Who Is Like The Beast?

Remember when Speaker Pelosi walked arm and arm in a Civil Rights March across Independence Avenue, from the House buildings over to the Capitol. In three years, I have never seen Nancy Pelosi cross the street the way that you saw in that picture. They deliberately went through that crowd, perhaps to try and incite something.

- Michelle Bachmann

If she was really worried about violence and she thought these people were violent, why would you grab a big hammer and walk into a sea of people?

Did anyone say to Nancy Pelosi, "You're inciting violence. You're slapping them across the face"?

- Glenn Beck

They faked - they were trying to provoke an incident. There's no reason to walk above ground to get to the Capitol building from their offices. There's tunnels underneath with trains, subways, and so forth. They're purpose - send the Congressional Black Caucus to walk over, send Pelosi over there with a big gavel, trying to provoke an incident.

- Rush Limbaugh

Listen, I know the three people listed above can in no way really be described as serious people in search of an honest debate on the issues. But one of the things I found so interesting in their various statements was how close these come to some classic rape apologia statements - you know, the ones that go, "She shouldn't have been there", "Did you see how she was dressed?" "She obviously wanted it", etc.

I especially find it interesting how the act of crossing the street, whether or not Speaker Pelosi does so often, is deemed indefensible here.

There is something happening in this vision of reality that seems to claim any and all negative actions taken against a person should be that person's responsibility. Even if all she did was cross a street when a bunch of protesters were out there showing their might.

There is something else that I find strange here as well, and that is this idea that not allowing a protest to effect your actions - or to not respond in the manner desired by the protesters - is suddenly a call to incite violence.

If Michelle Bachmann is right and Nancy Pelosi truly never has "cross[ed] the street the way that you saw" before, then what she seems to have been doing is creating a demonstration of her own. Not a show of force, no matter what Limbaugh and Beck think about her big gavel. But a demonstration of determination, a demonstration that she and those with her were not going to be bullied or be shamed for what they saw as a necessary vote for needed legislation - no matter how much they wanted/didn't want that was left out/put in the bill.

In effect, Nancy Pelosi seemed to be giving a clear message to the protesters, and to those people like Beck and Bachmann. That message was that she was proud of her accomplishments and her vote, and she was not going to be scared underground because there were people above ground who didn't like it and who didn't want to see her walk to the Capitol Building.

Frankly, it was a message that she deserved to walk up to that particular building in the light of day just as much as they deserved to demonstrate outside that building in the light of day. That she and her rights weren't dissolved simply because this group didn't like her and her ilk very much.

And if that very action was seen as a provocation, if hanging onto a giant gavel that was first used when Medicare was passed while walking was a horrible indignity those protesting and those commenting favorably on the protests, then the problem lies more with them than with her.

She was just, you know, doing her thing. Walking along. Being proud.

Too often, doing your thing, walking along, being proud, carrying a giant gavel is used as an explanation for someone else's actions.

Hopefully, enough people will see how silly this line of thinking is when it comes to someone like Nancy Pelosi and the passage of healthcare, and think back on that giant gavel. Hopefully, enough people will see how silly this line of thinking is when someone is walking down a street, and recognize that simply the act of living is in no way something that prompts an angry, violent response.

There are the things Nancy Pelosi talks about, when she brought up her experiences in 1970s San Francisco, that could be used, by some, as a balance, a sort of, "You're all hypocrites" and "the Left talks about provocations to violence too, so she shouldn't have walked there".

For the record, Pelosi has said, "I think we all have to take responsibility for our actions and our words. We are a free country and this balance between freedom and safety is one that we have to carefully balance... ...But again, our country is great because people can say what they think and believe. But I also think they have to take responsibility for any incitement they may cause."

And a person could claim that Pelosi is simply getting hit from the Right with essentially the same stick she advocates for here. I don't think so, though. Because there is a difference between walking to a place you have to go anyway, and speaking in such a way that could incite violence. There is a difference between carrying a comically large gavel, and, say, a blogger who urges his readership to break DNC office windows in an attempt to avoid a larger - armed - conflict.

I happen to agree with Pelosi's statement. I'm a free speech advocate, but I also believe in a speaker's responsibility - along with the responsibility of the rest of us to call out speech we find to be unsavory. I am a fan of verbal self-restraint, though that may astonish anyone who has heard me babble for any length of time. I'm a fan of recognizing the power your words hold, and realizing the effect those words may have on an audience. I'm not a fan of the government making that line, and forming those distinctions.

I started this out by making allusions between rape apologia and what these three right-wing people said about Speaker Pelosi's march on the Capitol Building. But what I find interesting is that in these cases, it isn't merely that there are more often than not marginalized bodies involved. It is the weirdly fatalistic viewpoint. In rape apologia, a lot of the criticism comes down to Doing Something While Female. And in this, there may be more than a little of Being Speaker While Female.

But there is also this idea that we should beware of waking the foul Beast. Because the Beast cannot be controlled, should not be expected to control the urge compelling violence. All we can hope to do is not anger the Beast, to not draw the Beast's attention to us, to creep around as quietly as we possibly can and make as few waves as possible, lest we attract the Beast's attention. And if you do? If you awaken the Beast, if you are attacked or hurt or raped? It is obviously your fault. Because the Beast is nothing but a force compelled to action. To hold the Beast accountable would be foolhardy, and besides, only those people stupid enough to not follow Teh Rules get attacked. There's never this compulsion that maybe, just maybe, we should do something about the Beast itself. That maybe walking to work, even if there are angry people afoot, shouldn't be something that can be used to scold someone for provoking some sort of negative action, should that negative action arise. But no.

Playground Politics, David Brooks, and the Al Qaeda Seven

JIM LEHRER: Let's go to another dispute, the so-called Al Qaeda Seven. Liz Cheney and her group criticized some justice department lawyers, because they once represented some Guantanamo detainees. Where do you come down on that?

DAVID BROOKS: Ah, well, I think the ad, which sort of accused whose values do they have - do they have Al Qaeda or Taliban values, I thought it was tremendously unfortunate. I mean, it's just part of a long range of corrosive language. And to be fair to Liz Cheney, if you Google "Taliban" and "Liz Cheney", millions of people have called her a member of the Taliban and made similar charges.

PBS Newshour, 3/12/10

You know what mentality I have always hated? Since elementary school hated? The idea that just because someone once picked on you, once kicked your lunch box, once pushed you down, once cut you in line, once made your life hell, it somehow gave you license to do the same. In elementary school through high school, the idea was as soon as you got to the exalted grade of the kids who were picking on you, you could then pick on the kids who occupied the grade you were in now. It was, and is, a stupid idea. Picking on the freshman as a senior does nothing to the senior who picked on you. It just continues a cycle of meaningless and ridiculous abuse, for no other reason than because you had to deal with it and you refused to be the last one.

