dagblog - Politics

The Hijinks Of The Conservative Mind

destor23 — Wed, 23 May 2012 20:08:29 +0000

Remember back when Rand Paul got into trouble for saying that he wouldn't have supported the landmark civil rights legislation that outlawed such perverse practices as segregated drinking fountains and "whites only" lunch counters?

Well, at least Paul was able to marshal a libertarian, market-based defense of his ideas (before he realized that this was a stupid move and that he should instead publicly change his mind without admitting it). The argument goes something like this: Society evolves. People learn that racism is stupid. They choose not to frequent "whites only" lunch counters because they are deemed ugly and distasteful places and a lot of them go out of business.

As for the ones that stay in business -- don't let them worry you. If you don't like them, don't patronize them. If other people do like them and keep them afloat, well, that's their right. You don't have to associate with those people either, if you don't want to.

The argument is problematic if you're like me and think that the government should make rules to help make society, including the individuals who comprise it, better off. And, of course, people have pointed out that no "whites only" lunch counter exists in a societal vacuum. If it catches fire, would its owners not expect black firefighters to put out that blaze, just like they would any other? If it is robbed, would they not expect black police officers, or police officers paid by taxes paid by black fellow citizens, to investigate the crime?

The conservative answer to this is that private property rights are so important that they trump such minor ethical dilemmas. Your property is yours to do with what you will. Invite black people over! Or don't!

And the very consistent conservative would also say that when a black person owns a restaurant or home or business that they can exclude white people if that's their druthers, right? Again, some one who thought that way might well risk running out of friends and patrons, but it's a darned individual right to discriminate.

Unless you're a Hispanic business owner in Dallas and you own a chain of pizza restaurants called Pizza Patron. The owners here are happy, of course, to serve white people. But they're also running a special promotion. If you order in Spanish at certain times, a large one topping pie is free. You don't have to speak Spanish. "Yo quiero pizza, por favor," will do fine -- if you've seen a Taco Bell commcercial, you can get a free pizza. You certainly don't have to be Hispanic -- if you're an eskimo who has seen a Taco Bell commercial, you can get a free pizza.

And, besides, it's their store and they own it and if they want to say "order in Spanish or not at all," (which is not even what they're saying) they have the right and I'd expect all good conservatives to stand up for them.

"It seems to punish people who can't speak Spanish, and I resent that," says Peter Thomas, chairman of the Conservative Caucus, which advocates English as the nation's spoken language. "In public areas, people should be speaking English, and that includes pizza parlors."

It's almost as if they don't have a consistent worldview at all and that they in fact support separate sets of rules for white and nonwhite people. But at least this Thomas guy has some convictions. The man won't say "por favor" even if there's free pizza on the line.

Arguing Double Standards

Donal — Wed, 23 May 2012 15:02:32 +0000

While the Trayvon Martin case slowly unfolds in Florida, supporters of shooter George Zimmerman feel compelled to play up any sort of black-on-white violence to prove that it's all good. On local Baltimore TV, over the last month or so, we've seen endless replays of a white man getting punched to the ground by a group of black people at supposedly safe Inner Harbor.

Last week, Republican Delegate Patrick McDonough, whose district includes parts of Baltimore County and Harford County, but not Baltimore City, issued a press release, "Black Youth Mobs Terrorize Baltimore on Holidays." Claiming that state investments were at risk, he called for Gov. Martin O'Malley to declare the Inner Harbor a "no-travel zone." Despite accusations of racism, McDonough now has called for Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to resign because she is soft on black-on-white street violence. It's all red meat for his district.

For conservative website WorldNetDaily, Colin Flaherty author of “White Girl Bleed a Lot: The Return of Racial Violence to America and How The Media Ignore It,” writes Call for crackdown on black-on-white terror. Yeah, terror.

The Inner Harbor is a dangerous place for residents and visitors,” said McDonough. “And it does us no good to avoid this hard truth: Black youth are responsible for a sustained and dangerous period of violence in one of Baltimore’s nicest neighborhoods.”
...
McDonough’s “aha” moment came two months ago when he and his wife were in the area for a charity fundraising dinner.

“This was a Wednesday night,” he said. “And when I stopped at a traffic light, I saw a hundred young black people in the next block over fighting and walking down the middle of the street.

“There were no police around. No police reports. And no stories in the paper. Violence and mayhem among young black people in the Inner Harbor is the new norm,” said McDonough. “And this has to stop.”

McDonough’s comments were echoed by many callers to his talk show on WCMB in Baltimore and by a New Jersey tourist as well.

