A couple talking points I heard this week. I have to say that the majority of those interviewed that I have heard were on the right:
1. John McCain gave a really good analysis of the Libyan war, but then said that "it's been proven" that spending does not work to fix the economy. When Norah O'Donnell pointed out that economists have agreed the stimulus saved jobs he responded that "Saying it could have been worse is not much comfort to my constituents." I'm not sure I buy this argument. I've been in catastrophic accidents and been happy when someone told me although I broke my hip I will walk again, and when they outlined how much worse it could have been I was very thankful. Also, telling someone they have cancer and you're recommending chemotherapy is also not very comforting, but it's the truth, and if it's the best treatment that's probably what should be said.
2. Senator McCain went on to outline a plan that is now being touted by the Republicans to bring, by his estimate, $1 trillion from offshore accounts through a tax holiday and a lowering of rates. This problem has two issues with reality.
A) This same tactic was tried in 2004 without the desired results in job creation.
B) There is already $1.08 trillion stockpiled by the top 50 companies in the United States not being invested. Will getting another trillion somehow be the magical investment tipping point?
3. Ed Gillespie, former Chair of the Republican National Committee, made a point I heard Karl Rove and a few others repeat: Barack Obama supported Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. What is most interesting to me is that Mr. Gillespie said that George W. Bush had 52 months of uninterrupted growth in the market, then pointed out that the growth was largely driven by the housing bubble that he blamed on Senator Barack Obama who took office 4 years into George W. Bush's 8 years. I do like that somehow George W. Bush gets credit for the good part of the bubble though. I personally think the bubble bursting should have been a wake up call to America that we need to take the money out of our politics and not be afraid of reasonable regulation on businesses, but I still have yet to hear anyone advocate that.
4. Ed also phrased the vacation issue in the Republican narrative of constant right wing persecution. He claimed that this would go on a website entitled something like "CouldGeorgeBushGetAwayWithThis.com" because the previous President could never have gone on vacation like this. What I don't understand is that he did get away with this. George W. Bush took 180 days of vacation at this point in his Presidency facing what I believe to be no fewer challenges than the current President, compared to Obama's 61.
5. Only a few people pointed out the European nature of our current economic downturn. Democrats spent most of the time buying time for President Obama to put together some kind of a plan, but I'm not sure that any plan will work because it's going to depend on a bailout of corporate tax havenIreland and others to shore up the Euro. Not many mentioned this, and I'm not sure how we can affect this without spending more money, which no one wants to do. I guess this is where Democrats are trying to give comfort to their constituents by not saying "Look, the market turn is beyond our control."
6. Rick Santorum of google fame spoke to something I believe in which is the need to get manufacturing going in America again. He cited the corporate tax rate being needed to drop to zero to get companies producing again. I'm not sure I follow his reasoning because it is headquarters that determine where you are taxed, and congress has attempted to shore up the system to ensure corporations kick in their fair share of money for the protections the US affords them worldwide, but they continue to exploit loopholes. The cost of labor is a key driver, and I would argue that a more equitable fair trade system like that of the European Union and less like our agreements with China, CAFTA, and NAFTA would benefit us much more in the manufacturing sector, as well as investments that promote high end manufacturing.
That's it for now. Democrats did horrible as they basically just bided their time and pointed out that Rick Perry is the natural outgrowth of this article about the Tea Party.
Recently I commented on a blog and pointed out that the President has said that his vote against raising the debt ceiling when he was a Senator during the Bush Administration was "political." This was after the White House admitted it was "a mistake."
I have to admit that I was fairly impressed with the President being able to admit that he was wrong. I had only seen one other politician do the same thing, and it wasn't even a major one. On Larry King Live November 11, 2009 former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura said "Its time to bring back the draft." He went on to explain "I used to be an advocate for a professional military. I'm not anymore because its too easy for these people to take our young men and women and go to war."
I have to admit, I find the candor to be particularly refreshing because the Congressman representing my home of record has been Representative John Shimkus who, along with denying Climate Change because it does not supported by the Bible, voted for the Bush tax cuts, the drug entitlement program, and both the Afghan and Iraqi war authorizations, but has never voted for any offsetting measures to negate their budgetary effects. When pressured about these votes Congressman Shimkus makes no statement of personal responsibility, even though he claims that personal responsibility is the cornerstone of his "social conservative" message. Congressman Shimkus will instead make an innocuous claim of faults on "both sides." This blog is not going to get into his sheer stupidity at not believing something is a problem because it does not appear in the Bible. Hitler, nuclear weapons, Osama Bin Laden, etc. never appear in the Bible, but that does not mean the United States was any less right to take them on through policy and war alike. This blog is about taking personal responsibility.
I think it takes a lot to admit you're wrong. When I'm wrong about something I generally state it and move on. When someone working for me messes up if they just say "Yeah, I tried to do... but I was wrong" I generally just drop the issue of why and move straight on to how we're going to fix it. Being wrong is like being an alcoholic. You can't get fixed if you don't admit you have a problem. I know it takes a lot of courage to say you're wrong, and I'm not sure anyone who isn't strong enough to admit mistake is strong enough to lead.
In the spirit of taking personal responsibility the Ragin' Man is going to apologize to you, my reader, for the worst thing I've ever done. America, I supported George W. Bush in 2000. I know, I know, you're saying "Not you Ragin' Man! There is no way that you voted for that bum!"
Well, I didn't. At the time I was going to school in and was registered to vote in Missouri. I'll be quite honest with you by the time the Clinton Administration had ended, and after a couple years in academia, I was convinced that the political class had realized a few truths. We had all become Keynesians who understood that balanced budgets were key in times of economic expansion, and payouts were necessary in a draw down. We all knew the social safety net should be small but effective, and regulation was a necessary evil. Sure the party base talked a good game, but it was essentially the same team wearing different jerseys to keep people coming to the game. My thoughts on the case can best be summed up by this Rage Against the Machine video:
I will admit that I'm a little less communist because I know that every person alive is secretly a selfish bastard, but you get the idea.
In truth, I voted for Nader to try and show the political class that I was willing to vote for a third party so they should have gotten more choices on my local ballot, but when George W. Bush won I was secretly happy. At one point I argued that George W. Bush losing the popular vote and still winning the election was "the reason the Electoral College was made. Its so a state like California can't throw the whole election."
The truth was that I, like James Baker in the movie "Recount", believed that honor had been restored to the White House. Everything else would remain the same. And for that, I am sorry.
Those who know me, which is pretty much everyone that reads this blog, know that I have been a "troop" for the Army. I don't like to get into my own service on a forum like the internet because it would force me to quit saying a lot of what I think, and my service would then become fodder for discussion in a way that I don't think the internet is capable of handling with the proper respect.