It is a simple-minded, mean mentality. It depends on making someone else a victim in order for the former victim to be the victor, to feel powerful.

It is an immature philosophy and displays a distinct lack of empathy. It is also what David Brooks suggests we use in order to "be fair" to Liz Cheney.

Brooks is probably right; any other week, if you were to Google "Liz Cheney" and "Taliban", you would probably garner a lot of hits comparing the two. Right now, though, most of the hits are about the ad itself and Brooks' defense of Cheney. In a normal week, a lot of those would be malicious. Most would be blatantly false. I'm saying "a lot" and "most", because I'm sure there are also pages ripping apart those other pages and defending Cheney.

You know what else? I'd bet my teeth that none of those people calling Liz Cheney a member of the Taliban are from the Department of Justice. You know, the people Liz Cheney is now directly comparing to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Funny thing, that. Funny how the school mentality can still be defended by those well into their forties when employed by people getting toward the middling of their own fortieth decade.

There is no "being fair" to Liz Cheney when she blatantly uses her non profit to disseminate the exact same tactic being so egregiously used against herself and her own father.

There should only be condemnation for so spectacularly failing to progress past the idea that passing along this sort of mean-spirited and completely baseless accusation to a whole new wave of victims. David Brooks thinks there is some sort of balance that has been reached here: Liz Cheney was attacked by someone, so she gets to attack someone else with that as part of her excuse. Sorry, but no. And that sort of rationalization calls Brooks' own assessing skills into question as well.

The other thing that gets me is how neither Jim Lehrer nor Mark Shields makes this argument; Shields should have mentioned that the DoJ lawyers probably weren't the ones slandering Liz Cheney all over the interwebs. And then he should have mentioned that even if they were, that still does not excuse Cheney's sinking to their level.

Because that is the other very real issue here. When has it become appropriate in the public discourse to pull what is essentially a "I know you are, but what am I?" smack down? This is beyond concerning. This says that somehow, no one progresses past elementary school (a thought I've often had and feared, and now discover may be the abject truth of the matter). And that? Is unacceptable.

Making excuses for Liz Cheney, calling an ad tremendously unfortunate instead of calling it out for what it is - a baseless, fear-mongering attack ad - does not make one a member of polite society. Couching one's statements and one's bets doesn't make one the better person.

And, no, the ad in question doesn't sort of accuse. It does accuse, full stop. The fact that Brooks can't even make that statement without waffling, and the fact that no one corrects him, makes me worry.

Dear Mr. Douthat,

You write,

I find it hard to believe that you’d be seeing this level of right-of-center enthusiasm if Obama had postponed cap-and-trade, avoided taking over GM, compromised more significantly on the stimulus, and taken the incremental route to health insurance expansion that Reihan Salam discusses here.

Really? Are you sure, Mr. Douthat? Because considering the amount of "Obama is gleefully bringing us to the end of the world!1!11!!1!!" expressed in some corners of the cable news channels and in the blogosphere, and how that has continually happened since the man first began making real headway in the polls en route to becoming president, I call bullshite on this. I'm not going to say that all of the right-of-center enthusiasm is due to race; I think a lot of it is due to fear of The Other - the same thing that made John Kennedy a suspicious figure in 1960.

In other words, what is energizing the Right and the Far Far On the Fringes Right isn't the fact that Obama is a liberal. It is that they perceive him to be an Ultra Liberal, one step behind being a socialist, Marxist, atheist; the truth of the matter is that Obama is left-of-center, but far more interested in reaching centrist solutions than he is in making the world in his Liberal image. The man is a compromiser. That is the reason the single payer proponents didn't even get a seat at the table when the healthcare discussion began. That is the reason he has tried to woo people like Chuck Grassley and Olympia Snowe. That is the reason he chose to simply bail out the banks, instead of using their teetering as the reason to break them into smaller entities; or initializing a government take over as liberaler economists like Simon Johnson (formerly of the IMF and current blogger at The Baseline Scenario) said was the only solution not guaranteed to fail (he later admitted his error on This American Life, after being called on it by one Adam Davidson). This could just be a crafty political move; but in truth, I think Obama hangs by the adage that the best solution is the one that leaves everyone at the table a bit grouchy.

So, what is energizing the Right isn't Obama, but the specter of an Obama that doesn't truly exist. For a long time now, I've pretty much thought that since Obama is going to be seen as Liberaller than the Liberalist Liberal by swaths of those on the right and those who just don't like him very much (unless the reason for not liking him lies in the fact that he isn't, actually, Liberaller than the Liberalist Liberal), he should have just gone hog wild and been that liberal hero of which the left has often dreamt. But that just isn't who he is; or, at the very least, it isn't how he has chosen to govern. And really, Mr. Douthat, if you think that Obama's liberalish impulses are what is causing the huge upswell on the Right, how do you explain this:

What’s really killing the Democrats, and what’s likely to hurt them the most come next November, is the growing enthusiasm gap — and its implications for candidate recruitment, fundraising, turnout, and all the rest.

If Obama really was the liberal candidate the left had dreamed of and the Right is using as a boogeyman, then there would be no enthusiasm gap. The progressive base would be just as enthusiastic about getting out the vote as the right is now. The problem is, again, that Obama just isn't that guy. He was never that guy. He is a capable guy; an inspiring guy; a guy who has acted as a change agent just by being elected, due to his heritage. I'll bet dollars to donuts he's going to be a great president. But he isn't the liberal's dream. And so, the liberal, knowing this, isn't too excited. The progressive isn't going to get comprehensive banking reform; isn't going to get a Public Option; isn't going to get a dismantling of a broken healthcare system; isn't going to get supports for the middle class; isn't going to get a bill that doesn't start out already compromised; is upset by the Stupack-Pitts Amendment; and is pissed that Don't Ask, Don't Tell still has not been repealed.

Obama's problem isn't that he is too liberal or isn't liberal enough - though I would definitely prefer if the man were to enact policies that were inherently more liberal, myself. It is how the world perceived him, and how part of that world perceives him still.

Obama's problem isn't that he is too liberal and if he'd only moved incrementally, he wouldn't have a backlash. It is that people like Sarah Palin are the idols of the Right; and their prescriptions tend to be, "Do nothing. Wait. Repeat".

Obama's problem is that the only people who seem to be riding high right now are those in banking, when the conventional wisdom is that banking is what brought the world to its economic knees, when banks are still foreclosing on houses and turning ordinary people out into the streets.

Mr. Douthat, you say,

I think it would behoove liberals to give serious consideration to the more direct explanation — namely, that some of the anti-Obama backlash has to do with Americans discovering, after an enormous Democratic sweep, that they preferred liberalism much more in theory than in practice.