“My husband and I came to Inner Harbor last month and stayed at a hotel there,” said the visitor to Baltimore who did not wish to be identified. “That night, we looked out our hotel window and saw at least 100 black people walking down the middle of the street, fighting and acting in a menacing way. The police did not show up for at least an hour. When I got back to New Jersey, I was curious about what happened. Then I learned there were no police reports. No newspaper stories. It was as if it had never happened.”
...
McDonough was seemingly unfazed by the whirlwind of criticism facing him for his remarks.

“The Good Book says speak the truth and fear not,” he said. “And for everything they are calling me, you will notice they are not saying one thing. No one is saying that what I said is untrue.”

It was kind of sad finding WND, because one of their writers is Barry Farber, who penned a tiresome screed, The Homosexuals are Overreaching under a byline, The Gaying of America. I used to listen to Farber's talk show on WMAL in the 1960s and 70s, and he seemed like an open-minded enough guy back then, with his closing tag line, "I'm Barry Farber, Keep Askin' Questions." Why did you start hatin' on gays, Barry?

I'm familiar with the complaint that the media under-report black violence. Even in the 1970s my parents used to complain that the Washington Post rarely identified the race of criminals, and preferred more conservative papers, like the departed Washington Star and the Unification Church's Washington Times. My Dad persists in reading the declining Times for politics, but also grabs a Post for decent coverage of sports.

More recently I browsed a back-and-forth between Chez Pazienza and Bob Cesca, individual bloggers who also write for The Daily Banter and who also do a weekly podcast together. They mostly agree on stuff, but had different takes on media reporting of race:

First Pazienza: Yes, When It Comes to Race, There Is a Double-Standard

I want to stress one more time, because it’s that important: I have no idea whether race played a role in this recent attack and I won’t immediately jump to the conclusion that it did. But it’s a news outlet’s job to dispassionately report the facts, even if it’s to impress upon the public that not enough is known about a news item to make a judgment call. But the press generally doesn’t do that when it comes to issues of race and violence, not when the victim is white and the assailant is black. As Goldberg says, they’re holding the two groups to different standards when it comes to what they’re willing to say about them without unequivocal evidence. When a power-drunk white guy in Florida shoots an unarmed black teen, it’s asked whether the attack was racially motivated. And it should be. When an angry mob of young black men and women attack a couple of white reporters, trashing their car and sending them to the hospital, the possibility that the attack was racially motivated isn’t even discussed, out of fear of offending anyone or fueling an ugly stereotype. And, again, it should be.

Then Cesca: Black-on-White Crime and the Reasons for a Double-Standard

To be clear, none of these historical realities exculpates the crimes committed in Norfolk or Sanford or wherever. A crime is a crime and the people responsible for attacking Forster and Rostami should be arrested and charged (one person is already in custody). But this exhaustively lengthy context begins to explain why the crimes occur and how/why they’re covered. If the press is a little tentative about covering black-on-white crime, especially when it’s a minor non-fatal assault like the Forster/Rostami case, we can begin to understand why with the proper background. We can also understand, given all of these reasons, why a white-on-black crime might harken back to any of the countless atrocities committed against blacks by the white-dominated American power structure and, subsequently, we can also understand why African American activists like Al Sharpton and others are outraged when it happens. It makes complete sense given the prologue of the past.

Yes, there’s a double-standard. And until there’s full equality and the long slow process of racial healing is completed, the double-standard has to remain.

As for the media allegedly ignoring what appear to be black-on-white crimes, ask anyone associated with the coverage of the O.J. Simpson case if that’s true.

Then Pazienza again: The Black-and-White Media Double-Standard: Yes, But is it Right?

I'm not saying that the media don't report black-on-white crime. Of course they do. Jesus, in a lot of places — mostly local news markets — it's almost all they do. The difference — the double-standard — occurs when it comes time to tag a crime as racially motivated or to acknowledge a racial component within a crime. When there’s a possibility of labeling a crime racially motivated, the burden of proof is much higher in a black-on-white crime than it is in one that’s white-on-black. I understand completely the history involved — which Bob outlined nicely — and how and why that can come into play, but I’m still not sure that makes it right from the standpoint of journalistic ethics. From what I’ve seen, it would take a person or a group literally shouting “I hate white people” while kicking somebody’s ass for many in the media to report that a black-on-white crime had racial overtones — and if it didn’t appear at first glance to have overt racial overtones they almost certainly wouldn’t go looking any deeper for them.

I can't agree with Cesca's claim that we have to accept a journalistic double standard—we should always demand accuracy. Pazienza's assertion that the burden-of-proof is higher strikes me differently than how he presents it. There certainly is racial antipathy out there, but in many cases crime is just about money or territory or anger or class or even different customs, such as when the black cop emptied his weapon into the black man who grabbed his wife's rear end.

