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.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Ragin' Against Police... AGAIN!
The Ragin' Man was reading through the news today and came across an article entitled "NY Case Underscores Wi-Fi Privacy Dangers" on Yahoo! News.
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.
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.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Response to Billy Blog
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.
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.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Why The 24 Hour News Networks Make Americans Dumb
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.
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.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Ragin' Man Asks A Question
The Ragin' Man knows he has one subscriber to this blog. Let's face it, the Ragin' Man had a relatively popular Myspace political blog using a character for a while in 2006-2007, and he just uses this one to vent. The Ragin' Man would have to follow a lot of blogs and pimp his blog, and let's face it, he's got too much stuff going on. The venting helps make the Ragin' Man less raging because he sees blatantly obvious cases of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance and can't let it go. Here's a case in which the Ragin' Man going to ask my one reader and anyone else who stops by a question at the end.
The Ragin' Man was reading an article online and saw something that normally causes a ruckus occurred this last week. President Obama walked out of a briefing into a room full of campaign donors and spoke to them with his mic on. One CBS reporter was listening in on the feed and taped it all.
What is probably most notable about this "hot mic" is the President said almost nothing noteworthy to the press. This is most easily explained by the American press living on gossip and political ramification over detailed analysis and fact. What is often reported on were President Obama's statements about his refusal to allow the Republicans to mess with the Affordable Care Act in any budget deal.
What is not often reported is a sentiment the Ragin' Man has shared with his Congressman about his own sudden concern for the deficit. The Ragin' Man has even asked Tea Baggers about this very thing, because according to the polling they elected or supported these same policies. The quote that won the Ragin' Man was this:
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, so it's not on the level."
This is the question the Ragin' Man is asking you. How can someone who never spoke out or voted against any of the above things without proper funding/cutting, supported a Vice President who said "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," and in most cases demonized the one Republican who did, John McCain, for being a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) claim to have any care about the deficit without sounding like a hypocrite?
The Ragin' Man has repeatedly attempted to get his own Congressman who has the same voting record to admit he was wrong at the time or is just a complete hypocrite now, but to no avail. The Ragin' Man has a horrible representative.
It should be noted that in 2000 the Ragin' Man was a Republican, and went independent in the following years because of the deficit issue and the Iraq war falsehoods that were fairly apparent to anyone watching at the time.
So what do you think? Is the Ragin' Man crazy, or are these people just massive fuckups who refuse to acknowledge anything they've ever done?
The Ragin' Man was reading an article online and saw something that normally causes a ruckus occurred this last week. President Obama walked out of a briefing into a room full of campaign donors and spoke to them with his mic on. One CBS reporter was listening in on the feed and taped it all.
What is probably most notable about this "hot mic" is the President said almost nothing noteworthy to the press. This is most easily explained by the American press living on gossip and political ramification over detailed analysis and fact. What is often reported on were President Obama's statements about his refusal to allow the Republicans to mess with the Affordable Care Act in any budget deal.
What is not often reported is a sentiment the Ragin' Man has shared with his Congressman about his own sudden concern for the deficit. The Ragin' Man has even asked Tea Baggers about this very thing, because according to the polling they elected or supported these same policies. The quote that won the Ragin' Man was this:
"When Paul Ryan says his priority is to make sure, he's just being America's accountant ... This is the same guy that voted for two wars that were unpaid for, voted for the Bush tax cuts that were unpaid for, voted for the prescription drug bill that cost as much as my health care bill -- but wasn't paid for, so it's not on the level."
This is the question the Ragin' Man is asking you. How can someone who never spoke out or voted against any of the above things without proper funding/cutting, supported a Vice President who said "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," and in most cases demonized the one Republican who did, John McCain, for being a "RINO" (Republican In Name Only) claim to have any care about the deficit without sounding like a hypocrite?
The Ragin' Man has repeatedly attempted to get his own Congressman who has the same voting record to admit he was wrong at the time or is just a complete hypocrite now, but to no avail. The Ragin' Man has a horrible representative.
It should be noted that in 2000 the Ragin' Man was a Republican, and went independent in the following years because of the deficit issue and the Iraq war falsehoods that were fairly apparent to anyone watching at the time.
So what do you think? Is the Ragin' Man crazy, or are these people just massive fuckups who refuse to acknowledge anything they've ever done?
Sunday, April 10, 2011
What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?
There has been a big move among the right wing of this country to abolish the reading of the 2nd Amendment. Just so we're all clear the 2nd Amendment, in full, states:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You're saying "Ragin' man, I know that. Keep and bear arms. I get it." Well, you've already missed the point. Our "Founders", who have become increasingly deified and monolithic in recent right wing cultural movements, wrote a precursor to the statement about keeping and bearing arms.