I say, helping maintain the status quo, in terms of the banks especially, isn't a particularly liberal philosophy. You say some of the anti-Obama backlash is due to people figuring out they don't really like liberalism. I say the anti-Obama backlash is because the guy didn't turn out to be the messiah. I say, the anti-Obama backlash is because ordinary people still don't feel as if their interests are being served, and yet they see bankers walking away with million dollar bonuses. And what they see is the status quo in politics, the status quo on Wall Street, and the status quo in the big firms where the hot shots make the money. And the only people who are not reaching that status quo is what they see as the ordinary citizen.

Democrats were swept into Congress as much because they weren't Republicans as because they were Democrats. Democrats had to prove, and prove quickly, they were different than the Republicans, that they weren't beholden to the same moneyed interests, that they could make a difference and that they would make a difference for the average citizen. Democrats are, I'm sad to say, failing that test. More than not liking big proposals, I'm willing to wager the ordinary American citizen doesn't like big proposals that dawdle in the halls of Congress, not getting passed and then becoming progressively worse until they pass with absolutely no one happy, or just fade away.

But really, Obama's real problem, the real reason there is an enthusiasm gap, is because it is frickin' hard to govern. Especially when the other side won't play. And so, it is infinitely easier to work up enthusiasm when your side is out of power - because you don't have to make compromises and can tell tales about how much better your side would be handling things without having to offer proof. Meanwhile, the other side is stuck actively making and eating the head cheese. Which, honestly, is much, much harder to be happy about.

Letters To My Editor: No One Deserves A Trial Edition

So, I'm going to write about a letter to my paper's editor, and you're going to have to take in on faith I'm not making it up because in order to pull it on-line you need a user name and password. And I'm pretty sure you have to subscribe, so... Here's the letter, entitled Terrorists Don't Deserve U.S. Justice:

How does U.S. government figure the Christmas bombing attempt on Northwest Flight 259 was a failure? It accomplished what al-Qaida wanted. Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice. They should be executed as soon as the plane lands. We could use the money on more important things.

First, some minor grammatical grievances. This sentence:

Whether it brought down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial

makes very little sense.

It could read:

Although it did not succeed in bringing down the plane, Americans will spend millions to put the would-be bomber on trial.

An added sentence about how one of al-Qaeda's stated goals is to bleed America dry would have really improved the sentiment.

But the real problem, aside from the fact that the letter writer seems to be cribbing off of Bill O'Reilly without giving O'Reilly his proper due, lies in the philosophical assertion of the letter, that being:

He, shoe-bomber Richard Reid and those wackos in Gitmo do not deserve American justice.

I'll let Keith Olbermann - because I am into giving props when props are due - take the reins about one of the real problems with this argument (relevant part transcribed below):

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS BILL O'REILLY): "Simply put, al-Qaeda thugs have no rights, none. They should be killed on the spot. And they are being killed by the drones. So if they're captured, they should undergo harsh interrogation and be placed in military prisons."

KEITH OLBERMANN (SPEAKING AS HIMSELF): Okay, were you planning to still put them in the military prisons after you kill them on the spot, or do you need to rephrase your plan? Seriously, Bill, we need to walk you through the idea of why we have trials? Ultimately, why we ask questions first and shoot later? It's not about rights, it's not about who's a thug, it's not about how much sadistic joy you and the sickos like you from the thought of "harsh interrogation". It's so we get the right guy. Mankind figured this out thousands of years ago, and we replaced that old method of "kill them then ask them if they're guilty" because the dead men proved to be mediocre at answering questions! And then it also turned out that often we were killing the wrong guys which is inconvenient! Especially for them!

But, aside from the inconvenient aspect of killing the innocent, there is a not so insignificant fact that applying an impartial judicial system is one of those key things that sets us apart from those who wish to terrorize us. Applying our rule of law to those who would indiscriminately kill, allowing for the fact that our values system is strong enough and significant enough and, perhaps most importantly, sacred enough to try and convict those who are guilty, and try and set free those who are found not guilty.

Because even though Olbermann is right that it isn't wholly about rights, it is at least somewhat about rights. Because the judicial system isn't set up for the government to reign supreme. It has been set up in favor of the defendant. Because the guilty aren't the only ones accused; but also because the guilty have the fundamental right of due process as well. Partly, that is to protect the innocent, because if the guilty are not worthy of trial by jury then the whole process by which we decide who is indeed innocent gets a bit truncated. And then we circle back to a lot of the wrong people dying, which - again - is inconvenient.

Perhaps my Letter Writer means only al-Qaeda terrorists don't deserve American justice. Perhaps those others who break the law are still subject to the rule of law, as long as they aren't Islamic extremists. That may be where his line is drawn. But that doesn't mean that's where everyone's line is drawn. Maybe someone else's line for which crimes deserve a fair trial is less broad than "everyone who isn't engaged in terrorism for the benefit of al-Qaeda"; maybe someone else's line encompasses those who drive while texting, or who kill anyone for any reason. And that's really why denying the American system of justice to one group you personally don't like, even if it saves a bundle of cash, is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard - because it rests predominately on the idea that everyone else will agree that this subset of criminal is the subset that does not deserve to go through due process and be subject to Amendments 5 through 8.

Let's take in that number for a sec, shall we? Our Founders felt that the whole criminal and civil trial thing was so important, they chose to utilize four whole amendments out of the original ten to explicitly setting down rules for how trials should be set up. Four. It is inconceivable to me that those who purport to love our country so much they want to kill anyone on our soil immediately who allegedly engaged in an act of terrorism could so willfully ignore the very words of our Constitution. For all the talk about how actually trying these people plays into the terrorists' hands, those same people do little to engage with the notion that ignoring those parts of our society that makes it our society because we're scared or angry or vengeful does more harm than it does good. Because it fundamentally alters our society, and not for the better. Because it ignores that the justice system isn't there to exonerate the innocent. It is there to provide rights to the guilty.

Bill O'Reilly Threatens to Come to Kent, CT

An excerpt from the Republican-American (a paper we will probably no longer be getting, as my mother refuses to not read the Opinion section, and then seethes with rage at the opinions expressed there - which is good for the NY Times, or possibly the Hartford Courant) article Fox's O'Reilly chides Kent in 9-11 Tribute Spat:

Fox News talk show host Bill O'Reilly has taken aim at the town of Kent for refusing to grant a local man's wish that a town memorial to his son, who was killed in the Sept. 11 attacks, should read: "Murdered by Muslim Terrorists."

I'm down with Kent's First Selectman Ruth S. Epstein here when she rightly points out, "He can do whatever he wants on his own property".

