Will someone please break into the Senate office building and confiscate John McCain's passport? Grandpa John seems determined to rack up frequent flyer points by traveling to every corner of the war-torn Middle East. Then, armed with his "findings" he returns to the Senate with "the real story of life on the ground". This is the equivalent of President Obama having lunch at Ray's Hellburger in Arlington and reporting back on the status of the beef industry.
McCain was recently in Libya where he "met with rebel leaders" to determine what course of action the Obama administration should follow. Considering the way Senators travel and the security that accompanies them, McCain could have learned more from watching Anderson Cooper on CNN. This sort of meddling in international affairs may make McCain look "involved" but it is no more helpful that walking the streets of any inner city to report on street crime.
You may remember McCain's campaign trip to Iraq in 2008. He traveled with a cadre of guards and wore more body armour than a hockey goalie. Nevertheless he was able to peer out at the landscape and report that the streets of Baghdad were safe and that the war was mostly won. Thank you John.
Naturally, the President is inclined to ignore the daily briefings he receives from the CIA, the Pentagon and the DoD in order to listen to an aging Senator who hasn't served in an active duty capacity since Sherman burned Atlanta. Having had a cup of java with a guy who met McCain at the airport with a sign saying "this way to the rebel leader", Johnny Mac is clearly better informed than those pencil-necks in Defense or those NATO weenies in Brussels.
Senator, do your country and your President a favor; call Joe Leiberman and plan a trip to Wisconsin. After meeting with the cows in Dairyland you can report back to the Dept. of Agriculture on milk production and the cold hands of the farmers.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Saturday, April 23, 2011
...or should all American history facts be multiple choice?
41% of Americans believe that slavery was not the primary cause of the Civil War.
51% of Republicans don't believe Barack Obama was born in America.
Initially, these stats would not appear to have much in common. Although we suspect that many of the 41% in column A are well represented in column B, there is no data to support that allegation. Nevertheless, these numbers taken both individually and collectively paint a troubling picture of how Americans see themselves and how they see the country's history.
Most Americans think that Iran's denial of the Holocaust is ridiculous. You cannot refute facts. There are pictures, records, survivors all testament to the horrors of Nazi Germany. To refuse to accept facts makes anyone look foolish. Yet the same situation arises regarding the Civil War's origin and the President's birth. If one person says "the Civil War was fought for states rights" he is dismissed as a crank. If thousands say it, it becomes an alternate view of history. The fact that the Articles of Secession passed in South Carolina specifically discuss the institution of slavery becomes irrelevant. The history as taught for the last 150 years becomes revised, softened. The devolution goes like this:
1) Slavery was a prime cause of Southern Secession and the subsequent Civil War.
2) Slavery was a contributing factor in the War Between the States.
3) Slavery was a factor but not the determinate factor in the War of Northern Aggression.
4) Most Southerners didn't even own slaves. The War for Southern Freedom was about state's rights.
It hasn't been necessary for Southerners to accept the corrupt cause that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 Americans. Time and stupidity have molded the facts to fit a feeling. If Michele Bachmann were from Alabama we would have a whole new set of details justifying the attack on Ft. Sumter in 1861. Hell, John Adams would be a featured player for the South. Hang around long enough and get enough yahoos to agree with you and any fantasy can become alternate reality.
The "Obama isn't a citizen" foolishness is cut from the same cloth. If enough people with access to a microphone say it enough times, voila, the President is a Kenyan or an Indonesian or a Martian. The disingenuousness of this stuff is irrelevant. Even Donald, the multi-married, multi bankrupt, knows this bird won't fly. Nevertheless in the world of Fox and the 24 hr news cycle, facts clearly don't matter. A reasonable Donald Trump discussing issues like Libya and the debt couldn't get an interview on Nick at Nite. However, talk like a batshit street corner preacher and you're all over CNN.
51% of Republicans don't believe Barack Obama was born in America.
Initially, these stats would not appear to have much in common. Although we suspect that many of the 41% in column A are well represented in column B, there is no data to support that allegation. Nevertheless, these numbers taken both individually and collectively paint a troubling picture of how Americans see themselves and how they see the country's history.
Most Americans think that Iran's denial of the Holocaust is ridiculous. You cannot refute facts. There are pictures, records, survivors all testament to the horrors of Nazi Germany. To refuse to accept facts makes anyone look foolish. Yet the same situation arises regarding the Civil War's origin and the President's birth. If one person says "the Civil War was fought for states rights" he is dismissed as a crank. If thousands say it, it becomes an alternate view of history. The fact that the Articles of Secession passed in South Carolina specifically discuss the institution of slavery becomes irrelevant. The history as taught for the last 150 years becomes revised, softened. The devolution goes like this:
1) Slavery was a prime cause of Southern Secession and the subsequent Civil War.
2) Slavery was a contributing factor in the War Between the States.
