention.
Maybe Romney's Mormonism, Huckabee's bad decisions, Gingrich's infidelity, and Pawlenty's utter lack of anything resembling a personality will be the least of their worries...
[caption id="attachment_1150" align="aligncenter" width="436" caption="Guess which side has the birthers?"]
[/caption]
"At last!" they exclaimed, "someone is taking us seriously and now the rest of the country will too!"
The problem for them, however, was the Obama is a masterful campaigner, despite whatever one might believe about his ability as president. The man plays a deep game. So, what does he do? He provides the very document the birthers (and Trump) claimed to have wanted. The birthers thus have a choice: accept the document and hold their heads high with intellectual honesty that their fears were abated or construct elaborate new conspiracies about the very document they requested.
Guess which route they chose.
Thus, the birthers expose themselves in their shining moment for the crazies they were from the beginning. Donald Trump, their hero, was tacitly called a "carnival barker" by the most powerful man in the world, and all their claims about wanting a specific document as the proof positive were shown to be false since even that didn't satisfy them.
So, what is a potential GOP nominee to do? He (or she) has two choices in this:
1. Embrace the birther, even mildly, and keep their hope alive that they still have a potential voice in the national conversation. This results in likely tepid interest in such a candidate from the independent and moderate voters out there. The candidate now bears the taint of crazy.
2. Reject the birther claims and then pray to whatever god he (or she) holds dear that the birthers don't rally their teabagger friends to leverage some weight at the GOP convention.
Maybe Romney's Mormonism, Huckabee's bad decisions, Gingrich's infidelity, and Pawlenty's utter lack of anything resembling a personality will be the least of their worries...
[caption id="attachment_1150" align="aligncenter" width="436" caption="Guess which side has the birthers?"]
[/caption]
4/28/2011
FactCheck.org Worth Revisiting Regarding Birthers
The birthers are recycling some of the same arguments they used when Obama released his birth certificate back in 2007. Specifically, they are honing in on his father's race, listed as "African". Trouble is, like the requirement for a "long form birth certificate", they are making up a standard which doesn't apply. The parents' racial identity isn't identified for them. It's not like some nurse is looking at the parents and deciding what their race is going to be listed as. That's the language of racial separatists and another clue as to what Something Else might be motivating the birthers apart from sincere disbelief.
When my daughter was born, I was asked what ethnicity I am. I am descended from German, Swiss, Irish, and Native American gene lines, but have an olive skin tone. I listed my race as "white". Obama's listed his as "African", which makes perfect sense in the burgeoning civil rights movement, in an ethnically diverse place like Hawaii, and the African identity notion sweeping through at that time.
Don't believe me? Well, once again, the state of Hawaii had to correct everyone on its own procedures once again:
Via FactCheck.org:
When my daughter was born, I was asked what ethnicity I am. I am descended from German, Swiss, Irish, and Native American gene lines, but have an olive skin tone. I listed my race as "white". Obama's listed his as "African", which makes perfect sense in the burgeoning civil rights movement, in an ethnically diverse place like Hawaii, and the African identity notion sweeping through at that time.
Don't believe me? Well, once again, the state of Hawaii had to correct everyone on its own procedures once again:
Via FactCheck.org:
Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be."
Birthers Behaving Badly
Via Buzzfeed, we get the following reactions from the birthers/teabaggers to yesterday's release of Obama's "long form" birth certificate. As predicted, giving them precisely what they want doesn't satisfy them. Suffice it to say, the real crazy is yet to be seen.
Click on a thumbnail to see the whole image. Keep in mind, these are real responses from real people. Laugh or cry, these folks are out there and they are allowed to vote and own guns and drive cars on the roads.
[gallery]
Click on a thumbnail to see the whole image. Keep in mind, these are real responses from real people. Laugh or cry, these folks are out there and they are allowed to vote and own guns and drive cars on the roads.
[gallery]
[caption id="attachment_1144" align="aligncenter" width="708" caption="Seriously, Fox isn't even trying any longer to hide their schilling for the GOP."]
And for a humorous look at how birthers probably view the newly released document, here is something which might be considered real, given the above examples, if I didn't specifically state that it's a joke:
[caption id="attachment_1145" align="aligncenter" width="630" caption="Looks fake to me!"]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