But what Mr. Gadiel (the local man in question) wants to do is to use the collective's money - and the collective's property - to put forth his own beliefs. If Bill O'Reilly wants to come to Kent and explain to Epstein and others why that is an appropriate use of town funds, all the more power to him. It is his First Amendment right to do so, and it is Mr. Gadiel's First Amendment right to pony up the money for his own memorial, separate from the town's, on his own lawn and with his own message. But it is not within his rights to demand the town spend its money, and donate its land, for that message. And to suggest otherwise, to suggest that the individual has a right to the collective's money, for the individual's own purpose and gain, well, that seems like an idea that runs counter to most Republican philosophy when it comes to taxation.

Dear Conservatives,

I was going to start this off with "in all likelihood", but no. A stronger statement is needed.

Thomas Paine would not be your ally. Not now, and very probably not ever.

Paine was a radical liberal. Paine was a fan of the progressive tax. Paine was a (strong) critic of religion, and especially of Christianity. Paine was a Deist, just like George Washington. Paine was a proponent of a guaranteed minimum wage. Paine was a believer in the redistribution of wealth - as well as an old age pension.

And, he was a fan of the French.

Please, for the love of my sanity, find another Founding Father. One who wasn't quite so prolific in publishing oppositional writing to your views.

What Was The National Review Thinking?!

There is so much "no" in this one cover, it's kind of hard to even begin to formulate a coherent thought. Let's start with this one: The National Review, though  a beacon for actual, intellectual conservative thought for much of its tenure, has in recent years given itself seemingly entirely to a branch of Republicanism and conservative thought not worth the paper on which it is printed. This cover is an example of that particular trend, and it is a shortcut example of why the Republican Party and conservatism in general is becoming more and more the party of white, southern men and not all that appealing to almost anyone else. After all, this image conflates one distinct minority group with another distinct minority group. Talk about a "all you people look the same" racist moment in action.

The very use of Buddhism as the natural implementation of wisdom is also highly problematic, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it propagates the notion of Asians as inherently wise, as inherently spiritual, as inherently Buddhist. It makes wisdom for minorities dependent on an external function, whereas if it were a white man in the picture, the link to spirituality would not be necessary to highlight his wisdom; and if his wisdom was linked to a religion, it would most likely be his own instead of the religion we stereotype as exemplifying wisdom.

Buddhism used in relation to Sotomayor's wisdom is yet another clusterfuck of racism. The 'wise [Catholic] Latina' can't be represented as wise through an image that relates to any aspect of her person or heritage; no, it can only be understood by appropriating the popular image of Buddhism, and by extension Asians. Buddhists can be seen as wise, Asians can be seen as wise, but Latinas on their own cannot be automatically seen as wise. And in making Sotomayor in the image of a South Asian Buddhist monk in a decidedly un Puerto Rican or Bronx-like environment, the cover erases Sotomayor's own life, the life that led to the "wise Latina" remark in the first place.

"We are not Guantanamo"

I've been busy watching my men's team getting their asses handed to them, my women's team making it to the National Championship game undefeated (We're #1!), and the team that took down my men's team being decimated. Though to be fair, that last one hasn't really concluded yet. Let's just say that it isn't looking good for Michigan. In the course of all that, though, is this incredible take down by Rachel Maddow from friday:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This is righteous anger at its finest. Maddow manages to come off as both hopping mad and coolly analytical. Emotional, yet logical. And the points she makes are the points that should be drilled home in regard to national security and international policy for years to come. The Dick Cheneys of the world only make it harder for the United States to not only be the great nation we can be - one that actually abides by its own rule of law - but they also make it harder for us as a nation to protect our own citizens. They make it harder for us to truly make a difference in the world.

Glenn Beck's Tears

I'm working on a rather large project, inspired by the SXSW band statistics. This may or may not work; it may or may not come to pass. In the interim though, while I'm still full of boundless optimism, watch Colbert take on Glenn Beck:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The 10/31 Project
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

I have one question. Well, I have many questions. But the main one is this: How did this man become a conservative icon? He starts crying all the time! That isn't manly. How can one be considered a conservative manly man if you're tearing up every five seconds?

The Highs and Lows of Keith Olbermann

Keith Olbermann has a lot of highs and a lot (like, a lot) of lows as well. These two are really just from last night's broadcast, because I was particularly struck by them as I drove into work this morning. First, Olbermann talks about the part contraceptives play in President Obama's budget:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The relevant part for me being:

And yes, all ye puritans among us, America will pay for contraceptives. Taxpayer dollars for evil condoms and horrible birth control pills. Contraceptives that states already have the option of providing for low-income fornicators. Fornication that would otherwise lead to untold, unwanted pregnancies, unwanted babies, unwanted abortions, unwanted drains on families, unwanted drains on, yes, the national economy. The congressional budget office estimates that $200 million saved in 5 years thanks to, yup, contraceptives and family planning.

I kind of feel like he should have been talking to Chris Matthews about how the government helping to prevent unwanted pregnancies (and diseases) is so completely different than a government working to "regulate the amount of kids people might be in the mood for".

And yet, on the top of this rather concise illustration for why contraceptives aren't completely out of place in a government concerned about budgetary issues and the quality of life for its citizens, Olbermann was just off the friggin' wall with this:

[Limbaugh] apologizes - or analogizes - the 'I want Obama to fail' to rooting for the Steelers in the Super Bowl, except - and you would think that a self-professed football expert would know - that the Steelers' coach and the Steelers' owner campaigned for Obama and they did so to such an extent that the second person the team owner, who was a Republican, thanked after they won the Super Bowl was Barack Obama. Does this suggest that this internecine battle is rattling Limbaugh to some degree?

This insane ramblings interrupt a segment of Chris Hayes:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

This sort of eyerollingly ridiculous explanation of a pretty simplistic analogy is one of the things that makes Keith Olbermann seem unhinged. Instead of recognizing the analogy for what it is, rooting for the winner instead of the loser, Olbermann makes it about which football team supported which candidate.

Chris Hayes Is A Dork

I love the guy, and look forward to his editorials in The Nation with glee, but he is also totally a dork:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I actually think his dorkatude works to his advantage. It may just be that he fails to use contractions when he says, "I am obviously being sarcastic". It may have been more annoying had he'd said "I'm obviously being sarcastic", but the combination of that statement when it was indeed obvious and the lack of contraction really makes it.

Now, onto more important things; I'm starting to believe that what Chris Hayes says is correct, that many of the Republicans who have reached the upper echelons of their party's leadership have decided that the best way to win back some power in America would be to stymie Democratic attempts to fix America. If they obstruct many pieces of legislation, or, you know, the sitting of a senator, then they are playing on the hopes that it fails and that they can point out its failure in 2010 or 2012 without mentioning the part their obstruction could have potentially played in that failure. I have no doubt that Norm Coleman really wants to be Minnesota's senator. But really, at a certain point in time it is more than appropriate to throw in the old towel; and this, along with Republicans voting against the stimulus bill and then bragging about all the goodies they got in it, along with continued Republican lies about organizations like ACORN and what was actually in that stimulus bill, makes me a might bit suspicious.