3) Slavery was a factor but not the determinate factor in the War of Northern Aggression.
4) Most Southerners didn't even own slaves. The War for Southern Freedom was about state's rights.
It hasn't been necessary for Southerners to accept the corrupt cause that resulted in the deaths of 620,000 Americans. Time and stupidity have molded the facts to fit a feeling. If Michele Bachmann were from Alabama we would have a whole new set of details justifying the attack on Ft. Sumter in 1861. Hell, John Adams would be a featured player for the South. Hang around long enough and get enough yahoos to agree with you and any fantasy can become alternate reality.
The "Obama isn't a citizen" foolishness is cut from the same cloth. If enough people with access to a microphone say it enough times, voila, the President is a Kenyan or an Indonesian or a Martian. The disingenuousness of this stuff is irrelevant. Even Donald, the multi-married, multi bankrupt, knows this bird won't fly. Nevertheless in the world of Fox and the 24 hr news cycle, facts clearly don't matter. A reasonable Donald Trump discussing issues like Libya and the debt couldn't get an interview on Nick at Nite. However, talk like a batshit street corner preacher and you're all over CNN.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
...or is France still a great place...except for the French?
What to do? How to feel?
The French have always been like a woman with the looks of a goddess and the personality of Donald Trump. When you think about them, it is always with fondness and longing but three minutes in their presence is enough to encourage thoughts of self immolation. We love them but we hate them. Ever since DeGaulle kicked our troops out in 1966 (showing a rather ungracious attitude toward the country that ensured Frenchmen would not grow up speaking German) France has been a pain in the ass. They recognized Mao in China in 1964 (How hard was that? His puss was all over everything). They built atomic weapons and pointed one at us. Now that's just rude. Anyway, the point is that, like your annoying cousin Mildred, the French will always be around.
Truth be told the French have been behaving rather well these last few years. Under the small but deft hands of Nicolas Sarkozy (accent on the "y" please!) our beret-wearing ally has actually performed like, well, an ally. Now, however, the French have abandoned the creation of diplomatic headaches for philosophical ones. Thanks to a law championed by President Sarkozy, Muslim women will no longer be permitted to wear the traditional (and religiously required) burqa in public places. For those not up on their Muslim fashion, the burqa is a full length veil similar to a table cloth which covers everything but the eyes. The look says "Cousin It". Burqas are to be distinguished from the hijab which covers all but the face and hands. To ban the hijab would cause a conflict with the six or so nuns still wearing the habit. Imparting all the sex appeal of an army blanket, the burqa is apparently designed to help control the hormones of Muslim men. (One wonders how they respond to those lingerie ads in the Paris Metro stations.)
Sarkozy's logic is that the burqa imprisons women and has no place in a secular society that values dignity and equality. (The idea that any society that reveres Jerry Lewis and Sly Stallone can lay claim to any dignity whatever is a conversation for another time.) Muslims currently comprise about 7.5% of the French population but, thanks to a delightful proclivity for reproduction, that figure is projected to be over 10% by 2030. The French are concerned. Muslims do not acclimate well. They tend to live isolated lives out of the mainstream of most of the countries to which they emigrate. They are also noisy. They want everyone to acknowledge their culture and their peculiar laws, like stoning and honor-killing. The French, with some justification, believe that, if you move to my country you should make an effort to blend. By the second or third generation you should smoke, take your dog to restaurants, and look down your nose at everyone else, just like any good (annoying) Frog.
So class, the question for today is: Do you favor the French ban on burqas (a vote for women's rights) or do you favor a woman's right to be enslaved (a vote for women's rights)? Having polled the staff of isitjustme the vote was a narrow 1-0 in opposition to the burqa ban. There's just something about the state arbitrarily deciding what you can and cannot wear. Yes, the state already demands a degree of decency and there should be a law against most of the outfits women wear to Walmart, nevertheless the French law feels a little bigoted and a little provocative. No one has told the Catholics to stop wearing crosses and the Jews are still permitted their yarmulkes. Only Muslims have been singled out as sartorially unacceptable.
If Muslim women want to be free of their religiously imposed second class citizenship, they should not look to Nicolas Sarkozy for liberation. You're in Paris in 2011 not Baghdad in 980. Take the damn thing off and tell your goat-fornicating husband to take a flying leap off a minaret if he doesn't like it. Tell him he can can start eating at McDonald's House of Kabobs and getting his nookie at the local sheep pen. If you want to be treated like chattel that's your right. One article of clothing won't change that. But if you want to join the rest of us in the 21st century, throw off the burqa and walk in the sun. But for God's sake wear sunscreen and clean undies.