I mention the pertinent facts just so I can say that I was reading a blog posting by a friend of mine detailing the myth of educational veteran support in areas that claim to be more patriotic than the rest of America. Specifically those places Sarah Palin referred to as "pro-America areas of this great nation." It was pretty well understood that Mrs. Palin was talking about the areas that are colored blue on election day. When I first joined the Army I remember getting into a political discussion with one of my fellow soldiers and saying "EVERYONE supports the troops." I have to admit, I was wrong, but so was he. My friend's blog pointed out how traditionally liberal areas actually have better benefits for their veterans than do areas thought to be more patriotic. Specifically he is from Alabama, and he found that his educational benefits there are behind states like Massachusetts and New York.
My brother, the head blogger on the Billy Blog, has been annoyed by my hatred of the narrative, but it really does hurt our public discourse. A good example of the narrative is the use of "supporting the troops" as a Republicans/Conservatives benefit only argument. The argument that this debt limit increase would harm deployed troops gained no traction on any network, but during the Bush Administration the President was successfully able to paint the Democrats as anti-troop on the networks, and got Democratic support for his budgets as a result. He even got a retiring Democratic Senator, Zell Miller, to mention the "Democrats' manic obsession with bringing down our Commander-In-Chief" as a key reason to vote Republican. It should be noted that when President Obama took office the same wars were still ongoing, but there was opposition to him by statistically the same group of people who bought into Senator Miller's reasoning.
This has created an environment where people who vote overwhelmingly Republican feel they already support the troops. Rather than pass legislation that would help veterans they think they've already done enough. Never mind that Democrats have had their share of military men and women run on their ticket. Democrats passed pay increases greater than their Republican counterparts wanted, a Democrat proposed the Post 9-11 GI Bill, and, as pointed out by the Cowbell Blogger, more Democratic states have better veterans' benefits. A story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch detailed how benefits the states of Missouri and Illinois extend to veterans made the old GI Bill better for many students than the Post 9-11 GI Bill. States like Alabama and Mississippi did not offer those kinds of real benefits to veterans.
Is this to say that everything Democrats do is great? Not by a long shot. Several Democrats have proposed cuts to defense, but the narrative makes the argument a lot more cut and dry than the facts do.
In closing I'd like to say, much like the Cowbell blogger did, that veterans are not looking for a handout. If you want to do something nice for a vet when you see him or her, that's great. Everything is always appreciated, but don't think that is all veterans need. A free beer and a spare ticket to a game can heal the soul, but I've noticed that most vets only really want a helping hand. Most commercials for joining the military focus on "job training" "money for college" or "leadership skills." I have yet to see one that focuses on "20 years and you get retirement benefits!" If our society truly values those who have sacrificed years of their life to fight in wars on our behalf, perhaps we should make good on the promises used to lure them into service.
As a sendoff, and something I think that is pretty apropos, here is Jon Stewart (liberal pinko) taking up a whole segment on the Daily Show just to say how amazed he was at the people he met on a USO tour. I know, I know, I just made a call for sweeping changes to your state's education system to benefit vets and now I'm highlighting a guy holding up things vets gave him, but this is one of those things that really takes away from his show, but means a hell of a lot to the troops he saw in Afghanistan. Also, it plays against the narrative, and who doesn't love that?
Recently I read a post over at The Billy Blog. Apparently the head writer of the Billy Blog took issue with the President saying "the debt ceiling should not be 'used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners.'"
The Billy Blog then equates that statement to the President's call for more civil discourse following the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson on 8 January. For the record the President said at the shooting memorial “at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized, at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do, it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.” An interesting side note is that the first person to raise the issue of the vitriolic rhetoric was not even talking about politicians. It was the Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, who didn't blame politicians, he blamed the media for sending out signals that insane people can gravitate towards. It should be noted that the sheriff admitted a close personal friendship with the victim and made those statements the same day. It eventually became clear that Jared Lee Loughner was completely unbalanced, had been obsessed with Congresswoman Giffords, and is in the process of being forced to take medication so that he is even mentally competent to stand trial for actions he took when he was apparently mentally incompetent.
The Billy Blog referenced the liberal outrage that painted Loughner as a right wing extremist, failing to mention the same was true of the right. Rush Limbaugh, the head of right wing media, claimed Jared Loughner knew he had the "full support" of the Democratic Party who would inevitably cover for his heinous acts and see that he is freed. The Republican blogosphere even attempted to label him a "registered Democrat" who was mad that Congresswoman Giffords for voting against Nancy Pelosi's agenda, even though the Washington Post later debunked this claim.
I have to agree on some level that the one line the President spoke about holding the gun to the head of the American people seems terse and a call to demonize the other side's tactic. It has the effect of making me think that he is just applying to our basest instinct. I had to do some searching, but I did find the entirevideo and fuller quotation of what the President said. The question is asked 30 minutes in. It turns out that one line the Billy Blog took umbrage with was actually at the beginning of a response to a tweet posted by New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who asked "Was it a mistake to fail to get Republicans to commit to raise the debt ceiling, at the same time tax cuts were extended?"
The President did indeed say "The debt ceiling should not be something that is used as a gun against the heads of the American people to extract tax breaks for corporate jet owners" and he followed it up with "or oil and gas companies that are making billions of dollars because the price of gasoline has gone up so high. I mean, I'm happy to have those debates. I think the American people are on my side on this."
Not content to enjoy a second away from the narrative he only speaks with a teleprompter, he went on: "What we need to do is to have a balanced approach where everything's on the table. We need to reduce corporate loopholes, we need to reduce discretionary spending on programs that aren't working, we need to reduce defense spending. We need to look at entitlements, and we have to say, 'How do we protect and preserve Medicare and Social Security for, not just this generation, but also future generations?' And that's going to require some modifications even as we maintain its basic structure."
And on: "So, what I'm hoping to see over the next couple of weeks is people put their dogmas aside, their sacred cows aside, they come together and they say, 'Here's a sensible approach that reduces our deficit, makes sure that government's spending within its means but also continues to make investments in education and clean energy and basic research that are going to preserve our competitive advantage going forward."
Wow, a "sensible approach"! "Happy to have those debates"? "Gun to the head"! What the hell was he thinking saying his opponents were in an all or nothing position when they should be meeting in the spirit of compromise? I'll admit I hadn't heard the talking point the Billy Blog wrote about with the "gun to the head" line until I saw it on the Billy Blog, so I did a Google search and found that this exact small quote was blowing up the right wing blogosphere. Obviously this fits the liberal hypocrite narrative. I almost wish this had hit the anti-Christian narrative because he referenced Hindu's sacred cows. That would have been equally as ridiculous.
I also would like to point out that the gun to the head reference is pretty pretty tame when compared to free market capitalist and Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffet's claim that Republicans were "playing Russian Roulette" and threatening to "blow America's brains out" over the debt ceiling. After that pronouncement by one of America's premier job creators I think the President was being rather kind in his rhetoric.