The game many Republicans are now playing seems directly related to the game they play in regard to national security. I live in a blue state - not a blue dog state, just a true blue one. Our Republicans are for things like gun control laws and abortion rights (not that we have any more on the national scene), that's how blue we are. And even I have heard and seen plenty of talk about how Bush kept us safe for 8 years, because after 9/11 there hadn't been another terrorist attack. The problem with that is two-fold; it is trying to prove a negative in that it is trying to create a correlation between the policies that have ostensibly proven to create more terrorists with the fact that we have not had a terrorist attack, and it is playing the numbers game. There is no way to keep America perfectly safe, especially now that we've (we've) destabilized a nation in an already tumultuous region and tortured people; we can keep America fairly safe, even very safe. But what the Bush administration and those who have fixed upon their talking points have done is to ensure a climate where any hint of terrorism under Obama equals a fail for him, even if those engaged in terrorism had turned to terrorism because of Bush era policies. And that is as intellectually disingenuous as it is politically savvy. 

A less politically savvy aspect of this "My country when it thinks I'm right, but I hope it fails when it thinks I'm wrong" are things like Sean Hannity's poll asking what kind of rebellion his followers would prefer against the country, and Rush Limbaugh hoping out loud and often that President Obama fails; but the presence of such ideas in the overall dialogue lends credence to the thought that the other obstructionist stuff may be less based on principles and more on politics. It doesn't prove anything, but it sure does leave a bad taste in my mouth.

But back to Chris Hayes. Chris makes a point that "the town remains wired for Republicans. It still listens to Republican talking points. We saw this in the stimulus and when you had all these Republicans on the cable networks talking all the time about, you know, their objection to this part of the stimulus. That still permeates the institutional structure of elite consensus opinion in Washington despite the massive change in public opinion about how people feel about conservative ideas and the Republican party. The smaller, kind of insular, beltway establishment still is far more willing to cut Republicans slack than actual voters at large are." This is an echo, though less tinfoil hat extreme, of someone I thought was just insane on Bill Moyers' The Journal on February 6th. Says Glenn Greenwald:

I think it raises an interesting dilemma. Which is, if you look at what the media were saying about Obama favorably, both around the time of his election and subsequent as well, they kept insisting that he could continue Bush's counterterrorism policies that were so controversial.

They were praising him for leaving in place all sorts of Bush officials that the media wants to see is continuity, that he's not threatening to their way of life and to their establishment, for the reason that we talked about before. That's how he wins praise from them, is by showing that he isn't going to change things fundamentally, and therefore, isn't a threat to their system.

At the same time, as Jay said, what he needs to do more than anything to fulfill the commitments that he made, is demonstrate that he's a true change agent. And I think these objectives are very much in conflict, because the more he threatens the Washington system, I think the more hostility the press will feel towards him, and therefore, project to the public about him. And that, too, can undermine his political popularity.

And while Nancy Pelosi may have schooled Rachel Maddow about how effective the Republicans dominating the talking points during the stimulus debate was, I think at some point the dominance will affect American perception of the presidency and the legitimacy of the Democratic rule and liberalism in general. Liberal is already a damned dirty word, and I would like that to change. But as long as the Republicans can play keep away without being seriously called on it, that isn't likely to.

Striving For The Cool Kid Table

"Only Democrats, it seems, reward their most loyal supporters - feminists, gays, liberals, opponents of the war, members of the reality-based community - by elbowing them aside to embrace their opponents instead."

- Katha Pollitt

President-Elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation is one that stumps me; it puzzles me; and it angers and annoys me. I would like to believe that Obama was trying to get Rick Warren in deep trouble with his evangelical colleagues - which it has - or that he did so in order to say that he is a "fierce advocate for gay and lesbian Americans" with a modicum of cover, or that he hopes to trade this symbolic gesture for a very real concession on gay rights issues like a reversal of the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy as Steven Waldman of Beliefnet (last Thursday's Talk of the Nation guest) suggests. 

But I'm in the pack of the "some people" Neal Conan describes when he says, "Some people see it as a continuation. President Bush at his inauguration had some speakers, some evangelical speakers from the far right". Waldman responded,

"That's what makes this such a bold move by Obama. Bush had Franklin Graham, as conservative evangelical, and the parallel thing for Obama to do, I guess, would have been to have a liberal preacher; and instead he has another conservative evangelical. So he's making a very different statement. Bush had picked someone who agrees with him. Obama is picking someone who disagrees with him on a lot of things. It obviously fits his theme of... ...working across party lines and with people you disagree with to achieve common goals. And I think it is an effort to depoliticize prayer, almost a spiritual bipartisanship."

First, I suppose it is a bold move by Obama; he won promising change and a departure from Bush - and instead he's sticking to the same path of highlighting evangelical preachers who preach intolerance and hate. That's fairly bold, although not the bold and fresh action I was looking for when I voted for the man. But perhaps my biggest problem with Waldman's take on this is that picking Warren is not depoliticizing prayer. Yes, this is a man who has criticized other evangelical pastors of being too political. But he is also a man who joined in the fight to pass Prop. 8 in California and who reiterated untruths like the idea that if Prop. 8 failed, preachers could be charged with hate crimes. That is a political stance, and it isn't one far enough in the past that picking Warren to speak as a definitive speaker comes across as depoliticizing spirituality. You know what could have done that? Picking a preacher who wasn't involved in politics for a while. 

Mostly though, I feel as if Keith Olbermann has got my mood right:

"The idea of compromise, though, from the people who got Obama elected; for eight years under the current president, compromise has meant, in essence, everybody who is not on the far right needs to concede something to the far right and then they'll call it a compromise. So now the first compromise for president-elect Obama, and at least in this case, it is everybody who is not on the far right still needs to concede something to the far right and that's compromise. Setting aside the issue here, just focusing on the politics of this occasion, why shouldn't the left and much of the center be upset about this?"

This idea is echoed by Mike from Salem, Oregon, calling into Talk of the Nation on the 18th, when he said,

"I think I understand why Mr. Obama is doing this; he wants people to reconcile and reach toward the middle, and that's fine. But so far with his appointments, he's appointing people and he's asking the Left or the progressives to reach to the right and I'm looking for an appointment or some statement or something that'll ask the right to reach toward the middle - toward the left. And this certainly doesn't do that."