If criminals would issue press releases saying, White man successfully terrorized or White drivers chased away or Black trespasser executed it would be as clear as reading McDonough's Black Youth Mobs Terrorize Baltimore ... that they were primarily concerned about race. But the most obvious explanation of a tourist getting mugged at Inner Harbor is that he was vulnerable and they wanted his wallet and smartphone, not that they cared that he was white. The most obvious explanation of reporters getting harassed in Norfolk is that they were strangers in the neighborhood. The most obvious explanation of Trayvon Martin being followed is that he was stranger in the neighborhood. Yes there may well be racial overtones, but there's an economic and class divide fueling racial divisions as well, so those have to be considered.

The real problem is that reporters should offer more proof of racism, and everything else, than, "Some say."

Hatred in a Lovely Church

Ramona — Tue, 22 May 2012 16:10:47 +0000

As I watched that hideous video showing Pastor Charles Worley's recent headline-grabbing rants about penning gays and lesbians inside miles-long electrified corrals until they die, I couldn't help but notice his surroundings. (Okay, go and watch it if you haven't seen it. But then come back and we'll talk.)

He preaches his particular style of self-righteous, good ol' boy hate from the pulpit of the Providence Road Baptist Church in Maiden, NC. This is not a store-front or a rustic, backwoods building, it's a beautiful traditional church, obviously designed and built with the prospect of honoring the Christian God.

If you could turn off the sound and watch this man Worley as he clutches his bible and moves around his pulpit, you might be lulled into thinking you were watching a man of God preaching in God's house. No such thing exists in that building posing as a church.

Picture a wedding in that space (a wedding between straight white adults, of course--signs of intelligence apparently not required), a baptism (poor baby), a funeral (I'm not going there). Many loving hands keep that interior pristine and lovely. Deep pockets provide the heavy-duty funding necessary to keep the building maintained. All so that their chosen pastor can step to the front on a Sunday morning and propose a final solution for lesbians and gays.

A group called the Catawba Valley Citizens against Hate is planning a peaceful protest at Providence Road Baptist on Sunday, May 27. They're trying to organize the rally on Facebook and I'm trying to help them by posting the link here. (Please pass it on.)

This is how those good people want it to go:

Reminder: This event is a peaceful protest organized in the ideals of Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. All participants of this direct action must vow to remain peaceful and non-violent. We will not scream, shout or taunt Pastor Worley or his church's members. We will not vandalize, threaten or injury property or persons. We will allow law enforcement to handle harassment and disputes that may arise. Protest Peace Keepers will be in charge and will provide instructions. If you cannot vow to remain peaceful & non-violent, then this event may not be for you.

If you're going to be anywhere near that area in North Carolina, please help them out. Huge crowds of peacekeeping activists would be great, but if you can't get there (as most of us can't) let's show our support by visiting their Facebook page to cheer them on.

(By the way, please don't confuse the Providence Road Church with the Providence Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC. They don't like that. With good reason.)

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

Is the Occupy Movement Over?

Donal — Mon, 21 May 2012 01:59:38 +0000

Based on an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll (right), the Guardian announces, Occupy Wall Street's people power loses popularity:

... the public's backing of Occupy has taken a hit. Nationally, most pollsters have not even bothered to survey Americans on their views of Occupy since the end of the Zuccotti Park sit-in. The only pollster who has reasonably consistently asked about Occupy has seen a decline in its support. The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that the percentage of Americans who consider themselves a "supporter" of the Occupy movement has dropped by half since November.

I read this last week, and wondered, who of course, could be more impartial about Occupy Wall Street than the WSJ's pollsters? And who, I wonder are they asking?

On a blog post pointed out today by Andrew Sullivan's Dish, Walter Russell Mead makes a lot of strange claims in OWS RIP:

Despite generally favorable coverage from the MSM (something the Tea Party has never had), OWS has essentially fallen apart.

Mead must have been reading very different articles than I saw - on both sides. The Baltimore Sun fell over themselves to channel Breitbart and other conservative memes about OB, and as I noted at the time, local TV was drawn to the most unusual-looking characters rather than those with the most cogent ideas. Since being dispersed by the city, Occupy Baltimore has not attempted to reestablish a campground, but they aren't inactive. Under the name Occupy Our Homes they continue to protest foreclosures, there have been Occupy Bank of America protests and there was a small Occupy the G8 Summit protest in Thurmont, near Camp David, this weekend. Occupy protestors were "arriving by the busload," for the NATO Summit in Chicago. And there are thousands marching under the name in Europe.