I understood what the President was talking about when he said that we need to stop with the divisive rhetoric. I also understand that several liberal commentators blow stuff out of proportion, and see anyone saying anything remotely off color is evil. No one is immune to having dopes in their leadership. To me, he was talking about the guy in New Hampshire holding a sign advocating the watering of the Tree of Liberty while openly brandishing a pistol. Now, I'm not against someone doing what is legal, in this case openly carrying a weapon, but the allusion this fine fellow is making happens to be to a famous Thomas Jefferson line in support of personal freedoms given the French Revolution and the Whiskey Rebellion's bloodshed. The full line goes "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
This guy was later interviewed about the intentions of his protest. He claimed that he was getting people to "remember the rights we have and how quickly we are losing them." He didn't feel that spilling the blood of patriots and tyrants was a call to violence either! He then went on to indict both parties for destroying our freedoms. It was later revealed that he was a part of the birther movement that still seeks to discredit the President by claiming he was not born a US citizen.
I remember asking my dad when I was a kid watching "Family Ties" if he had served in Vietnam. He told me no, and when I asked him if he was a protestor he told me no with a very stern look and went through the litany of reasons he was proud he had never gone to a protest. I couldn't imagine living in a time that was remembered for two main political events, and not at least witnessing one. As a result I have been at least a viewer of anything I believe is shaping our national dialogue.
Even though I do not consider myself a Tea Bagger I attended a Tea Party in Beaumont, Texas thrown by Dick Armey's Tea Partier "The Tea Party Express." I saw a bumper stickercalling for the impeachment of President Obama. Also present was an interesting take off of the famous "Don't Blame Me... I Voted For Bush!" bumper stickers that took off mere weeks after President Clinton had taken office.
What was so interesting to me is that this picture was taken less than a year after President Obama took office. I asked the owner of the vehicle in question what he wanted to impeach the President for. He cited communism and socialism, but was unable to give real examples of this outside of a healthcare bill that hadn't been passed, and the last time I checked not yet signing legislation was not an impeachable offense.
All I could think of was how "(t)oday at the same time young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of" this man's "manic obsession to bring down our Commander-in-Chief."
My point is that for whatever reason there is a hardcore segment of our population that will openly call for the death or impeachment of a President directly after his election, statistically 4 years after chiding the opposing side for daring to defy a President with almost one complete term. The newest media leader of the Tea Party even said this before the end of President Obama's first year:
I'm not even saying that liberals and progressives are going to stand behind a Republican every time he takes office, but it took Katrina to get Kanye West (not a paid political pundit) to level the same claim against President Bush, which he later apologized for. It also took the invasion of a country under the pre-text Donald Rumsfeld has admitted was less than 100% provable to get major calls for impeachment. In his first year in office I never saw a call for impeachment of the President, except for this comical call made by cartoonist Ted Rall.
Eventually the comparisons to Hitler got out of control, and while the right decried them, they turned right around and embraced it for their own purposes. Proving once and for all that two wrongs do make a right wing victory slogan. Heck, even a Democrat made headlines by referring to a gay Jew and a black man as "supporting this Nazi policy" when they supported healthcare reform.
President Obama was making a call to both sides to say that there needs to be an end to the demonization of all opposition. The call was for some kind of realization that we may never agree, but we all have a valid point, something that had already been mentioned by Jon Stewart in his Rally to Restore Sanity.
I guess in the end the Billy Blog probably would have done better to listen to the President's speech in which he called for a more civil discourse. He later said "(b)ut what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together." The right wing blogosphere didn't hear that line apparently, as they kept it in the memory banks just for the purpose of turning on each other.
All I can tell the Billy Blog is you're like family guy: "Well, according to the Geneva Convention, paragraph 7, sentence 8, word 3: the." I'm not going to mock the President for telling us to work together, but I'm going to sure as hell tell him what I think we should be doing when he doesn't get it right.
The Billy Blog recently wrote a blog that referred to President Obama's speech on Israel prior to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu coming to the states. In his blog, the head Billy Blogger wrote "Barack Obama really screwed over Israel." I'd say that's probably true from Israel's point of view, but that's just because for the last 60-70 years we have been pretty much friends with benefits with Israel, and we've been buying the condoms. The Arab world has noticed this, since they've been trying to get in our pants, but they're like the other guy we work with who we always laugh at his jokes, but let's face it, he's not getting anywhere near us outside the office. Anyone who wants to understand a lot of what President Obama says needs to read Pat Buchanan's book "Where the Right Went Wrong" in which he talks about George W. Bush's lack of realization that other countries listen to what the President of the United States says.
President Obama mentioned "land swaps" at the end of the call for the borders to return to pre-67 standards and called for a "demilitarized" Palestinian state. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he's actually trying to get these newly democratic Arab countries to think the number one international issue their governments have told them about for the past 60 years is being resolved amicably while building a buffer zone around the majority of Israel to spot whenever armies are being moved in to attack.
I can't stress enough how much the "Zionist" plays into the psyche of even the most liberal and educated Arab. I had an Iraqi once tell me, in English, that he was raised to believe the Jew was the source of all the world's evil, but he knew that was wrong. "It is the Zionist." We train Lebanese officers in America who will tell you all about David Ben-Gurion in a way that you would describe Hitler. If we really want the Arab states to police themselves democratically we have to do it in a way that allows for peace. Eliminating what they feel is the illegitimate occupation of the Palestinians is a huge step in that direction.
What is probably most interesting is that the Billy Blog referenced a story about the falsely predicted date of the rapture, and it has more to do with America's support for Israel than most Americans realize. Here's a video by someone I find pretty annoying that actually shows you what's going on with the Christian support of Israel:
The eschatology of Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology demands that Israel own the post-67 border area and the Jewish people tear down the Al Aqsa Mosque and rebuild the Temple. Essentially the right wing Christian movement supports Israel in an attempt to bring about the end of the world. No joke.
So next time you hear someone explaining why we should support Israel perhaps you should think about the satirical story that the Onion recently ran entitled "Government Official Who Makes Perfectly Valid, Well-Reasoned Point Against Israel Forced To Resign" and ask why. If you believe in Pre-Tribulation Rapture theology then by all means vote to bring about the end of the world, but if you don't think about what that relationship really gives us. So far it's been a lot of heartache and woe trying to keep it going with our booty call, Israel, and the guy we have to do business with for the oil, all the Arab states.
As many of you know one of the Ragin' Man's favorite politicians, Newt Gingrich, has decided to run for the presidency. "Wow, Ragin' Man, you're a huge lib, there's no way you would actually like a Republican" you'd say if you were someone at The Billy Blog. "Not so fast" I'd say to the random Billy Blogger. "My biggest reason for liking Newt is he actually is an idea guy who pioneered media usage on a local level to be extremely successful as a Congressional leader. Also, being more liberal than you means I'm part of a dying breed, the moderate Republican." Newt, after all, was one of the first people to endorse the idea that became the basis for the Affordable Healthcare Act or "Obamacare", along with such right wing organizations as the Heritage Foundation. He somehow managed to quietly work with President Clinton and Senator Dole to start paying down the deficit.