The French have always been like a woman with the looks of a goddess and the personality of Donald Trump. When you think about them, it is always with fondness and longing but three minutes in their presence is enough to encourage thoughts of self immolation. We love them but we hate them. Ever since DeGaulle kicked our troops out in 1966 (showing a rather ungracious attitude toward the country that ensured Frenchmen would not grow up speaking German) France has been a pain in the ass. They recognized Mao in China in 1964 (How hard was that? His puss was all over everything). They built atomic weapons and pointed one at us. Now that's just rude. Anyway, the point is that, like your annoying cousin Mildred, the French will always be around.
Truth be told the French have been behaving rather well these last few years. Under the small but deft hands of Nicolas Sarkozy (accent on the "y" please!) our beret-wearing ally has actually performed like, well, an ally. Now, however, the French have abandoned the creation of diplomatic headaches for philosophical ones. Thanks to a law championed by President Sarkozy, Muslim women will no longer be permitted to wear the traditional (and religiously required) burqa in public places. For those not up on their Muslim fashion, the burqa is a full length veil similar to a table cloth which covers everything but the eyes. The look says "Cousin It". Burqas are to be distinguished from the hijab which covers all but the face and hands. To ban the hijab would cause a conflict with the six or so nuns still wearing the habit. Imparting all the sex appeal of an army blanket, the burqa is apparently designed to help control the hormones of Muslim men. (One wonders how they respond to those lingerie ads in the Paris Metro stations.)
Sarkozy's logic is that the burqa imprisons women and has no place in a secular society that values dignity and equality. (The idea that any society that reveres Jerry Lewis and Sly Stallone can lay claim to any dignity whatever is a conversation for another time.) Muslims currently comprise about 7.5% of the French population but, thanks to a delightful proclivity for reproduction, that figure is projected to be over 10% by 2030. The French are concerned. Muslims do not acclimate well. They tend to live isolated lives out of the mainstream of most of the countries to which they emigrate. They are also noisy. They want everyone to acknowledge their culture and their peculiar laws, like stoning and honor-killing. The French, with some justification, believe that, if you move to my country you should make an effort to blend. By the second or third generation you should smoke, take your dog to restaurants, and look down your nose at everyone else, just like any good (annoying) Frog.
So class, the question for today is: Do you favor the French ban on burqas (a vote for women's rights) or do you favor a woman's right to be enslaved (a vote for women's rights)? Having polled the staff of isitjustme the vote was a narrow 1-0 in opposition to the burqa ban. There's just something about the state arbitrarily deciding what you can and cannot wear. Yes, the state already demands a degree of decency and there should be a law against most of the outfits women wear to Walmart, nevertheless the French law feels a little bigoted and a little provocative. No one has told the Catholics to stop wearing crosses and the Jews are still permitted their yarmulkes. Only Muslims have been singled out as sartorially unacceptable.
If Muslim women want to be free of their religiously imposed second class citizenship, they should not look to Nicolas Sarkozy for liberation. You're in Paris in 2011 not Baghdad in 980. Take the damn thing off and tell your goat-fornicating husband to take a flying leap off a minaret if he doesn't like it. Tell him he can can start eating at McDonald's House of Kabobs and getting his nookie at the local sheep pen. If you want to be treated like chattel that's your right. One article of clothing won't change that. But if you want to join the rest of us in the 21st century, throw off the burqa and walk in the sun. But for God's sake wear sunscreen and clean undies.
Monday, April 18, 2011
...or is secession an idea worth revisiting?
Well here we are at the 150th anniversary of all that fun stuff that happened in 1861: the secession of the Southern States, the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln and the aggressive attitude of the citizens of Charleston, SC at the idea of having a Union fort in their harbor. Wow! If you thought politics was polarized and partisan this year, clearly you haven't been paying attention to Ken Burns. Note of irony: if the morons in the GOP who want to eliminate funding for Public Broadcasting had their way 20 or so years ago, classic programs like The Civil War might never have been made. Northern America would have continued to believe that the Southern cause was peopled by just a bunch of shit-kicking, slave owning dummies. Perish the thought! Such, my children is the role of television in education.
Still, the anniversary of the Civil War gives us the opportunity to ponder the mistakes of the past, to re-evaluate the decisions that shaped America after the needless deaths of 620,000 citizens. What could we as a Country have done differently? Is it too late to undo the unfortunate choices made when the U.S. was beginning to heal? As you can see, I have given this matter serious thought. Naturally, there are some easy answers to the questions. For example, no state in the South should ever be permitted to own a hockey team. Also, Northern States should not be required to pay for Southern border security. It can hardly be the responsibility of Ohio to pay for the security of Texas. It's bad enough we gave citizenship to Jerry Jones.
However, first on my list of things we can repair is continuing to tolerate South Carolina in our Union. Face it, they're a pain. Don't take my word for it. Look at the history:
In 1856 Congressman Preston Brooks walked into the Senate and beat Senator Charles Sumner with a metal-tipped cane. South Carolina was the first state out of the Union in 1860. They didn't even wait for Mr. Lincoln to be sworn. They fired the first shots of the war in April 1861 although shortly thereafter their planters high-tailed it inland to protect their black "assets".