To some degree, it was killed by its “friends.” The tiny left wing groups that exist in the country jumped all over the movement; between them and the deranged and occasionally dangerous homeless people and other rootless wanderers drawn to the movement’s increasingly disorderly campsites, OWS looked and sounded less and less like anything the 99 percent want anything to do with.

From my limited perspective, Occupy Baltimore was an uneasy alliance between groups with little in common previously. Some of the homeless seemed to enjoy being noticed and being part of something, but others simply saw the campers as fodder, right there in the next tent. African American speakers harped on resolving racial disparities first. LGBT art students also wanted to be heard. College students and underemployed graduates were upset at their high debts and the piss poor job market, and brought a middle class look to the movement. LarouchePAC showed up as per usual, as did Libertarians. Old hippie leftists also seemed to enjoy being noticed but there seemed to be very serious, young anarchist apparatchiks actually making things happen.

At the same time, the movement largely failed to connect with the African American and Hispanic churchgoers who would have to be the base for any serious grass roots urban political mobilization. The trade unions picked up the movement briefly but dropped it like a hot brick as they found the brand less and less attractive.

In Baltimore, I can't speak to black church sentiment, but support from the trade unions, even the Fraternal Order of Police, kept OB in McKeldin Square a lot longer than predicted by onlookers.

One of Mead's commenters makes somewhat more sense to me:

If OWS had started as an indebted students movement, like Argentina, if they hadn’t camped out and become odd urban obstructions, and if a charismatic leader had surfaced, giving the media something to focus on, I suspect things would have turned out differently.

They may have been treated better, but I doubt they would have achieved such a high profile, or accomplished much more.

The MSM, with the exception of MSNBC’s gung-ho grad student excitement, was uneasy and ambivalent about OWS. NYT’s first articles, at least the ones I read, were dismissive, frequently focusing on Wall Street condescension and never attempted to grasp the situation. The Daily Show went for easy laughs – each segment highlighted OWS’s freak show contradictions.

But the true death of OWS, other than inertia: the violent images that came out of Oakland, teargas and surging crowds, bloody faces. I suspect that TV audiences recoiled, dreading the social the chaos of the 60′s.

Of course, behind the scenes funding, which the Tea Party received and OWS didn’t, is also a big part of the story. Dick Army and the Koch Bros knew how to effectively channel Tea Party energy.

Though it is unclear who was behind it, the Black Bloc image has been a problem, granting authorities cover to strategically charge Occupy protestors with terrorism in advance of significant actions.

Deutsch later told reporters outside the courtroom that, though he was just getting into the case and didn't know all the evidence, he believed it was a setup. At least two informants "ingratiated themselves" with the three men, brought the materials and made the alleged plans, he insisted, calling it "an entrapment to the highest degree."

I think the name Occupy will continue to have some power, but protestors and the police alike will never again be able to count on the other to be non-violent - which of course serves the interests of those that don't want protest to have any real effect. I do wonder what shape and name the next protest movement will take.

Top-10: Mitt Romney Vs. TV & Movie Rich People

William K. Wolfrum — Fri, 18 May 2012 13:33:56 +0000

According to percentages, most Americans will not only not be rich, but will in fact go through their lives without even knowing anyone really rich. This explains why Mitt Romney can be a perplexing individual for average Americans to understand. You’d be thrilled if you found $250. He’s worth $250 million. There’s just no way to relate.

Luckily for Americans, we have all been exposed to literally hundreds of millionaires and billionaires via television and movies. While this may seem an odd way to learn about a candidate for President, the fact remains that most Americans are informed about this planet via fiction.

Thus, here are the Top-10 most intriguing and interesting TV and Movie Rich people, as well as the qualities they share with Willard Mitt Romney?

Bruce Wayne
Batman

A billionaire playboy, Wayne saw his parents get murdered when he was just a child. Inheriting his wealth, Wayne decided to become the world’s greatest crime fighter. Incredibly intelligent and handsome, Wayne has amazing courage. Despite never being able to adequately explain what the deal was with Robin, Wayne manages to have a strong public image and is well-regarded among all social classes. Also, he’s freaking Batman.

Romney Qualities: None. Not even a little bit.

Thurston Howell, III
Gilligan’s Island

Howell was only referenced as “The Millionaire” in the opening of the credits of the show, which was back in the days when “millionaire” was a pretty impressive thing. His elitism was unstoppable, to the point that he and his wife packed a ridiculous amount of clothing for what was supposed to be just a three-hour tour. Even on an island where money meant nothing, Howell lived life as he always had – as a superior being who was at the top of the social class. The rest of the castaways – apparently conditioned to treat the rich as their superiors – treat him as though his being rich in the real world matters. Howell once owned Denver. One of the bigger mysteries of the whole show was what he and his wife were doing on a crappy tour boat surrounded by plebes.