"Yeah, that thing about a militia. What does this have to do with the National Guard Ragin' man?" I'm glad you asked because it has almost nothing to do with the National Guard. In an effort to make themselves seem important, and add a little esprit de corps, the National Guard has promoted itself as the natural outgrowth of early militias in the United States. This is only partially true, and covers up an existing truth: a lot of National Guards are not even their state's militias.
I was born and raised in Illinois. My father was in the Army Reserves and my brother was in the National Guard. My other brother and I never served in either of these institutions, but we were every bit as much the members of Illinois' militia.
Article XII Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."
Why would this be the case? Illinois has a National Guard, so what is the purpose of this militia? It's a vestigial article that is necessary given the writing of our federal Constitution. War to our founders was something completely different than it is today. You only need to look at the role of the Army as far as the Constitution is concerned to see what the role of an Army was.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 states Congress shall have the power:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Sounds reasonable? Well then why does Clause 13 state:
"To provide and maintain a Navy"?
Obviously the Army was supposed to be a short term proposition, whereas the Navy was going to be long term. The writers of the Constitution lived at a time when the United States was separated from the military powers of the world by quite a distance. Essentially the Army of a free state was a defensive mechanism only. The Navy was necessary to secure trade against piracy and other sea faring nations. There is also an English distrust of standing Armies, but for the purposes of this we'll just all accept that there is a pretty good basis to assume the founders didn't envision them.
How does this lead us back to the 2nd Amendment debate? Well, the militia was obviously a concern of the founders since they had made no provision for maintaining an Army. They clearly saw a need for it to be "well regulated" and understood that it had a place in a "free State". Why would they think this?
Well it's important to note that the Constitution was ratified in 1788, 12 years after the Declaration of Independence and 5 years after a the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War. The previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation, sought to keep the status quo of the colonies along with stopping what were the reasons behind the need for independence. What was the status quo? Well, it's important to understand that each colony was started for a different reason. Georgia was started as a debtor colony, Maryland was for Catholics, and New York was the spoils of taking from the Dutch. It became apparent that the decentralized movement that led 13 colonies to win independence, but left Canada to the British, was an ineffective form of government. How could it? Who would help a nearby state that was made up of people who couldn't even hold office in their state out of the kindness of their heart?
What came out of this realization were calls for a constitutional convention, which featured several competing views on how the government should be formed. Glenn Beck assures us that our founders were a monolithic group who agreed on the nature of the new nation, but that was not the case. It was not even the case on what this new Constitution really was. James Madison thought the separation of powers guaranteed freedoms to the people, but his close friend Thomas Jefferson lobbied for the inclusion of guaranteed rights.
Among these guaranteed rights was the ability to overthrow the government should it become too tyrannical. This war would not be made by militias as they are generally composed today. It would be made much like our Civil War was carried out, by states who resolve on their own to take on what they viewed as an overstepping of power by the federal government. The colonies had done the same to the King in England by voting for and signing a Declaration of Independence, not by simply running a guerrilla campaign against the King until he was unable to project power onto the colonies.
Now, if we all agree that the militia is to be run by the individual state and that it is an important defensive function of the state, then what does that say about the 2nd Amendment's reading by the right?
Well, if we are to suppose that a "free state" has a "well regulated militia" if we take away the state's ability to determine what the makeup of their militia will be, we have become, at the very least, an unsecure free state.
"Sure Ragin' man, but how does this apply to today?" The representatives of the people of the District of Columbia attempted to regulate their militia by denying handguns to it's citizens. Their reasoning can be called into question by anyone on either side of the debate, but the necessity of a well regulated militia to security of a free state cannot, if you are to believe the Constitution.
Justice Antonin Scalia was not informed of any of this when he wrote "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," because if he had he would understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment states clearly that it is up to the state to decide the makeup of their militia.
I watch a lot of right wing news sources, and I can't believe the guy who wrote that is statistically likely to be liked by this lady:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
You're saying "Ragin' man, I know that. Keep and bear arms. I get it." Well, you've already missed the point. Our "Founders", who have become increasingly deified and monolithic in recent right wing cultural movements, wrote a precursor to the statement about keeping and bearing arms.
"Yeah, that thing about a militia. What does this have to do with the National Guard Ragin' man?" I'm glad you asked because it has almost nothing to do with the National Guard. In an effort to make themselves seem important, and add a little esprit de corps, the National Guard has promoted itself as the natural outgrowth of early militias in the United States. This is only partially true, and covers up an existing truth: a lot of National Guards are not even their state's militias.
I was born and raised in Illinois. My father was in the Army Reserves and my brother was in the National Guard. My other brother and I never served in either of these institutions, but we were every bit as much the members of Illinois' militia.
Article XII Section 1 of the Illinois Constitution states:
"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons residing in the State except those exempted by law."