They weren't back in the Union five minutes before they started complaining about black equality. They were the last state to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equality to African Americans. It took until 2000 for the government of S. Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the state house. South Carolina was the last state to declare Martin Luther King Day a legal holiday for state workers. (Prior to 2000, employees had an option to take MLK Day or one of three "Confederate" Holidays.)
Currently South Carolina has given us:
Joe "you lie" Wilson. At least Preston Brooks had the courage to be identified. Wilson (R, 2nd District) shouted at President Obama from the relative anonymity of the House chamber. There is actually a reason we think Southerners are stupid. Wilson was spotted by the ten thousand cameras in the room and forced to apologize.
We also have Jim DeMint, junior Senator and senior asshat. DeMint treats ignorance as though it were a virtue. He opposes homosexuality and gay marriage because (are you ready) of the additional health care cost arising from AIDS related illness. He thinks it would be just fine if the US government defaulted on its financial obligations. (Economists are being overly dramatic in predicting catastrophe.) Naturally he thinks climate change is a liberal myth and he is leading the charge to allow Americans to continue to use old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs. (Actually I'm with him here. Those new bulbs suck.)
So, what do you say we float the idea of South Carolina leaving the Union for a second and, hopefully final, time? They can take everything they brought in...which was nothing. We will keep the border open for now and, they can visit the rest of us whenever they like. Just don't stay too long. We don't much like immigrants. If they like, they can use the Confederate Stars and Bars. God knows, we don't need it. If they want to shrink government, they can shrink theirs. Lower taxes, no taxes, whatever. Interested in reintroducing slavery? Well, 30% of the state is Black so, good luck with that.
I firmly believe that South Carolina would be happier as a separate country. They don't seem to like the rest of us anyway. Oh, by the way, we will insist they keep Steve Spurrier. After what we went through to get rid of him, it's the least they can do.
Still, the anniversary of the Civil War gives us the opportunity to ponder the mistakes of the past, to re-evaluate the decisions that shaped America after the needless deaths of 620,000 citizens. What could we as a Country have done differently? Is it too late to undo the unfortunate choices made when the U.S. was beginning to heal? As you can see, I have given this matter serious thought. Naturally, there are some easy answers to the questions. For example, no state in the South should ever be permitted to own a hockey team. Also, Northern States should not be required to pay for Southern border security. It can hardly be the responsibility of Ohio to pay for the security of Texas. It's bad enough we gave citizenship to Jerry Jones.
However, first on my list of things we can repair is continuing to tolerate South Carolina in our Union. Face it, they're a pain. Don't take my word for it. Look at the history:
In 1856 Congressman Preston Brooks walked into the Senate and beat Senator Charles Sumner with a metal-tipped cane. South Carolina was the first state out of the Union in 1860. They didn't even wait for Mr. Lincoln to be sworn. They fired the first shots of the war in April 1861 although shortly thereafter their planters high-tailed it inland to protect their black "assets".
They weren't back in the Union five minutes before they started complaining about black equality. They were the last state to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteeing equality to African Americans. It took until 2000 for the government of S. Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from the top of the state house. South Carolina was the last state to declare Martin Luther King Day a legal holiday for state workers. (Prior to 2000, employees had an option to take MLK Day or one of three "Confederate" Holidays.)
Currently South Carolina has given us:
Joe "you lie" Wilson. At least Preston Brooks had the courage to be identified. Wilson (R, 2nd District) shouted at President Obama from the relative anonymity of the House chamber. There is actually a reason we think Southerners are stupid. Wilson was spotted by the ten thousand cameras in the room and forced to apologize.
We also have Jim DeMint, junior Senator and senior asshat. DeMint treats ignorance as though it were a virtue. He opposes homosexuality and gay marriage because (are you ready) of the additional health care cost arising from AIDS related illness. He thinks it would be just fine if the US government defaulted on its financial obligations. (Economists are being overly dramatic in predicting catastrophe.) Naturally he thinks climate change is a liberal myth and he is leading the charge to allow Americans to continue to use old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs. (Actually I'm with him here. Those new bulbs suck.)
So, what do you say we float the idea of South Carolina leaving the Union for a second and, hopefully final, time? They can take everything they brought in...which was nothing. We will keep the border open for now and, they can visit the rest of us whenever they like. Just don't stay too long. We don't much like immigrants. If they like, they can use the Confederate Stars and Bars. God knows, we don't need it. If they want to shrink government, they can shrink theirs. Lower taxes, no taxes, whatever. Interested in reintroducing slavery? Well, 30% of the state is Black so, good luck with that.
I firmly believe that South Carolina would be happier as a separate country. They don't seem to like the rest of us anyway. Oh, by the way, we will insist they keep Steve Spurrier. After what we went through to get rid of him, it's the least they can do.