All that being said, one of my favorite shows to watch is Meet the Press on NBC. I have a ritual of getting it on podcast and listening to it on my iPod when I bicycle to and from work on Monday morning. I love the show so much that when I sat next to a United States Senator on a plane ride from Washington DC to Atlanta, Georgia on the 13th of May I asked how much preparation goes into an appearance on Meet the Press. The answer was, to paraphrase, "You generally know what they're going to talk about. Sometimes they blindside you with a question, so you have to be ready to answer anything, but it's not that difficult." After I asked a follow up I was told that you can generally gauge what the majority of the conversation is going to be based on what the news is reporting on. Based on the fact that the Senator read every single newspaper from his home state while we were in the air along with the Washington Post I can imagine he would understand what the issues of the day were.
I should also mention that I also watch or podcast all 4 major networks' Sunday shows and the McLaughlin group, so I have some context to view it. It was certainly fortuitous that I had this conversation only DAYS before Newt Gingrich appeared on MTP. You can imagine my surprise at the fallout from this interview:
Did you watch it? Good. It seemed pretty straight forward, and if anything a major coup for the former Speaker of the House because he got 20 plus minutes of unadulterated face time on the number one Sunday show. The only question I could remotely see as "gotcha" would be the question about calling President Obama a food stamp President, which Gingrich used to explain in a way that made it a very good talking point for his campaign. I don't think David Gregory was explicitly calling Newt a racist when he asked the question, but I understand that any mention of racist language is a pretty severe question. I will also say that Meet the Press is on NBC, so, much like FOX News Sunday, they are forced to ask questions that are based on the rants and raves of their "opinion guys", in this case Ed Schultz. The question was not followed up by any other question than "Well what did you mean?" and then they moved on.
The fallout from this interview shows something I haven't heard anyone talking about intelligently, except for the Daily Show. I know, a comedy show is the best commentary you can get. The real issue was not the racist question, but has been Gingrich's depiction of Paul Ryan's revamp of Medicare as "right wing social engineering" and Newt equated the Ryan Plan with the Affordable Healthcare Act. Newt even came out in support of the most controversial part of the Affordable Healthcare Act, mandatory coverage.
Newt responded on Greta Van Susteren's program days later:
That's right! Nothing Newt said on arguably the most prestigious news show can be used in a campaign ad! "Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood." This could start a whole new era of editing! You can go back and retroactively declare that your verifiable quotes are not your own!
My thoughts on all this: Newt comes from a different time. In a 1991 interview on Meet the Press Newt talked about a break between pre-Reagan and post-Reagan Republicans in describing a fight he was having with Senator Bob Dole (R-KS) over tax cuts. I think this shows there is definitely a pre-W. Bush and post-W. Bush Republican party.
The pre-W. Bush Republicans had things like ideas and positions. The post-W. Bush Republican party has turned into an "issue du jour" party. Whatever issue the party takes up at that moment is your stance as well! Newt did what pre-W. Bush Republicans had often done, he broke with the party based on ideas and took questionable positions based on those ideas and his understanding of the facts. Need I remind anyone that in 1996 Colin Powell, the most popular man in politics, gave the keynote speech at the Republican National Convention in which he voiced his support for both Bob Dole and Affirmative Action. In early 2001 Senator John McCain (R-AZ) voted against the Bush tax cuts and stated "I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle class Americans who most need tax relief." I can already hear right wingers talking about class warfare and socialism.
Clearly these Republicans would not fare well in the face of the Tea Party's targeting of Republicans who don't toe the line. John McCain was even forced to drastically reinvent himself only 2 years after being the Republican nominee for President, for which he was forced to slightly alter his stances. The once ardent supporter of amnesty as a part of immigration reform faced a challenge stiff enough to get the Straight Talk Express's bus to hook up it's tow cables to the Tea Party Express's bus. "Complete the dang fence" was the new campaign slogan, and McCain barely escaped a challenge from the far right. To complete his turn to the dark side Senator McCain voted to reauthorize all the Bush tax cuts he originally opposed.
Colin Powell endorsed then Senator Obama in 2008, and went the way of Pat Buchanan. He is not a Republican, but definitely not a Democrat. Now Newt is finding that the politics of the Republican Party require a hard right look at the world to win the primary, even if the rhetoric of the primary assures a victory for the Democrats, as in Delaware.
I guess to find out what is really going on we can go back to the subject of this blog. Newt was very astute when he pointed out to David Gregory in that very same interview that Reagan ruled from the center right. Sure the guy talked a good game about lowering taxes, and he did, but he also raised them 11 times too! His rhetoric talked about the evils of government, but it only grew under his watch. Essentially Ronald Reagan, the patron saint of the current Republican Party, talked a good game but walked a middle path all while running up a deficit so large Vice President Cheney would state that the lesson of Reagan's presidency was that "deficits don't matter." Try telling that to anyone at a Tea Party Express Rally!
What is going on now in the Republican Party is they don't want a Reagan. Someone to talk the narrative talk and walk the centrist walk won't do. They want a guy who is a living breathing right wing narrative. No taxes + No spending= Utopia. No questions asked.
Newt is just now learning this, but he's already started his campaign so he's got a pretty big learning curve. I'm not sure I will be able to listen to the new Newt. The old one was far more interesting. He seemed like his own person, not just one face telling me the same old thing with his latest wife by his side.
You may not know this, but the Ragin' Man had trouble reading as a child. My little brother, the head Billy Blogger, was apparently reading the New York Times every morning with a cup of coffee and a cigarette while I was busy scrawling rudimentary drawings on the wall that depicted me as a stick man and drooling on myself. "Never fear!" said my kindergarten teacher (all quotes are approximated) "Little Ragin' Man will want to read sometime, and when he does, you need to surround him with whatever he wants to read!"
Well, a few years passed and the Ragin' Family took a long trip to the Ragin' Homeland, also known as our grandparent's farm, for a couple weeks. We got to go to the local drug store and buy it out for this trip so we would have something to occupy ourselves with when the adults did adult things like watch the news and tell us to be quiet. In those days every convenience store had a spinner rack full of comics. I bought a couple, and I loved them.
My mother noticed I liked comics so she got subscriptions to every kind of Archie comics, which are good, but were more her fare as a child than they were mine. When I went to the store I would ask to buy all the Marvel Comics I liked on the spinner rack. My favorite, bar none, were Marvel's mutant titles, specifically Uncanny X-Men. Don't get me wrong, I loved most all the Marvel titles, but a new X-Men issue was like Christmas and Wrestlemania happening for the 15 minutes or so it took me to read through the latest issue.