Romney Qualities: While far nicer and more likable than Romney, both share a complete lack of awareness to the world in general. Also, both graduated from Harvard.

Gordon Gekko
Wall Street

“Greed is good,” said Gekko in 1987 and the phrase immediately became the motto for the United States. For some reason, being a super-rich creep who screwed anyone to make more money became the model for true Americans. Because Gekko was super creepy. From dating models to owning ridiculous boats to just being a self-loving douchebag, Gekko was everything a human really wouldn’t want to be. Self-absorbed with a complete lack of empathy, Gekko was a waste of an incredible mind. Forget Ronald Reagan, Gordon Gekko is the father of modern conservatism.

Romney Qualities: Stir in some Mormonism and remove some intelligence and they’re roughly the same person.

Mr. Potter
It’s a Wonderful Life

Easily the most constipated man in the history of entertainment, Potter could only be more evil if he snacked on baby while destroying the dreams of average, hard-working types. Potter has two goals in life – Make all the money in the world and own the Bailey family’s crappy Building & Loan operation. He travels in a wheelchair only because hovercrafts had yet to be invented. He will gladly cheat to gain financial advantages. Just a really big asshole.

Romney Qualities: They may as well be the same person.

Lisbeth Salander
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Worth more than $2.4 billion, Salander had an abusive childhood and bears the mental scars. Like Romney, she is hard to peg, but while Romney is a blank slate, she is a cornucopia of complexity. She is a pierced, tattoo’d, bisexual computer hacking genius that uses her power and resources for good. Don’t cross her. Like a modern-day, hyper-cool chick Batman, she will get her justice.

Romney Qualities: Mitt Romney has a tattoo of Milton Friedman on his ass.

Hannibal Lecter
Silence of the Lambs

Despite spending a good chunk of his adult life in prison, Lecter was obviously a shrewd investor and manipulator of markets. How rich was he? Who knows? But the guy lived large. A one-time psychiatrist, Lecter has a taste for the finer things in life, including human flesh. An incredibly intelligent man, Lecter manages to be charming despite the fact he’s one of the most heinous killers ever put to film. Remember this dirty little secret? In the book version, he and agent Clarice Starling become lovers and live together in Argentina.

Romney Qualities: Romney once ate a census taker’s liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti. I shit you not.

Tony Stark
Ironman

Like many on this list and Romney himself, Stark had to step out of his father’s shadow. Once a carefree billionaire making weapons to destroy America’s enemies real and perceived, Stark found the light, invented an awesome suit, and became one of the world’s great crime fighters. A true genius, Stark is equally adept at charming ladies as he is inventing things that have no business being invented.

Romney Qualities: If Romney had access to the Iron Man suit, this planet would be a charred ember right about now.

Scrooge McDuck
Disney

In keeping with their modern tradition of making everyone annoyingly lovable, Disney has tamed McDuck over the years, making him more of a good all-around person. But the fact is, at the height of his powers, McDuck had more money than anyone on the planet and was a miserly jerk. McDuck once used hired thgugs to destroy an African village in order to reap its rubber. He owned a private zoo that included the world’s last unicorn. He was a ruthless, money-making machine. Also, he was a duck.

Romney Qualities: Mitt Romney is not a duck.

Mom
Futurama

The owner of MomCorp, Mom is the richest person in the future, by far. Weilding un-Godly power, Mom makes it her business to get into everyone`s business in order to profit and to torment her former lover Professor Herbert Farnsworth. Commits almost constant acts of abuse on her adult children, and very possibly straps them to the roof of her car during long trips. Tries to maintain a solid public image despite only caring about herself. Her hair hasn’t moved in centuries.

Romney Qualities: These two share so much in common, it has been speculated that Romney has probably also had a stormy affair with Farnsworth.

Ty Webb
Caddyshack

The son of a wealthy man, Webb leads a free-spirited hedonistic life spent mostly at a country club his father co-founded. A genius golfer who doesn’t bother keeping score, Webb shows an ease around non-club members that belies his wealth. he takes young caddie Danny under his wing, helping the young golf phenom reach new heights. He even takes time to talk with greenskeeper Carl Spackler, even though Spackler is obviously insane and possibly even dangerous. Webb openly detests the rich people that frequent the country club, and is generally disinterested in his own wealth, leaving large uncashed checks laying around his apartment.

Romney Qualities: Ok, these two share nothing in common aside from the fact that reportedly in real life, both Chevy Chase and Mitt Romney are notable dicks.