...or has Arizona lost its taste for persecuting foreigners?
All the ingredients were there. The crime took place in Maricopa County Arizona, home of Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Sheriff Joe has made quite a name for himself as a "shoot first - ask to see some ID later" kind of lawman. Arizona is proud of this gun toting, hard riding son of the old West. (The fact that Sheriff Joe and his department are under investigation for stealing $99 million in state funds is clearly a plot invented by Mexicans.) The crime was committed by a foreigner; an Iraqi to be precise. The deed was as horrible as a crime can get: a man killing his own daughter. Arizona, ever anxious to prove how tough they are on crime has a virulent death penalty (although Arizona hasn't managed to execute anyone in almost four years).
So imagine our surprise when Falah Hassan Almaleki was sentenced to a scant 34 1/2 years in prison for the execution of his 20-year-old daughter Noor by running over her with a car. He also ran down her boyfriend's mother thereby cementing his "accident" defense. Naturally, Mr. Almaleki had a perfectly good reason for his actions. He claims that his daughter had dishonored the family by becoming too westernized. Well that certainly clears that up. Mr. Almaleki was so proud of upholding the family honor that he hauled ass to Europe to spread the good news.
Still, you have too see the situation from the Almaleki standpoint. Who could have anticipated that a teenage girl brought to America from a progressive, forward-thinking country like Iraq, would reject the backward, repressive, woman-hating, semi-slavery of Islam and it's culture of arranged marriages and abuse in favor of American values? What's a father to do? Either you're the head of the family or you start wearing a burqa. Logically, your only recourse is to kill your daughter and the enabling family that fermented her rebellion. Hey, this is America. Mr. Almaleki came here because we allow the free exercise of religion.
So for all it's bluster about an eye for an eye and wild west justice, the best the prosecutors in Maricopa County could manage was a conviction for second degree murder, aggravated assault and, lest we forget, leaving the scene of an accident. (Seemingly, being apprehended in London qualifies as leaving the scene.) So whatever happened to "sending a message"? I guess running over your daughter with a Jeep falls under the exclusionary rule. And Muslims wonder why Americans think they're savages. Go figure!
So imagine our surprise when Falah Hassan Almaleki was sentenced to a scant 34 1/2 years in prison for the execution of his 20-year-old daughter Noor by running over her with a car. He also ran down her boyfriend's mother thereby cementing his "accident" defense. Naturally, Mr. Almaleki had a perfectly good reason for his actions. He claims that his daughter had dishonored the family by becoming too westernized. Well that certainly clears that up. Mr. Almaleki was so proud of upholding the family honor that he hauled ass to Europe to spread the good news.
Still, you have too see the situation from the Almaleki standpoint. Who could have anticipated that a teenage girl brought to America from a progressive, forward-thinking country like Iraq, would reject the backward, repressive, woman-hating, semi-slavery of Islam and it's culture of arranged marriages and abuse in favor of American values? What's a father to do? Either you're the head of the family or you start wearing a burqa. Logically, your only recourse is to kill your daughter and the enabling family that fermented her rebellion. Hey, this is America. Mr. Almaleki came here because we allow the free exercise of religion.
So for all it's bluster about an eye for an eye and wild west justice, the best the prosecutors in Maricopa County could manage was a conviction for second degree murder, aggravated assault and, lest we forget, leaving the scene of an accident. (Seemingly, being apprehended in London qualifies as leaving the scene.) So whatever happened to "sending a message"? I guess running over your daughter with a Jeep falls under the exclusionary rule. And Muslims wonder why Americans think they're savages. Go figure!
Sunday, April 17, 2011
...or is the Republican party lobbying to include the word "unserious" in the lexicon?
Attend the tale of Paul LePage.
Governor LePage of Maine was elected to the highest office in the highest state during the Republican tsunami of 2010. He managed a heart-pounding 38.1% of the popular vote in a multi-candidate field. ( In a state with a population of 1.3 million, it's estimated that more people ran for Governor than actually voted.) The word "mandate" never quite fit. LePage ran on the usual, well-trod GOP planks of smaller government, lower taxes, no abortions, blah, blah. At no time did he mention his credentials as an art critic. Nevertheless, amidst the Wisconsin public sector labor furor, LePage decided to change the art decor of the Maine Department of Labor. An 11-panel mural created by Judy Taylor just three years ago was deemed by Gov. LePage as too labor-centric. Shocking! Governor Clueless has ordered the mural removed.
Leave us for a moment put aside the message this sort of silly interference sends. Let's ignore the sad, blatant pandering to business and the clownish spectre of Republicans attempting to govern by redecoration. One might suspect the Governor of Maine would have something of more significance to occupy his time than the wall-hangings in State buildings. In fairness to Gov. LePage, he did find time to appoint his daughter Asst. Chief of Staff at a salary of $41,000. Who says Republicans can't tackle unemployment? Attacking an idea by imagining hidden messages in paintings is right out of the Glenn Beck playbook. Honestly, wouldn't you expect the images in the Dept of Labor to be pro labor? Should the Governor's next target be the obvious bias toward students in the Dept.of Education? How about all those greedy farmers depicted in the art at the Agriculture Dept?