I loved everything about them. I've heard it said that every prepubescent boy can relate to a group of people who are outcasts just because of their birth. I guess I can identify with that, but I thought the personal struggles of the characters was what I particularly identified with. It seemed like every X-Man was committed to making the world a safer better place in spite of their own proclivities, and sometimes in the face of the powers they were both gifted and cursed with. I guess I identified with that a little more than I did "with great power comes great responsibility." Besides, by the time I was a kid Spidey had already married his super model girlfriend, Mary Jane, had 4 different comic books all about him, and guest starred in all the other books at least once a year. Not much self identifying for me.
Well, needless to say my mom took my teacher's advice and fed me as many comics as I could bring her, and they were always around a dollar an issue, and at most I'd get 5 from the spinner rack. Five bucks to teach your kid to read? Who could argue with that? Plus my mom actually loved me, so she thought she was helping me succeed, when in actuality she was making me a life long comic geek who believes in justice.
Well fast-forward to the year 2000 and I see X-Men is being made into a movie. I was stoked! It wasn't even up for debate with my friends what we were doing Friday night. I was going opening night, and they could come and have fun or spend the night crying in sadness. It was awesome. A good Wolverine based story with a good back up cast that played up the differences in the messages of Magneto and Professor X.
The next film was good, and the third not so much. I really couldn't complain though. Now I know a lot of the fans complain with what will now be known as "the first set" or something like that because things happened like Rogue and Iceman are children compared to the other X-Men. Let's face it, if you want the comics, read the comics. If you want to see a condensed story that hits all the main character points, watch the movie. The characters are all largely portrayed in a way that makes them true to what is interesting about them. If it was a serialized tv show I'd expect a little more adherence to the original comic simply to make it last long enough.
Then came Wolverine: Origins. A horrible movie with some good action. Wolverine and Sabertooth became brothers, Gambit has powers that basically allow him to do anything, and you know Deadpool talked a lot because everyone talked about it. You never got to know any character but Wolverine, who you already knew.
Now there's a new X-Men movie coming out. X-Men: First Class. This movie has a lot of the important X-Men who have not been shown, and those that have risen to prominence in the comics since the first movie was made. The only fanboy gripe I have is that I don't really like the way Havok's power looks and is portrayed in the new trailer. He is probably my favorite X-Man, and I identify with him in numerous ways, most of all because he feels as though he is living in the shadow of his father, Corsair, and his older brother, Cyclops, and Havok compares himself to them in all that he does, and more often all that he feels he failed to do. It makes sense too because his brother is a legend among mutants as the leader of the X-Men, and his father is famous throughout the universe as the leader of the Starjammers. He can't just be a manager at McDonald's after that. A lot of X-Factor plot lines focused on him always second guessing what he did, and wanting to turn down the mantle of leadership because he felt he only got it due to his last name, when it's actually due to his just being an awesome leader. Havok often chose fields of work that had nothing to do with the fight between good and evil. Havok is hard to write, but the X-Factor comics of my youth were fun and not overbearing. Here's hoping they figure out that character and don't ruin him.
No, the character that seems to be ruined is Beast. Check him out in the movie trailer below.
Now this Beast is a little nerd with amazing agility and monkey feet who takes a serum of his own creation that turns him blue and furry. The comics Beast is a hulking brute who is really smart and nerdy that takes a serum of his own creation that turns him blue and furry. That was part of the charm of Beast. He was a football star in high school, but you couldn't just judge him as a beast of burden due to his size, you also had to take into account that he is extremely smart, something that also appealed to a young Ragin' Man. Without his size and speed prior to the transformation he does not celebrate the dichotomy that is found in the best Marvel characters of Stan Lee/Jack Kirby era, and is instead just a walking stereotype who happens to be walking on big ass monkey feet. This is one of those times when I think they failed to look at the spirit of the character, and instead used him for the visual affect/plot devices he will allow in the movie.
I have to say that I am excited to see how they use characters that were previously unused, and almost wish they had just rebooted the series with less emphasis on Wolverine. This remake seems like an attempt to keep in standing with the previous movies while getting the most out of all the characters, especially Emma Frost, the White Queen, as she is a central character in almost every X-Men comic now. I am excited to see Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, the Black King though, and really hope they don't make the mistake of messing up the characters by making them unrecognizable motivationally.
Now I'm off to see Thor in 3-D. Let's see if Marvel can manage to pull this one off as well as they did Iron Man. Here's a cover from my favorite Thor run. It was the early 90's, so they did a new costume, and in this case made it a whole new person imbued with the powers of Thor. As was the case with most comics as well, in the mid 90's they later went through and retconned it, which was an under reported reason everyone stopped buying comics, as they got way too convoluted.
Well, until next time, to all the true believers: Make Mine Marvel! Excelsior!
I was reading my favorite Non-Ragin' Man blog, The Billy Blog, and saw that the Billy Blog Team had written a blog about the Donald. I have to admit that The Billy Blog Squad got me back for my 2nd Amendment blog. I am jealous because I had a blog kicking around in my head about Donald Trump, and my blog was a little more on the political side. The Billy Blog's team took a more fun look at the Donald. I didn't quite agree with their fun assessment, and I do have a problem with one issue about the President the Billy Blog brought up.
First, the issue about the President. The fine people at the Billy Blog wrote "You see, most people who appear as possible candidates for president are career politicians, afraid of “rocking the boat,” and so not only will they not dare to say anything controversial, but they may avoid any campaign specifics, or even any legislative votes on tough issues that could be brought up later! (See: Obama, Barack)" While I know that President Obama ducked some votes as Senator so as to preserve his status as never having voted for or against things that could come back to haunt him, the non-partisan group Politifact has an Obameter that tracks all the promises he made in the campaign. They track 506 promises. To me that's a lot of promises, but the people at the Billy Blog apparently demand promises somewhere around every hour on the hour. My personal opinion on the Donald's "promises" are that he promises to get tough and curse at people, which isn't really much of a promise, and if it was truly a Presidential trait to curse at things you don't like the American people could have elected my father many years ago. As with all things ragin' in Cajun land, you can decide for yourself.
I will say a Republican narrative about President Obama shows him as someone who lies and someone who never makes a promise. It's a very weird narrative to me, but one that has gained traction. As with all narratives I look to factual analysis to determine the truth of the matter.
As for the Donald this is where the Ragin' Man's blog becomes less fact based than he usually sticks to. Let me say that unlike the Billy Blog's Political Team, the best team named Billy, I do believe that Donald Trump is deadly serious about running for the Presidency and his more than usual showboating is a big part of his plan.
When I first heard about Donald Trump calling for the President's birth certificate and making claims of shouting down China and every government in the Middle East I was amused. I thought, like the Billy Blog's Institute for Campaign Excellence team, that "the Donald" was using this all as a vehicle to become more famous at a minimum, and hype his new Apprentice show at most.