–WKW

Crossposted at William K. Wolfrum Chronicles

Fair Weather Dems will be the Death of Us Yet

Ramona — Fri, 18 May 2012 12:57:30 +0000

When November 6 rolls around, American voters will have only three meaningful choices in the presidential election: We can vote for Barack Obama, we can vote for Mitt Romney, or we can opt out of voting for a president altogether. There will be other presidential candidates on the ballot but there's not a snowball's chance they'll win. If we choose to vote for anyone other than Obama or Romney, it'll have the same effect as not voting at all. That's the reality--that's the way it is.

We can say we're voting our conscience by voting against the two top contenders, but that's the kind of satisfaction that's filling but fleeting. It's here and then it's gone. One of those two is going to win, and we will have to live with the voters' choice for the next four years.

In a conversation the other day, someone--an admitted Democrat and progressive--said it had to be Romney, simply because Obama needed to learn a hard lesson. He has failed us so completely he doesn't deserve another term. (What wasn't said but could be seen hanging in the air were two words guaranteed to settle any argument of that measure: "So there.")

This person went on to ask, how much worse could it be with Romney as president, anyway? And mightn't it be better for us in 2016 if the Dems aren't rewarded this time for their transgressions? (Reminder: Democrat/progressive speaking.)

While the others involved in the conversation wouldn't necessarily go quite that far, they leaped on the bandwagon careening toward "Screw Obama and the Democrats." Boy, were they mad! They were so mad they completely forgot that screwing the Democrats meant essentially screwing themselves. Pointing that out to them only added to their anger. They were already screwed, and it was all Obama's fault. And it was all the Democrats' fault. And they will be made to pay.

I'll skip the rest of the conversation, except to add that there was some talk of giving up being a Democrat until 2016, when the opportunity to elect real progressives might present itself. (In other words, they'll be Democrats when and if being a Democrat is cool again, but don't expect them to do anything to make that happen.)

To this dedicated, lifetime Democrat (yes, I've talked about this before) that's like saying they'll give up being an American until America comes to its senses. Being a member of a major political party--one with power and clout and the potential ability to make real societal change--is not a part-time, fair weather pastime; it's a privilege and an obligation. It requires commitment and hard work. It requires a studious analysis of past and present performance in order to understand our role in strengthening our platform and choosing our stable of potential leaders.

It requires that we honor the heroes of our party and work to keep the fruits of their hard labor relevant, sustained and not in vain. It requires that we vet our candidates, draw out the very best, and support them to the hilt.

As Democrats we've signed on to stand firm against our enemies--the enemies of the people--and form a coalition that can't be broken. It's the only way we can fight against the privateers and build our country back again. So we work to maintain our party and when our leaders disappoint us or go against what our party stands for (not unheard of, sorry to say), we're required to set them straight. We never let up. We make them act like Democrats.

What we don't do is pick up our toys and go home. And we sure as hell don't work against our elected leaders and help the other guys win.

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices)

The End of College as We Know It (Not)

Doctor Cleveland — Fri, 18 May 2012 03:53:55 +0000

So, I started blogging about Thomas Friedman's rah-rah piece about how Online. Education. Is about! To Change!!! EVERYTHING!1!!! But I've been slowed down by designing an actual online class, and by various things that tend not to slow Tom Friedman down, such as complexity, plausibility, and actual knowledge of the topic. I don't think online education is a glorious revolution in the making, as Friedman does, and I don't think it's a hopeless case either. I can't tell you the simple, clear story that Friedman can, because I know too much to actually believe one.

But let me say this: when op-ed writers talk about college as we know it being totally transformed into something totally unlike universities as we've known them (and a surprising number of op-ed writers are fond of saying things like that), they don't actually mean what they're saying. They don't even want what they say they want. Traditional college education is not going away, and they don't want it to. What they mean is that they want college education to go away for some people.

Whatever changes in American education, the rich and famous universities are going to adapt, survive, and continue doing basically what they've been doing all along: educating hand-picked crops of promising students in a traditional residential setting, a few thousand at a time. People talk about American education being "broken" or about an "education bubble" about to burst, but the places like Harvard and Stanford and MIT are doing fine. By a lot of standards they're doing better than ever. If this is what "broken" looks like, don't wait up nights for it to get fixed.

And it should be noted that it tends to be these very places, like Stanford, Harvard, and MIT, who have recently made high-profile investments in free online education, such as the Massive Open On-Line Courses (MOOCs) that helped get Friedman so worked up about the Great Leap Forward. But you can be sure that Stanford, Harvard, and MIT don't see these big, tuition-free initiatives as any threat to their core enterprise of selective residential education in face-to-face classrooms. You can be sure of that because if they thought these new offerings would kill off their core business, they would not be offering them. (Confidential to Thomas Friedman: Duh.)