I imagine no one is surprised by this nonsense. Back at the beginning of the Bush administration, new Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed shock and dismay at the exposed breast of the statue of Justice behind his speakers rostrum. A sports bra being unavailable, Mr. Ashcroft restored the modesty of Justice with a old curtain. (Clearly, Mr. Ashcroft was a Gone With the Wind fan.)
Teabaggers live for this crap. They parade through the streets praying to the Constitution but abhor any expression that deviates from their idealized, Norman Rockwell view of America. In the eyes of the Baggers, freedom is defined as free to be just like them. That's why they want to defund NPR and the NEA. Bunch of elitist, liberal, communists. Even the artwork in the Maine Dept of Labor looks like something right out of North Korea. Seriously, what's wrong with us?
Governor LePage of Maine was elected to the highest office in the highest state during the Republican tsunami of 2010. He managed a heart-pounding 38.1% of the popular vote in a multi-candidate field. ( In a state with a population of 1.3 million, it's estimated that more people ran for Governor than actually voted.) The word "mandate" never quite fit. LePage ran on the usual, well-trod GOP planks of smaller government, lower taxes, no abortions, blah, blah. At no time did he mention his credentials as an art critic. Nevertheless, amidst the Wisconsin public sector labor furor, LePage decided to change the art decor of the Maine Department of Labor. An 11-panel mural created by Judy Taylor just three years ago was deemed by Gov. LePage as too labor-centric. Shocking! Governor Clueless has ordered the mural removed.
Leave us for a moment put aside the message this sort of silly interference sends. Let's ignore the sad, blatant pandering to business and the clownish spectre of Republicans attempting to govern by redecoration. One might suspect the Governor of Maine would have something of more significance to occupy his time than the wall-hangings in State buildings. In fairness to Gov. LePage, he did find time to appoint his daughter Asst. Chief of Staff at a salary of $41,000. Who says Republicans can't tackle unemployment? Attacking an idea by imagining hidden messages in paintings is right out of the Glenn Beck playbook. Honestly, wouldn't you expect the images in the Dept of Labor to be pro labor? Should the Governor's next target be the obvious bias toward students in the Dept.of Education? How about all those greedy farmers depicted in the art at the Agriculture Dept?
I imagine no one is surprised by this nonsense. Back at the beginning of the Bush administration, new Attorney General John Ashcroft expressed shock and dismay at the exposed breast of the statue of Justice behind his speakers rostrum. A sports bra being unavailable, Mr. Ashcroft restored the modesty of Justice with a old curtain. (Clearly, Mr. Ashcroft was a Gone With the Wind fan.)
Teabaggers live for this crap. They parade through the streets praying to the Constitution but abhor any expression that deviates from their idealized, Norman Rockwell view of America. In the eyes of the Baggers, freedom is defined as free to be just like them. That's why they want to defund NPR and the NEA. Bunch of elitist, liberal, communists. Even the artwork in the Maine Dept of Labor looks like something right out of North Korea. Seriously, what's wrong with us?
Monday, April 04, 2011
...or do Muslims need to take a Volkswagon-sized chill pill?
Where do you begin hating a story like this? During a demonstration/riot two weeks ago in Kabul, Afghanistan seven United Nations staffers were killed when their compound was overrun. The protesters were enraged over the burning of a Koran in Florida by fundamentalist preacher and all-around asshat, Terry Jones. In that the burning of the Muslim holy book took place on March 20th, almost a month before the riot, one must assume that the "Stupid News of the World" gets to Afghanistan via mule train. Rev. Jones of the Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL had threatened this bit of theater back in September but apparently lost his nerve...or the matches. Seriously, Terry Jones should be a Reverend the way Jack Sparrow should be a Captain.
Americans don't take book burning much to heart. Bibles purportedly contain the word of God but the book's destruction by fire does not send Christians into the streets with pitchforks and torches. (Burning a copy of Guns and Ammo might get a throatier response.) Trey Parker and Matt Stone have recently produced and staged The Book of Mormon; a vulgar, blistering send-up of organized religion in general and Mormonism in particular. No one is protesting. No one is threatening Mr's Stone and Parker with certain death. Satire is part of our culture. We blaspheme because we love. Most religions practiced in America can take it.Even the Jews who have a legitimate right to be thin-skinned, tolerate a certain amount of ribbing. (No holocaust jokes, please.)