I'll be honest with you at one point my brother, the head Billy Blogger over at Billy Blog Towers, had made a comment about those who opposed the President being called a racist as a default setting. I didn't agree with him because anyone who I had heard say that was very careful to point out that they begrudged no one their right to speak out on the policy issues. I was watching Ed Schulz go on and on about Trump's racism in asking about the President's birth certificate, and I reminded myself to write my brother from the exact same mother an e-mail indicating my flip-flop on the position. I thought Ed was being extremely cruel in his determination that Donald Trump was only going after the President because of his skin for political gain. After all Chester A. Arthur had his citizenship questioned because of his father, and the original birther lawsuit also was brought to eliminate Senator John McCain from Presidential contention because he was born in Panama. While it was fairly apparent to me that the President was born in the United States I did not begrudge a guy who didn't know how the right to privacy and abortion go hand in hand not understanding that the reason President Obama had not released his long form birth certificate was because the Hawaii Department of Health has only released "computerized abstracts" of vital records since May 15, 2001. That Donald Trump claimed to have sent investigators who somehow made him think the President's birth certificate was missing instead of just looking at anyfactchecking website seemed more grandstanding than anything.
As a result of these claims the President was forced to face a group that was once a fringe movement and had now taken a majority of the opposition party, and was showing no sign of stopping growth. He ended up sending a letter and counsel to Hawaii to do whatever was necessary to get the birth certificate published.
Little did I know the morning after I had resolved to tell my brother he was right President Obama released his birth certificate. I then watched something that would make me completely reverse my position AGAIN! Rather than say "Hey, I'm happy he was born in Hawaii like he claimed, now it's time to get to the issues" the Donald doubled down on worthless issues. It is important to note that he didn't even look at the President's birth certificate at the time he made the announcement, as the Daily Show showed as their "Moment of Zen" for the next two days.
No, in his press conference Trump asked to see the President's college transcripts. In his speech claiming victory by his action alone he talks about the President's possible bad grades as an undergrad and points out the President "gets to Harvard. … How do you get into Harvard if you're not a good student?"
This is where the light went on for me. I thought back to the time I read Bill Clinton's book "My Life" in which he talks about Ronald Reagan saying "I believe in states' rights." in Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick off his 1980 campaign. Clinton was born and raised in Arkansas and understood the implication of "states' rights" in the south of 1980 to mean a tacit endorsement of any racial policies the state enacts.
Now whether that was the case or not, even the scrum of writers at the Billy Blog can agree that the Ragin' Man was raised in a very conservative/Republican household. From that viewpoint I understand that Donald Trump is making the implication that the President of the United States only got into Harvard Law School because he is black. All he really needed to do to seal the deal is utter the words "affirmative action", a highly polarizing term I honestly haven't heard in national politics for about 8 years. Subsequent Republican operatives, including Andrew Breitbart, have brought up the issues of "what classes he took" being the reason for the transcript request. Trump has stated numerous times grades leading to his admission to increasingly prestigious institutions are his sole concern.
Let me say that I am nothing but non-partisan in my analysis for my blogs. I understand that Democrats are accused of starting class warfare. I don't know about warfare, but Democrats clearly promote class consciousness. That is to say, Democrats want you to realize what class you are really in and vote for your class' best interest, believing they will win when most Americans realize they aren't wealthy.
If what Trump is doing is not racist, it is at the very least promoting "racial consciousness." As with class consciousness Trump is trying to get people to realize their race and vote for him, believing he is looking out for the majority's interest. Why shouldn't he? The Republican Party is whiter than almost any other group in America outside of the KKK, so he's wooing the clear majority for the primary. Am I writing something inflammatory? Possibly if you don't analyze things when you watch them, but the real issue is what do we as Americans expect from our politicians?
I'll be honest with you in my assessment of this issue. Let me say that I'm not a huge fan of the President. He has done some things I think are really good, including raising his rhetorical response to terrorism and the Muslim world. Those things help the cause of America in our current conflicts. There are a lot of things he's done that I don't like when it comes to the PATRIOT Act and his refusal to pay for the wars we are currently fighting.
There were scandals about President George W. Bush's admission to Harvard graduate school and how much his father's position played into him being a member of the Air National Guard during Vietnam. Sarah Palin was even the victim of a conspiracy regarding whether her son Trig is hers or not. I don't worry about those issues, and I don't trust any conspiracies. I don't think anyone would turn down the use of their father's prestige to get into a very good school, just like I don't think anyone would turn down the color of their skin being the impetus for admission. As a very conservative teacher I had in high school said "if you don't use it, someone else will." The fact that they are now being nominated to the country's highest office on a major party ticket means they used their opportunities to better themselves more than most everyone I know.
What Trump is doing is trying to create a narrative around the President of affirmative action hire, and hang it around his neck for the duration of the campaign. I'm not sure that's an issue affecting the current state of our country, and I'm not sure I want a candidate who appeals to the color of your skin as the reason you should vote for him. For those reasons I am forced to disagree with the Billy Blog's outstanding crew and state that Trump and his many bankruptcies he never talks about when discussing how he can rebuild the economy should rebuild his combover before they should rebuild the Republican Party.
I really liked Sean Hannity's "Behind The Bias" for it's one sided view of media bias because it identified and highlighted several issues I feel are affecting our current media culture. He even did a section on my personal favorite thing that is wrong with our politics, the narrative, and used imagery that helps the conservative side (Patriotism) while decrying one of the narratives that hurt conservatives in the segment.
One of the most interesting pieces, and one I'm glad he did was the Dan Rather story on "60 Minutes 2" that showcased fake documents depicting then President George W. Bush as someone that shirked most duty in the National Guard during Vietnam. I have been unable to locate video of the segment I'm referencing, and for that I apologize. The "60 Minutes 2" piece showed a wartime President who had never been to war because he joined the National Guard, and didn't even really do that. Sean's story did not say that this was important because John Kerry was from the party that has a narrative of being seen as weak militarily, and was being what is now called "swift boated" by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The allegations were controversial at best, but were gaining traction. It was possibly the only story that could stop the smearing of John Kerry's war record so he could play it up as a positive in the last months of the election.
Well, almost all of what Sean Hannity put on his show about this was easily verified by me and all that really matters is the story "60 Minutes 2" ran was based on fake documents. Yes Sean Hannity, the "Mainstream Media" was out to get President Bush. 4 were immediately fired and Dan Rather would later sue CBS over his ouster. Yes, CBS News had experienced a major malfunction, but people paid what amounts to the ultimate price, besides having George W. Bush as President for another 4 years. They lost their jobs, and would ultimately be branded in all that they did. Dan Rather still appears on the Sunday shows, and goes out into the world to do some front line reporting, but at 80-something, he's done.