Any big changes in American higher education will leave the big institutions pretty much alone. Nobody's going to make Harvard do anything that's not to its own benefit. When excitable pundits talk about abolishing college as we know it, they mean getting rid of the other colleges. You know, the not-so-elite ones. The ones that almost every college student in America actually goes to.

When people talk about radical changes to American education, they mean scrapping the public universities and some of the modestly-endowed private schools, "reforming" them by offering some less expensive alternative that's good enough for little people. You'll hear many of the same pundits saying that "college shouldn't be for everyone," and that they do mean. They don't want to abolish traditional colleges for themselves, or their children. They just want to abolish it for the rest of us.

Debt Ceiling II: Return of the Boehner

Genghis — Wed, 16 May 2012 16:59:26 +0000

Demonstrating the shrewd political acumen for which he has become known, House Speaker John Boehner has come up with a new strategy to galvanize American voters before the election. Seeking to top his electrifying "Pledge to America" campaign from 2010, Boehner promised yesterday a bold new plan that may be the popular Republican campaign in history: Debt Ceiling Standoff, Take Two.

The Speaker is aware that the debt ceiling is a complicated legislative mechanism well beyond the understanding of most real Americans, so he asked me to help make sense of it. I will now take several questions from an imaginary interlocutor in order to help the ignorant electorate understand this exciting campaign.

Q: Didn't Boehner already do this last year?

A: Yes, that's why it's Debt Ceiling Standoff, Take Two. Duh.

Q: But wasn't it wildly unpopular?

A: That's just what the arrogant liberal media wants you to think. But Speaker Boehner knows that Americans can't wait for another debt ceiling standoff. That's why he said, "We shouldn't dread the debt limit. We should welcome it. It's an action-forcing event in a town that has become infamous for inaction."

Q: But isn't a standoff kind of the definition of inaction?

A: See, you're not thinking this through. It will be a calculated act of inaction in order to produce a subsequent act of action.

Q: Just like the last time?

A: Well, last time was different because our obstinate elitist president didn't negotiate in good faith. That's why the Speaker wants to do it again.

Q: But didn't Boehner make a budget-cutting deal with Obama and then pull out?

A: What have you been reading? Talking Points Memo? If you'd listened to the Speaker's speech, you'd understand that it was all Obama's fault: "Last year, in our negotiations with the White House, the president and his team put a number of gimmicks on the table...Maybe in another time, with another Speaker, gimmicks like these would be acceptable."

Q: By another time, did he mean last year? Because I thought that Boehner actually accepted the compromise plan, but then the crazy wingers in the House wouldn't go for it.

A: You certainly are a naive one. The retreat was planned all along, just a little bit of political theater in order to create the conditions for action.

Q: What action?

A: Another debt standoff, of course, which as I already explained, is the key to more action!

Q: I'm so confused.

A: Don't worry, it's complicated. The point is that the Speaker's plan will restore confidence and fix the economy.

Q: But didn't the last debt ceiling standoff kill investor confidence and downgrade our credit?

A: [Sigh] The Speaker explained that bit in his speech too. Who was president when the downgrade happened?

Q: Obama?

A: Now you're getting it. If I may quote our great Speaker: "A president on whose watch the United States lost its gold-plated triple-A rating for the first time in our history."

Q: What about the financial community? Won't they be alarmed?

A: Speaker Boehner is aware that there will be some "wailing and gnashing of teeth" on Wall Street, but he won't abandon his principles just because a few bankers are upset as long as they keep donating to the Republican Party.

Q: Well, I still think it's irresponsible to default on America's debt.

A: It is irresponsible. The Speaker said so in his speech.

Q: Then why would he do it?

A: Because as he put it, "It would be more irresponsible to raise the debt ceiling without taking dramatic steps to reduce spending and reform the budget process."

Q: You mean action?

A: You got it.

Q: So...uh...what happens if Romney wins?

A: Don't worry, the Speaker is doing everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen. President Obama is the best thing that ever happened to the Republican Party.

Q: So I guess that we can look forward to four more years of action?

A: Bingo! I can hardly wait.

Michael Wolraich is the author of Blowing Smoke: Why the Right Keeps Serving Up Whack-Job Fantasies about the Plot to Euthanize Grandma, Outlaw Christmas, and Turn Junior into a Raging Homosexual

You Can Take It With You

destor23 — Wed, 16 May 2012 15:37:23 +0000

Eduardo Saverin, something of a villain in the Facebook tale, is about the become a billionaire, assuming the social network's initial public offering, scheduled for this week, is successful. From the $15,000 he invested to help Harvard classmate Mark Zuckerberg pay for servers, Saverin will get an estimated $4 billion payday.