We acknowledge that Muslims have zero sense of humor about, well, everything. To avoid unpleasant reactions like fatwas, we keep our religious satire amongst those whose response to abuse tends toward a nasty email. We are incensed, however, when innocent men and women in West Asia are killed for a pseudo-crime committed a month ago in Florida. Two things must be said:
Terry Jones may be a douchebag but his right to burn a book, any book, is inviolate. Every American has an obligation to defend bad behavior in the name of our freedom. Flag burning, book burning, cross burning, effigy burning are small fires producing some heat but little light. They are, however, as essential to who we aspire to be as the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also, this obscene behavior by Muslim zealots in Afghanistan is further proof that we, America, need to pack up our shit and get out of that part of the world. The death of one more American soldier over these crazy-assed people is a sin against common sense. They don't like us, they don't think like us, they don't want to live like us so what are we doing there? We need to leave...now...today. Should there ever be another 9/11-like incident, there can only be one response...drones.
In the meantime, if Terry Jones needs any more fuel for his barbecue please chose from the following list:
Going Rogue by S. Palin
Winning the Future by N. Gingrich
No Apology by M. Romney
The Art of the Deal by D. Trump
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness by M. Huckabee
Courage to Stand by T. Pawlenty
He can even use "False Witness, The Michele Bachmann Story" but for God's sake read it first. It's a stitch.
Americans don't take book burning much to heart. Bibles purportedly contain the word of God but the book's destruction by fire does not send Christians into the streets with pitchforks and torches. (Burning a copy of Guns and Ammo might get a throatier response.) Trey Parker and Matt Stone have recently produced and staged The Book of Mormon; a vulgar, blistering send-up of organized religion in general and Mormonism in particular. No one is protesting. No one is threatening Mr's Stone and Parker with certain death. Satire is part of our culture. We blaspheme because we love. Most religions practiced in America can take it.Even the Jews who have a legitimate right to be thin-skinned, tolerate a certain amount of ribbing. (No holocaust jokes, please.)
We acknowledge that Muslims have zero sense of humor about, well, everything. To avoid unpleasant reactions like fatwas, we keep our religious satire amongst those whose response to abuse tends toward a nasty email. We are incensed, however, when innocent men and women in West Asia are killed for a pseudo-crime committed a month ago in Florida. Two things must be said:
Terry Jones may be a douchebag but his right to burn a book, any book, is inviolate. Every American has an obligation to defend bad behavior in the name of our freedom. Flag burning, book burning, cross burning, effigy burning are small fires producing some heat but little light. They are, however, as essential to who we aspire to be as the Pledge of Allegiance.
Also, this obscene behavior by Muslim zealots in Afghanistan is further proof that we, America, need to pack up our shit and get out of that part of the world. The death of one more American soldier over these crazy-assed people is a sin against common sense. They don't like us, they don't think like us, they don't want to live like us so what are we doing there? We need to leave...now...today. Should there ever be another 9/11-like incident, there can only be one response...drones.
In the meantime, if Terry Jones needs any more fuel for his barbecue please chose from the following list:
Going Rogue by S. Palin
Winning the Future by N. Gingrich
No Apology by M. Romney
The Art of the Deal by D. Trump
Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness by M. Huckabee
Courage to Stand by T. Pawlenty
He can even use "False Witness, The Michele Bachmann Story" but for God's sake read it first. It's a stitch.
...or should all GOP presidential hopefuls arrive at debates in a clown car?
Donald Trump? Really? Michele Bachmann? Really?
If you love Barack Obama and want to see his Presidency last forever, send a few bucks to the Political Action Committee of Michele Bachmann and the campaign war chest of Donald Trump. These two wannabes would look perfect atop the cake at Newt Gingrich's next wedding.
First we have Donald Trump: the man who has managed to give wealth a bad name. This guy has elevated douchbaggery to heights rarely seen in the popular culture. OK, this is America. If you have the money and appallingly bad taste, you can buy stuff and slap your name all over it; including multiple hotels, golf courses, casinos and wives. You can leverage your celebrity and obnoxious personality to buy a TV show and parade your lack of talent to an audience of marginally employed people who think watching someone get fired is entertaining. (The only way Donald Trump looks credible is standing next to Gary Busey and Meatloaf.) What you cannot do is delude yourself into believing that your fifteen minutes of self-inflated fame qualifies you to be President. Hey, Sponge Bob Square Pants has a following too but no one wants him to be commander-in-chief.
Normally we would just ignore an airbag like Trump but that was before candidate and cartoon began to merge. Unfortunately, any effort to turn this farce into a pseudo-legitimate run for the White House (or dog-catcher in Perth Amboy) demeans the entire process. Sarah Palin might be all sizzle - no steak but Trump left his sizzle in his other suit. He's a nasty, self important, thrice-married, bankrupt who believes if you pontificate on your greatness enough, you must be great. If the Republicans wanted a preening self-promoter, why not Charlie Sheen?