FOX News personalities won that one. They used it to trumpet the bias of the "Mainstream Media"; a shadowy organization of all news sources that don't espouse their viewpoint.
Fast forward 5 years. A guy named James O'Keefe brings a tape to the Conservative news scene. The tape is a splicing of Mr. O'Keefe wearing a pimp outfit and a girl dressed as a prostitute with workers from ACORN telling them how to traffic children and get away with it. ACORN was an organization seen as left wing for it's attempt to get poor and underprivileged inner city people to vote, where they are likely to be Democrats; FOX News personalities had recently implicated them in some kind of voter fraud, including an attempted registration of Mickey Mouse, that was largely regarded as overblown. The first mainstream news to report on it was FOX & Friends after it was reported on biggovernment.com. The finder of all liberal bias himself, Sean Hannity, even interviewed Mr. O'Keefe without his pimp gear and told him how he brought down this shadowy organization that had attempted to get a voter card for Mickey Mouse. The story got picked up by this same "Mainstream Media", and even Jon Stewart made a statement he later had to recant.
Then the cards came tumbling down. First the Brooklyn DA where the first video was taken refused to prosecute ACORN. Then Jerry Brown, the California Attorney General, did the same after looking at the unedited tapes.
Apparently Mr. O'Keefe edited the videos and inserted footage of himself in a pimp costume and did not actually play the part of a pimp, and no one at FOX News checked before pronouncing him the greatest investigative journalist since Woodward and the other guy. Numerous people featured him on FOX News.
The following summer Andrew Breitbart, the proprietor of the aforementioned biggovernment.com got another video on FOX News. This time it was of black USDA worker Shirley Sherrod speaking at an NAACP meeting. The video showed her talking about how she had refused to help a white man who was going to lose his farm, although it was in her power to do so. This was especially powerful because the NAACP had just passed a highly controversial resolution calling on the Tea Party (which FOX News had tied itself to) to renounce "continued tolerance for bigotry and bigoted statements." This was the biggest "I know you are but what am I?" in history.
Turns out the video was a hoax as well. Shirley was forced to resign even though in the full video she went on to tell the story of how she realized how wrong she was and helped this man keep his farm. The farmer in question was Roger Spooner, who was even interviewed and stood up for Miss Sherrod.
Andrew Breitbart still appears on FOX News. James O'Keefe still appears on FOX News with his latest videos. As a matter of fact he was recently on FOX News Sunday as a "Power Player of the Week" in which the ACORN scandal was not mentioned in any negative light. He even repeats the lie that he was dressed as a pimp.
I honestly have no idea how anyone watching a news source can take it seriously with standards like this. The only lens I have to make this understandable is when Bill O'Reilly was interviewed by Bill Maher and asked about a false report that was carried by numerous FOX News personalities about President Obama spending $200 million a day on a trip to India he said of Sean Hannity "He's an opinion guy". Not "He apologized for being wrong." Not "He was wrong." What is more sad is that I've heard intelligent people I know who watch FOX News repeat this claim. I'm not going to get into the theory that opinions should flow from facts and not the other way around, but I will say that the claim fits a narrative about President Obama as being a big spender.
Now what about the burgeoning narrative that FOX News does not have the journalistic integrity of it's competitors? Well, that's up for you to decide.
The story is about SEVERAL people who have wireless routers, something the Ragin' Man has, and do not have passwords, or had their routers hacked, so pedophiles could download child porn onto their own computer through someone else's internet. The first story is probably the most chilling and really describes a phenomena I have seen in police work.
"Lying on his family room floor with assault weapons trained on him, shouts of 'pedophile!' and 'pornographer!' stinging like his fresh cuts and bruises, the Buffalo homeowner didn't need long to figure out the reason for the early morning wake-up call from a swarm of federal agents."
This is a common thing. Ever watch Dateline NBC's "To Catch A Predator"? Ever seen someone get arrested with a lot of people watching? Ever been arrested when almost no one is around? The Ragin' Man has done all these things. Surprisingly when no one is around they'll just have you get on your knees or even stand there while they slap on the cuffs. If too many people are around you can count on a knee to the back while you lay face down.
The Police were no doubt trying to "get tough" on someone they saw as a huge pedophile. The federal agents had made a bust of someone that perpetuates a horrendous industry. Here's my problem: they no doubt knew when the SUSPECT was going to be home, and they probably knew what he did for a living and if he had any priors. They also understand the Constitution has a thing about "innocent until proven guilty" so why in the hell did they go into his house like that? Why not knock on his door, if he doesn't come to the door within a couple minutes THEN knock down the door. When he comes to the door read him his rights and lock him up. I understand they would be worried he would destroy evidence, but a simple delete does not take everything off of a hard drive, and they already knew that router was downloading porn. They also knew he was a non-violent offender, and I doubt they thought he was producing his own child porn or molesting a child at that exact moment. "Serve and Protect" right?
I also understand that they want a fast confession and a show of force has a psychological affect on someone, but they already had a warrant for what amounted to every electronic device in the guy's home since they took laptops and iPads. The evidence would have been there.
In the end it was his neighbor who was stealing his internet that was downloading the child porn.
Let me be clear, if the guy was being arrested in connection with something that would indicate he might react violently, or if he had a history of violence I am for going in strong and safe like was done. This is just another case of cops trying to be on Law & Order or CSI:Miami in a case that was more like Andy Griffith.
On another level this poses a huge risk to anyone who has unprotected internet, and I know there are many as I can almost always find a signal somewhere.
Just something to rage about on your Easter evening.
This blog is a response to The Billy Blog's response to my own blog. Go check it out and leave a comment if you are so moved. My response was quote heavy and too long so I had to move it here. Since it was a response I didn't hyperlink my sources like I normally do so you can fact check easily.
My blog was a historical debate on the context of the 2nd Amendment. I would say your whole argument about the 2nd Amendment's new viewing is an excellent primer on the recent recreation of the amendment, and I would recommend it to anyone wanting the new scoop on 2nd Amendment poop.
I would submit you don't even really understand just how much the "self defense" argument in Scalia's decision was made to weigh into future decisions. Justice Alito, in the McDonald decision, even starts off his own decision by stating "this Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense and struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home." Moreover the handgun ban was not passed by the US Congress, it was passed by the DC Council, which does have rules put on it by the US Congress as the recently arrested Mayor Gray will attest, but this law was in keeping with ordinances that were passed in towns in federally administrated areas of the west throughout the 1800's. Justice Scalia's majority decision hinged on DC's "prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense". This ruling is more in keeping with a "natural right" to self defense (which goes back to English Common Law) than in keeping with the actual wording of the 2nd Amendment as a whole, even with the due process clause of the 14th. Essentially if you apply the 14th to the 2nd then you have a choice to make. You can disregard the 14th Amendment's due process clause to the second clause of the 2nd Amendment, as was done because of the wording of the first clause in Presser v Illinois and Miller v Texas, less than 20 and 30 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified. This is done because the first part of the amendment shows that the states have a clear right and duty to regulate their militias. Clearly, this was the favored method historically which is all my blog says. I will state that a key part of any "well regulated" military group is a uniformity in their weapons. I doubt many founders would take issue with your state handing out weapons and drilling you once in a while, as was the case in early America. With a standing Army and National Guard we don't really have a need for it though outside of a Red Dawn situation.