The young investor, born to a wealth Brazilian family but raised in Miami as a U.S. citizen, is taking his fortune to Singapore, where he now resides. Saverin publicly renounced his U.S. citizenship last week. Some suspect he's dodging taxes (he'll pay an exit tax but there are no capital gains taxes in Singapore) but his spokesman says he wants to be free of regulations governing what projects around the world U.S. individuals can invest in.

My column for The Daily today explores whether or not Saverin is "Going Galt," and to what extent our taxes and regulations might actually drive wealthy investors out of the country. It was one of those columns where the conclusion presents itself as you lay our your arguments. We treat rich people very, very well in the U.S.

It's amazing to me how often that fact gets lost in these discussions. Is there really a better place on Earth to be wealthy? Sure, your dollars might stretch farther in various developing countries, but doesn't the rule of law that we have here come in handy? Some of Venezuela's elite, for example, were taken quite by surprise by the ascendency of Huge Chavez. Anyone living in Singapore has to realize that they are, ultimately, not living in a rights-driven democracy. The police can stop anyone, at any time, for example, and administer a drug test. Paris Hilton would not fare well there full time.

Another thing that didn't occur to me until now, which is too bad, is how did the Brazilian investor get U.S. citizenship in the first place? His parents brought him here because they learned that he was a kidnapping target in Brazil. They came here seeking safety. But the U.S. does not let all people seeking safety take up permanent residence. For the average non-American, getting permanent residence and a path towards citizenship takes years and is no sure thing.

But, the U.S. lets rich people move in and their children can apparently get a citizenship to renounce. Which is sad because if you're like most people in Saverin's situation, and your parents have to come to the U.S. illegally but you go to high school and college here and are culturally American, you can still be deported.

It's very difficult to watch Saverin thumb his nose at something so coveted by the less fortunate masses.

Willard Scissormitts

destor23 — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:55:44 +0000

We all did stupid things when we were young and the private preparatory academies of the type that Romney attended in the fifties and sixties were settings for all sorts of bullying and boorish behaviors and boys forced unnaturally together in search of A Separate Peace.

Adult Romney wants tales from his high schools years to be filed away under "youthful indiscretions" and left there. I don't blame him. I don't even like seeing pictures of myself in high school. I had a mullet. Some things are best left in the recesses of our memories.

Mitt's response to the story that he and accomplices attacked a long-haired student suspected of homosexuality and tried to cut his hair off was two-fold. First, he says he doesn't remember the incident. So we're supposed to believe that it wasn't important to Mitt, even if his victim remembers in enough detail to describe the events to the Washington Post.

The second response is more, forgive me, queer.

“I certainly don’t believe that I thought the fellow was homosexual. That was the furthest thing from our minds back in the 1960s.”

Okay, minor objection: if he doesn't even remember trying to cut this kid's hair off, then why is he speculating as to his own motives? How can he remember why he did something he doesn't remember doing?

Major objection: So, the heck what? If he didn't try to cut the kid's hair off because he thought the kid was gay, then why did he try to cut the kid's hair off? Is it because Mitt, who has the same Ward Cleaver haircut now that he had as a child, just can't stand nonconformists?

If that's the case, he certainly hasn't ougrown those feelings, as his Massachusetts battles with a Lesbian, Gay and Transgender anti-bullying group show:

“If the governor does have national aspirations, the rest of the country doesn’t buy this stuff,” said Brian Camenker, then director of the anti-gay marriage Article 8 Alliance, told the Boston Globe at the time. “The governor has to decide where he stands on some of these issues.”

At the time, the commission’s co-chair, Kathleen Henry, defended Romney. But relations between the governor and commission collapsed in 2006, after the commission lent its name to materials promoting a long-running annual pride parade for LGBT youth that it helped organize using private funds. Romney, incensed at being officially associated with a gay pride event, threatened to dissolve the commission on the spot.

The move came after Camenker showed Romney aides pictures of the previous parade his group had posted online that he claimed were inappropriate.

”Last year [at the parade] they had boys in fishnet stockings and high heels parading down Boylston Street,” Camenker told the Globe. ”They had boys dressed as women embracing. We presented stuff, and they were visibly sickened by what they saw. I said, basically, this group has to go.”

Romney might play the moderate but it seems like, since his teenage years, he's had a difficult time dealing with Freaks and Geeks. Because, you see, Mitt Romney is really this guy (a hat tip to the foresight of John Waters):

Mitt's a square, man. He got away with it in a bygone era, where the squares were allowed to go after the freaks. We'd be fools to let this Chad become president.