One notch over on the "seriously" meter we have Michele Bachmann. Ms. Bachmann possesses many of the credentials desirable in a candidate for national office. She has a law degree (although a law degree from Oral Roberts University is only a half-step up from a medical degree from Doctor Who U). Michele actually spent one year at a real law school, William and Mary, where she obtained an LL.M in tax law. She currently holds political office: Congressperson from Minnesota's sixth District. This, however is where the serious stuff stops.
Ms. Bachmann has learned much about how to succeed in national politics from her mentor, Sarah Palin. She has learned that an appalling lack of facts is no impediment to political credibility among tea baggers. You can stand in front of your fans and: 1) pontificate on the Founding Fathers and their opposition to slavery and, 2) remind the citizens of New Hampshire that, contrary to Rand McNally, Lexington and Concord are theirs to claim. Statements like these aren't just slips of the tongue. They are symptomatic of a new type of campaigning. Candidates like Palin and Bachmann can misstate any fact to suit the occasion knowing that their adoring fans either don't know the truth or don't care. Criticism by the legitimate press will be regarded as nitpicking by liberals eager to find fault with any small error. The campaign slogan should be, "Ignorance, Once Embraced, Can Be A Virtue" or, "Screw the History. I'm For Bachmann".
As a practicing liberal, I should be delighted that the race for the nomination in the GOP is beginning to resemble the village idiots convention. However, as an American, I'm troubled at the seriousness of unserious candidates. Every over zealous Christian goober that caucuses for Michele Bachmann increases the chances that some fringe candidate could be nominated. Remember all the protest votes for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000? As fast as you could say 5 to 4 decision, GWB was President. People, if you must protest something, protest Presidential candidates whose list of qualifications is smaller than Dick Cheney's Facebook friend list.
If you love Barack Obama and want to see his Presidency last forever, send a few bucks to the Political Action Committee of Michele Bachmann and the campaign war chest of Donald Trump. These two wannabes would look perfect atop the cake at Newt Gingrich's next wedding.
First we have Donald Trump: the man who has managed to give wealth a bad name. This guy has elevated douchbaggery to heights rarely seen in the popular culture. OK, this is America. If you have the money and appallingly bad taste, you can buy stuff and slap your name all over it; including multiple hotels, golf courses, casinos and wives. You can leverage your celebrity and obnoxious personality to buy a TV show and parade your lack of talent to an audience of marginally employed people who think watching someone get fired is entertaining. (The only way Donald Trump looks credible is standing next to Gary Busey and Meatloaf.) What you cannot do is delude yourself into believing that your fifteen minutes of self-inflated fame qualifies you to be President. Hey, Sponge Bob Square Pants has a following too but no one wants him to be commander-in-chief.
Normally we would just ignore an airbag like Trump but that was before candidate and cartoon began to merge. Unfortunately, any effort to turn this farce into a pseudo-legitimate run for the White House (or dog-catcher in Perth Amboy) demeans the entire process. Sarah Palin might be all sizzle - no steak but Trump left his sizzle in his other suit. He's a nasty, self important, thrice-married, bankrupt who believes if you pontificate on your greatness enough, you must be great. If the Republicans wanted a preening self-promoter, why not Charlie Sheen?
One notch over on the "seriously" meter we have Michele Bachmann. Ms. Bachmann possesses many of the credentials desirable in a candidate for national office. She has a law degree (although a law degree from Oral Roberts University is only a half-step up from a medical degree from Doctor Who U). Michele actually spent one year at a real law school, William and Mary, where she obtained an LL.M in tax law. She currently holds political office: Congressperson from Minnesota's sixth District. This, however is where the serious stuff stops.
Ms. Bachmann has learned much about how to succeed in national politics from her mentor, Sarah Palin. She has learned that an appalling lack of facts is no impediment to political credibility among tea baggers. You can stand in front of your fans and: 1) pontificate on the Founding Fathers and their opposition to slavery and, 2) remind the citizens of New Hampshire that, contrary to Rand McNally, Lexington and Concord are theirs to claim. Statements like these aren't just slips of the tongue. They are symptomatic of a new type of campaigning. Candidates like Palin and Bachmann can misstate any fact to suit the occasion knowing that their adoring fans either don't know the truth or don't care. Criticism by the legitimate press will be regarded as nitpicking by liberals eager to find fault with any small error. The campaign slogan should be, "Ignorance, Once Embraced, Can Be A Virtue" or, "Screw the History. I'm For Bachmann".
As a practicing liberal, I should be delighted that the race for the nomination in the GOP is beginning to resemble the village idiots convention. However, as an American, I'm troubled at the seriousness of unserious candidates. Every over zealous Christian goober that caucuses for Michele Bachmann increases the chances that some fringe candidate could be nominated. Remember all the protest votes for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000? As fast as you could say 5 to 4 decision, GWB was President. People, if you must protest something, protest Presidential candidates whose list of qualifications is smaller than Dick Cheney's Facebook friend list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)