It certainly doesn't. I'm actually fairly happy with Obama's appointments so far. I know that there has been some contention about his appointing many Clintonites to posts instead of innovative and really progressive newcomers as both a way to infuse new ideas into the White House and to revolutionize Washington DC politics; but I feel like if you've got good, experienced Dems who can help you avoid the pitfalls they themselves stumbled over and into then that is who you appoint. I also understand that going too far to the left has been a problem for Democrats in the past and helped Dems lose seats in the Congress to Newt Gingrich's Republican Revolution in 1996, and that one could say going too far to the Right helped cost Bush and the Republicans as well - though I would chalk some of that up to out and out stupidity. I understand the need for incremental movement in many areas, saving the seismic shifts for rare issues of importance; incremental movement is one of the reasons I like the electoral college. I even think that Keith Olbermann is not describing the true political climate but the overall feeling liberals have been experiencing for the past eight years - and I would say he would concede that as well. But it is the second of Mike from Salem Oregon's point that really gets me:

Mike from Salem, Oregon: If he's looking for reconciliation in more of a progressive approach toward religion, there are much better ministers and religious people who could be giving this invocation other than Rick Warren.

Neal Conan: But not those who invited him to speak at his very politically powerful church in California.

Mike from Salem, Oregon: That may be the case, but Obama is a very intelligent man... ... the presiding bishop if the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, she's very inclusive; and that's what we're looking for here, I think, is inclusiveness.

For too long a time now, I've felt like the Democratic Party was that pathetic not-cool kid in high school desperate to sit at the cool kids' table - the one who would abandon his long-time friends on a moment's notice after receiving a scrap of good will from one of the popular students, the kid who would slink back to his table and to his deserted friends after the popular kids tripped him down a flight of stairs. The Evangelicals are not going to like the Democrats; and inviting someone like Rick Warren, a man who has compared homosexuals to perpetrators of incest and pedophiles, a man whose church perpetuates the idea that a woman should be subject to her husband instead of equal to him, a man who believes that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, to speak at Obama's inauguration is going to do nothing to change that. What it does do is spit in the face of those who voted for Obama - the gays, the women, those who respect scientific thought, etc.

Rick Warren may not be the worst evangelical; Warren has, as Steven Waldman writes in his defense of the man, reverse-tithed 90% of his income, living off of 10%. He cares about fighting poverty, and AIDs, and he is adamantly against torture. And I can see emphasizing that and reaching out to him through the White House on those issues; I can see meeting with him and working with him on issues of shared concern. I even think Rick Warren could do some good in those areas amongst his conservative crew. But just because the man isn't as far to the right on every issue as Pat Robertson or as odious as Rush Limbaugh does not mean inviting him to speak on a day that celebrates the signing in of a new President for all Americans since Rick Warren doesn't represent all Americans and is decidedly and vocally opposed to many of those Americans who helped carry Obama to victory in the first place. Compromise of this sort seems to be a compromise of principles instead of representing a rise above the political fray or politics as usual. Because unfortunately, the swill Warren has been spewing is politics as usual.

Crying Wolf

"If we don't do this, we will be known as the party of Herbert Hoover forever."

That's Dick Cheney discussing the bail out of the Big Three auto makers. Now, aside from the bit of hyperbole, I can definitely understand why, if a Republican wasn't so keen on this bill, they would not be swayed by Cheney. After all, this is the dickweed who visited everyone on the Hill he could think of to drub up support for a war that wasn't necessary, citing facts we didn't have, and making it seem like if they the Republicans did not fall in line not only would Cheney and the Bush Administration be upset but America herself would be in danger. Now, after all of that, would you be inclined to believe this guy when he started waxing poetical? I mean, he has a lower approval rating than Bush, who is holding steady at around 28% (and who are these people?!). He is part of one of the most maligned administrations; he lied straight to Republicans faces before, and his war and his administration is part of the reason why the Republicans have been losing so badly lately. If I wasn't inclined to bail out the auto makers anyway, nothing this man could say to me would make me change my mind. In fact, had I been inclined to vote to save the auto industry, I would be rethinking my position if it agreed with Cheney's. Because the man is, to be frank, an asshat.

But what gets me here is how some people are up in arms over the fact that the Republicans on the Hill have broken with the Republicans in the White House. Because now that we agree with Bush and Cheney, obviously everyone should see the light as well. There are valid reasons to not want to bail out the Big Three. I don't happen to agree with them, because as interesting an idea a self-correcting market is, I care more about the hundreds of thousands of workers who will be laid off than I do about how laissez faire economics is best for the economy; and how certain companies should fail because they are a blight and a tumor upon said economy. I don't disagree in theory; but in practice, I think we should also consider those who would be adversely affected by the removal of this blight. And how that adverse affect would then reverberate in an already bad economic situation.

But I don't blame the Republicans on the Hill for this; not entirely, anyway. Because the White House should have been smart enough to send someone with less political baggage - and less negative history - than Dick Cheney if they were serious about having their point of view considered in a fair and unemotional fashion. They should have learned from their childhood tales. Eventually, the boy who cries wolf isn't rescued, but gets eaten. And Cheney and the Bush administration are guilty of crying wolf too often.

Presidential Motivations

Last night, I got to sit down and watch The Countdown. I know all the cool kids like Rachel Maddow better, but I love Keith Olbermann. It may have something to do with the fact that they tend to cover the same topics, and Keith is on first and after that first run I get a little bored of the topics they discuss. I was all excited, because it was 8 o'clock, I was home, and no one else was home who had the power to take the remote away from me by virtue of being the person who actually pays the cable bill. And at the end of "Bushed", Keith Olbermann posed this question:

"I'm going to ask you something, and it's going to sound like a joke but I'm serious. In those quiet moments when you contemplate this extraordinary administration - without anger, without bitterness, just with a kind of centered awe - do you ever wonder if Mr. Bush's goal was to become president so he could spend eight years doing as much damage to this country as time and his own energies would allow?"

And to that I say - actually, no. I take a different view, either kinder or even more damning, depending upon one's perspective. 

One thing I flash on whenever Bush does something indescribably indefensible is Roger Mudd's question to Ted Kennedy - that being, "Why do you want to be president?" Kennedy froze, and was unable to give a straightforward answer even though he had a ready-made one in that whole "My brother John was president, and was assassinated before his grand vision could be enacted. My brother Robert was running for president because he saw the continued injustices present in the world, and was assassinated before the primaries were over. I want to carry their vision of a better America to fruition" thing. In those moments when Bush does something incredibly stupid or short sighted, or when his verbal ticks really start to bother me, I wonder what his answer would have been to that question - because I honestly don't think he had any other reason for running for president other than to be president. [As an aside, I give Ted the benefit of the doubt there; I assume he had visions of his brothers, both dead in the course of being or becoming president, and decided that maybe that whole 'president' thing just wasn't for him - and that he would be happier in a crowd of 99 other people.]