I'll probably write a longer critique of your argument. Mine still stands as correct though as it has been a recent movement of the right to get the first clause to stand alone, while historically this was clearly NOT the case as you can see from the court decisions above. It has been understood since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868 that the 2nd Amendment limits the power of the federal government as the decision in United States v Cruikshank stated "The Second Amendment...has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." The last major gun case before Emerson was United States v Miller in which the unanimous decision stated "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." Clearly the first clause impacted the second in 1939, unlike 2011.
Scalia even wrote in 1997's Printz v United States that the new tougher Brady Bill was unConstitutional because "We have thus far discussed the effect that federal control of state officers would have upon the first element of the "double security" alluded to by Madison: the division of power between State and Federal Governments." He made the argument that the federal law forced the states to enforce the law. Why would he argue such a thing instead of just stating the people have a right to bear the restricted arms? In 1997 the court did not have far right wing Justices Roberts and Alito who live to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment.
I guess in the end the most convincing piece of evidence for Scalia's own understanding of the Second Amendment is Scalia. "Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security and where gun violence is a serious problem," Scalia wrote. "That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct." What the right wing has done instead is to declare one half of it extinct.
My blog attempted to show an early understanding of the 2nd amendment and the context with which it would be viewed as historical narrative. Your own closing argument couldn't have been more prescient. Much like your ACLU argument, I'm pointing out that the right wing is attempting to get back to the founders on everything BUT the 2nd Amendment. Is it revisionist history? I'm not sure because our founders were not monolithic, so I'm sure there was a movement to allow for sub-state insurgencies by more than one founder. Is it a conspiracy? I don't think anyone who has read a newspaper or the court decisions of the last 100 years would say it is. To be a conspiracy you have to be quiet and small with a lot of power. It's a pretty large movement based on the number of NRA stickers I see daily. There are entire colleges being started just for this and other right wing causes. I'm glad it got you thinking though, and I don't begrudge your very current reading and understanding of the amendment. As the DC and Chicago bans were 5-4 votes, whereas the earlier cases were generally much larger decisions, I think the issue is very much alive today.
Those of you who read the Ragin' Man regularly can probably tell that he takes in a lot more news than the average person he comes into contact with. You can also tell that he rages against all things big and small. Some of the biggest targets for the Ragin' Man's ire are the 24 hour news networks. They are making Americans stupider daily.
You're probably thinking "Well Ragin' Man, how can a 24 hour news network make Americans more ridiculously uninformed than they already are?" I'm glad you asked... you.
Recently Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI) released what has become the Republican budget proposal for 2012. Without getting into my feelings on the matter it seeks to simplify the tax system, lower taxes on the top earners, "save" Medicare and Medicaid by changing the way their benefits are paid out and at what time one becomes eligible, and it claims to be able to balance the budget by 2040.
Shortly after the budget was released President Obama (D-Kenya) outlined his own budget proposal which sought to do roughly the same without the tax cuts for top earners and significant cuts to Medicare or Medicaid. The President actually proposed raising taxes on the top earners to the rates under President Clinton. President Obama's bill claims to balance the budget by 2017.
There have been competing Republican plans submitted by sitting Senators and others tangentially connected to the party. The news media has focused on the political ramifications of the competing claims between Ryan and Obama almost exclusively. The two parties have used their own outlets and media blitzes to push their competing views on the nobility of their positions, often with false information. Why are these things so effective? It's because the 24 hour news outlets are instead focusing on the potential political ramifications of these stories and then following up by focusing on polling data to prove themselves right or wrong.
It is all part of a larger trend where Americans care less and less about policy and more about the parties they "root" for. Much like football teams, we Americans have bought into the narrative each party has built for themselves and choose to embrace that party, rather than vote for representatives who are qualified and have made good choices in the past. We trust each party on certain issues that they are "good" at.
The more media savvy of the two parties, the Republicans, played the system perfectly in the last political cycle when it came to the Affordable Healthcare Act. All summer long the American public was subjected to Town Halls in which regular Americans were enraged by any amount of horrible things in "Obamacare." The Ragin' Man will admit probably the funniest exchange during this time happened on a motorcycle trip through Mississippi during which several veterans were discussing their hatred for the bill over lunch and they decried "socialism" and how it was going to take away their benefits from the government run Veterans Administration. Second funniest moment goes to a girl in Massachusetts who told a gay Jew that he and a black guy were somehow knowingly instituting a policy of Hitler's, much to the chagrin of the right wing media.
This was all used to portray the Democrats as somehow "out of touch" with the American people. CNN ran no less than one poll story a week detailing the declining support for the plan that hadn't even been finalized or totally spelled out. It was brilliant. Meanwhile the Republicans demagogued the Democrats because, as Michele Bachmann (R-MN) said “The American people have said overwhelmingly that they want this bill repealed,” and the Republicans were "going to listen." This was all true, even though several studies showed that the individual provisions of the bill were popular. Successful labeling, a 24 hour news cycle of town hall protests, and a constant parade of polling data showing a downward trend led America to sour on the plan. The plan eventually passed, but it was severely watered down with no public option and all kinds of opt out options from the mandatory coverage. For the record the public option and mandatory coverage were the things that served to drive down price the most, but the Democrats were already eying their dying reelection prospects.
Now the Republicans stand in the opposite position, and they're being beaten at their own game. Polling shows Americans don't like Ryan's plan. No doubt old people will be giving testimonials about how Medicaid under it's current format is what is keeping them alive. What do they actually know about Paul Ryan's plan? Probably very little, and they're most likely not going to know much more than whether they like the plan or not.
What does that mean we should all run out and do? The Ragin' Man has no idea. He just rages on surrounded by idiots who think they're watching news.
_______________________UPDATE__________________________________ I wrote this blog and went to bed. While in bed I was flipping channels and saw this.
The Democrats are doing to Paul Ryan over the budget what was done to them during the healthcare debate.
O'Donnell pointed out that economists have agreed the stimulus saved jobs he responded that "Saying it could have been worse is not much comfort to my constituents." I'm not sure I buy this argument. I've been in catastrophic accidents and been happy when someone told me although I broke my hip I will walk again, and when they outlined how much worse it could have been I was very thankful. Also, telling someone they have cancer and you're recommending chemotherapy is also not very comforting, but it's the truth, and if it's the best treatment that's probably what should be said.