I tend to think that in order to even run for president, a person must have either an incredible, indefectible ego - or craves the recognition of the presidency as a way to inflate his ego. I also tend to think that two motivations more than any other come into play, those being believing one can do great and glorious things with the presidency and wanting the grand and glorious stature of the presidency. Generally, there is a grand interplay between the two. John F. Kennedy ran for president because it was his father's dream to see his oldest (living) son to be president. He was a good president because he not only embodied the dreams and visions of America and her citizens in his Camelot White House, but because he had the gravitas necessary to recognize the good he could achieve once he was president. Lincoln seems to encompass much of the first motivation and less of the second, though the second is still present; same thing with George Washington. And being more in tune with the first motivation instead of the second does not ensure a good president; Jimmy Carter is a perfect example of that. As would Herbert Hoover. Being more in tune with the second motivation does not ensure a bad president; Teddy Roosevelt was definitely someone who wanted the stature of the presidency. But what is needed is some sort of underlying understanding of the world no matter which motivation is more present - a philosophical undertaking, and the finesse to bring that philosophy into legislation. It takes intelligence; it takes gravitas; it takes a curiosity, a pragmatism, and an ability to know when to hold 'em and to know when to fold them. And I don't think George Bush really had any of that. The problem with number 43 is that he didn't seek to do damage to the country or the world. It just - in oddly sitcomish fashion - happened that way. 

If he had intended to create half of the chaos he has, then that would be at least something. After all, I don't agree with much of Reagan's philosophy or many of his policies, but I respect that he was a good president because he had that knowledge of when to be pragmatic and when to push for the conservative ideologies he believed in. He was able to enact the change he wanted to see; I don't think George W. Bush can say the same. And that is what made him a particularly bad president.

Redefining Marriage

Jon Stewart smote Mike Huckabee. And it was a wonder.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

And since Jon Stewart smote Mike Huckabee in a way that Rachel Maddow did not and Neal Conan did not, I love him more than ever. But even from an atheistic liberal perspective, Mike Huckabee's arguments just seemed weak. Like when he said, "It's not that they have tried to say they're going to ban something as much as they are going to affirm what's always been." Way to play the semantic argument there, Mike. That is kind of like saying that every time women were denied the vote in different states until the 19th Amendment was passed in 1920, those men weren't banning women from voting; they were just affirming what had always been. Also, "Religious people don't have the right to burn others at the stake"? That's a convincing argument for whom? I mean, really now. "Oh, since I can't cause you bodily harm due to your heresy, you can't be privy to all the rights of those straight citizens. You understand, don't you? I mean, how fair would it be if you were allowed to do something that hurt no one when I can't commit murder?" I also liked the part where he blew right past the argument Jon Stewart made about polygamy in the Bible, and about how what constitutes as 'marriage' is continually in flux.

The other thing I really liked was the way Jon Stewart made clear that might doesn't make right. The thing about an equitable society, one in which all citizens are equal, is that the minority is subject to the same rights and restrictions as the majority. That institutionalized -isms, especially those perpetrated by law, are not acceptable simply because the majority of citizens finds that denying someone rights and privileges they themselves have is a grand idea. I stand by my assessment that if we as a society waited until the majority came around to the opinion that they should grant rights to the disenfranchised, we'd all be waiting much longer for progress in making those profound philosophical pronouncements of the founding fathers a reality.

Populist Minstrelsy

Chris Hayes makes essentially the same point I made yesterday, at some point in the last 3 days on The Countdown. Being a working gal again, I haven't gotten to see the show in "real" time, which equals sad for me, because I like seeing Keith Olbermann get all blusteringly upset about things. Anyway, Chris Hayes, making my point more succinctly and wittily:

"It Will Not Only Electrify Our Country, It Will Electrify The World"

Colin Powell on why he is supporting Barack Obama for president:


I like many of the points he presented; I like how candid he is with the Republican Party's further shift to the ideologies of the far right. I like how he expressed disappointment and disgust with how the Republican Party and the McCain campaign have run against Obama. If Colin Powell believes John McCain to be one of the most inclusive individuals he knows, I believe Colin Powell's assessment. I'm sure he would know. But I do like how he points out that no matter John McCain's actual ideas about race, he has allowed race to be injected into this campaign in a negative fashion. I also enjoyed his retort to the idea that this is only about one African-American supporting another African-American's bid for the presidency, in that if that had been the case his mind would have been made up months ago.

It Is So Unfair When Comic Strips Say True Things (Or, More Fox News Whining)

I've written on this before, but this campaign season and financial crisis has certainly energized those in the comic biz like little else has in recent years; and Fox News is again on call to reprimand every single fluff issue it can out of it. Case in point, their argument against Doonesbury creator Gary (GB) Trudeau:

Here's the comic strip in question:Now, I know it is Fox News and I shouldn't have even clicked on the link to the video that appeared as I checked my mail. But I did, and now I'm left thinking that Fox News, an organization I believe used to at least report the news, albeit with a far right wing slant, seems to be focusing all of its attention on protecting and defending Sarah Palin from these sort of attacks. First it was the heinous Newsweek cover, and now Doonesbury. Here's the problem with attacking the comic strip from the point of view of the left playing mean. One is that the right has its very own Trudeau, and that is Bruce Tinsley. Tinsley frequently maligns Obama, Biden, Jesse Jackson, feminists, teachers, academics, the Clintons, and liberals in general in his Mallard Fillmore comic strip. He is Fox News to Trudeau's MSNBC. I personally find Tinsley more offensive; one is the very way in which he chooses to draw Obama and those on the left. Another is the fact that, at least here, Trudeau is only reciting what we know about the Palins, which is less offensive on an individual scale. 

More than that, Jonah Goldberg attacks the Left for pointing out the some right wingers' hypocrisy in his comments about the Doonesbury comic strip. I think Trudeau brings up some worthwhile points in this strip, and one of them is that the Right is on the losing side of the culture war to the point where they are holding up as an example of right wing values a working woman. For a party that has for decades espoused right wing values and decried such cultural forces as the feminist movement, divorce rates, and teens having sex as being destructive and products of Leftist shenanigans, the very fact that this ticket is being presented to the American public seems to be very much an issue of capitulation. A friend of mine, in reviewing American Wife, had this to say about the nature of marriage in American politics:

I envision future first ladies to be women like Hillary, Michelle and even Sarah Palin - those who work to balance motherhood with their careers, ambitious and put together and smart. But I also think that the men running for president are going to have wives like that, because that's the kind of person they'd be attracted to.

Putting aside my ambitious goals of having more women run for president in the future (Hillary 2016! (I obviously intend for Obama to have two terms)), Sarah Palin's inclusion in that set of work-minded women shows us how far our culture has come in accepting that "family values" are more inclusive than just white, middle-class suburban housewives with the children washed and dressed and dinner on the table for the hard-working wage earner husband. Our ideals as a society have grown beyond having women in the national and private realms being Nancy Reagans and Barbara Bushes, and the GOP and the right wing in general have had to play catch up. Trudeau is right to point out an obvious fact, that the party of traditional and exclusionary family values have had to get with the program. That even with backlashes and even with continued sexism and even with all of the work we have yet to do, the Left's vision of a more perfect union has been the one to capture the landscape of our nation.

Beyond that, I think Trudeau's other point(s) should be one that we further examine. I'm particularly enthralled by the panel mentioning that Sarah Palin has "a husband... ...who loves his country so much he joined a secessionist party". While we debate whether Barack Obama serving on two nonprofit Chicago boards with a man who was involved with domestic terrorist activities when Obama was eight years old should be a controversy or not, Todd Palin's affiliation with a political party looking to make Alaska its own country is ignored. Todd Palin's membership in such a group is not only the antithesis of American values, but also a blatant example of white privilege. As is the ability to have one's pregnant daughter expect privacy, as well as not having said pregnancy reflect upon one's candidacy. Barack Obama is already regarded with suspicion due to being African-American (as well as being mistakenly labelled Arab and Muslim in some circles); if Michelle Obama had links to a party with separatist aspirations, Obama's candidacy would be over. Because he would be regarded as even more unAmerican and by a wider swath of the population than he is now. But Todd Palin's membership does not cause much of a ripple of concern, among liberals or conservatives, about either his Americanness and patriotic nature or that of his wife. That is privilege, to be counted as patriotic and 'allowed' to have this sort of activity because one is white - and a member of the GOP. I have no illusions that such a tie would have also been exploited had Obama been white, or if one of the Clintons had a relative with such ties. But I also doubt that the Clintons would be sunk in as thorough a fashion as Obama would be.

And as much as I hate discussing Bristol Palin's pregnancy, I do think the fact that the Palins can essentially say that life happens and have the pregnancy not reflect on their parenting is also a privilege of race and class. Jamie Lynn Spears was regarded as white trash by the Right after she admitted to being pregnant at 16 - by the likes of Bill O'Reilly, who seemed to change his mind about what constituted a parent as a pinhead when Bristol Palin's pregnancy came to light. Teen pregnancy is considered an epidemic of the African-American community. Bristol Palin is fortunate for her pregnancy to be merely reflective of her own life, instead of being indicative of 'those people' of a certain class and race, as is the McCain-Palin ticket as a whole. In a way, being a white, Christian, middle-class Republican is the best place to be if one deviates from the Republican lifestyle now. Because now it is not reflective of one's religion, one's education, one's party affiliation, or one's race. It is all on that person. And that is a luxury and a privilege many others do not have. I myself flip out every time Sarah Palin steps on stage because I'm aware how she does is not just reflective of her but reflective of "women". It is a crappy position to be in, and the opposite of that position is what I think Tradeau, in his own bubbling way, is trying to highlight.

On the whole, I'm not often amused or challenged by Doonesbury's take of the political process. Although I agree many times with Tradeau, his manner of expressing his viewpoints is often mundane and expected. I much prefer Non Sequitur's use of analogy and satire. Like this week's storyline:

I'm almost embarrassed to admit it took me until today to recognize the similarities between Eddie's predicament and our current financial crisis. Good show, Wiley Miller, good show.

The End of Conservative Policy (Economic Edition)

I need someone to explain to me what is good about the conservative economic plan; I've never been a fan of conservative theories in general, but their economic policies have always struck me as particularly obtuse. I could never imagine something like the trickle down theory of economics working, merely because my grasp of human nature is such that I think once we have something we covet -money, clothing, whatever- we are not, as a group, likely to willingly give it up even for the good of the populace. We will hold onto what we covet unless there are laws or regulations dictating that we do otherwise. Perhaps I am wrong about the inherent selfishness present in human nature; but I think the current economic crisis belies that idea. The money that was supposed to make it down to the middle and lower classes via tax cuts for the most wealthy and tax incentives for the corporations never did show up; at least, not in my household and probably not in many others. I'm not entirely sure how it was going to trickle down anyway; perhaps someone who knows the intricate details of Reaganomics could do more to inform me if it was supposed to influence merely the prices of items on the market or if it was supposed to be in the form of raises. I was always caught up in the fact that it didn't work in the 1980s and it did not work this time around either. My outbursts on the matter were so annoying that a teacher of mine in high school 'recommended' that I not take Econ with her, and that I should probably take Law and Society instead; I took that advice, partially for her sake and partially for my own, but that means I know less about economic matters than any self-respecting political junkie should.

What I do know is that what annoyed me about Reagonomics in high school and prior to high school continues to bother me to this day; I also profoundly agree with Rachel Maddow when she said (paraphrased from tonight's show) that those who despise government and do not believe it is the answer to a nation's woes should probably not be elected to actually run the government. I also dislike the deregulation of industries. As I see it, regulation is a must; an addendum to my previous rule of thumb regarding human behavior is this: morals generally are not voluntarily applied to corporations or those who wish to make money, and that most of those wishing to make money will do so by any means necessary, even if it means ignoring what would be common sense for long-term growth. One only needs to read The Jungle to understand why regulation is important. Barring that, one only has to look at Wall Street and our nation's financial 'strength' circa October 29, 1929 through 1939. And that only took our involvement in a world war to bounce back from. Regulatory practices seem like a good idea, mostly because the conservative idea about a free market being self-correcting is in actuality true. The problem with that self-correcting function being that much of the country cannot truly handle such fluctuations like a market correction. It is my belief, and perhaps the wrong one, that it is better to stymie potential and gratuitous windfalls if doing so also allows for a certain amount of control when the market heads in the opposite direction. It means less exhilarating growth, but it also means less abysmal lows as well. As someone who has never been much of a risk taker in any medium, that sounds like a fair balance to me.

Considering that even conservatives are working fiercely against the natural correction of the market, I am calling into question whether or not belief in the conservative philosophy -at least, the economic fork of that philosophy- is coming to an end. I can only hope that some of it does die, and with a whimper instead of a bang. But then, I'm more of a pump-primer, Keynesian economic policy girl myself. If anyone could tell me why I am wrong in aligning myself with that philosophy, I'd be much obliged.

"If It Keeps Our Government From Socializing Healthcare, I'm All For It"

Jon Stewart is the love of my life.

The only thing that makes me more upset than the fact that the Republicans will still claim to be the party of small government are the letters flooding my local newspaper calling upon people to vote against Obama because he will make the United States a socialist nation. Yeah, because that is so different than what's happening now. I have to say, I hate people sometimes.