Why would this be the case? Illinois has a National Guard, so what is the purpose of this militia? It's a vestigial article that is necessary given the writing of our federal Constitution. War to our founders was something completely different than it is today. You only need to look at the role of the Army as far as the Constitution is concerned to see what the role of an Army was.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 states Congress shall have the power:
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years"
Sounds reasonable? Well then why does Clause 13 state:
"To provide and maintain a Navy"?
Obviously the Army was supposed to be a short term proposition, whereas the Navy was going to be long term. The writers of the Constitution lived at a time when the United States was separated from the military powers of the world by quite a distance. Essentially the Army of a free state was a defensive mechanism only. The Navy was necessary to secure trade against piracy and other sea faring nations. There is also an English distrust of standing Armies, but for the purposes of this we'll just all accept that there is a pretty good basis to assume the founders didn't envision them.
How does this lead us back to the 2nd Amendment debate? Well, the militia was obviously a concern of the founders since they had made no provision for maintaining an Army. They clearly saw a need for it to be "well regulated" and understood that it had a place in a "free State". Why would they think this?
Well it's important to note that the Constitution was ratified in 1788, 12 years after the Declaration of Independence and 5 years after a the peace treaty ending the Revolutionary War. The previous form of government, the Articles of Confederation, sought to keep the status quo of the colonies along with stopping what were the reasons behind the need for independence. What was the status quo? Well, it's important to understand that each colony was started for a different reason. Georgia was started as a debtor colony, Maryland was for Catholics, and New York was the spoils of taking from the Dutch. It became apparent that the decentralized movement that led 13 colonies to win independence, but left Canada to the British, was an ineffective form of government. How could it? Who would help a nearby state that was made up of people who couldn't even hold office in their state out of the kindness of their heart?
What came out of this realization were calls for a constitutional convention, which featured several competing views on how the government should be formed. Glenn Beck assures us that our founders were a monolithic group who agreed on the nature of the new nation, but that was not the case. It was not even the case on what this new Constitution really was. James Madison thought the separation of powers guaranteed freedoms to the people, but his close friend Thomas Jefferson lobbied for the inclusion of guaranteed rights.
Among these guaranteed rights was the ability to overthrow the government should it become too tyrannical. This war would not be made by militias as they are generally composed today. It would be made much like our Civil War was carried out, by states who resolve on their own to take on what they viewed as an overstepping of power by the federal government. The colonies had done the same to the King in England by voting for and signing a Declaration of Independence, not by simply running a guerrilla campaign against the King until he was unable to project power onto the colonies.
Now, if we all agree that the militia is to be run by the individual state and that it is an important defensive function of the state, then what does that say about the 2nd Amendment's reading by the right?
Well, if we are to suppose that a "free state" has a "well regulated militia" if we take away the state's ability to determine what the makeup of their militia will be, we have become, at the very least, an unsecure free state.
"Sure Ragin' man, but how does this apply to today?" The representatives of the people of the District of Columbia attempted to regulate their militia by denying handguns to it's citizens. Their reasoning can be called into question by anyone on either side of the debate, but the necessity of a well regulated militia to security of a free state cannot, if you are to believe the Constitution.
Justice Antonin Scalia was not informed of any of this when he wrote "We hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense," because if he had he would understand that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment states clearly that it is up to the state to decide the makeup of their militia.
I watch a lot of right wing news sources, and I can't believe the guy who wrote that is statistically likely to be liked by this lady:
Sunday, April 3, 2011
Ragin' Against Pro-Lifers
I was cruising around Facebook on the internets loaded on my computer (I have the WHOLE thing) and I saw this article. It's about a woman in Iowa, Christine Taylor, who fainted while pregnant and fell down a flight of stairs. She subsequently admitted to an emergency room nurse that she was having a very hard time with her life (due to money and marital problems) and had thought about either aborting the child or giving it up for adoption. As a result of this conversation the nurse alerted a doctor who also spoke with Mrs. Taylor and then had her arrested for "attempted feticide" which is a crime under Iowa law. Christine Taylor was held in jail for two days before being released due to her status as being in the second trimester and not the third, as the hospital believed. Apparently "feticide" can only be committed by trying to break your neck during the third trimester, and not the second.
Now, let me start off by saying I'm a pro-lifer who understands the need for choice. In short, I understand we are a nation of laws and freedoms, and some freedoms are necessary evils. I don't understand why anyone would want to abort a child unless there was some threat to the mother/horrible circumstance surrounding the conception.
That all being said what happened to this woman is unconscionable, and is sadly the preferred method of the pro-life movement. I would encourage anyone interested in this debate to watch the movie "12th and Delaware" for it's evenhanded portrayal of an abortion clinic and the "pregnancy center" across the street. The documentary shows several women who go to either place, and some that go to both. The strategy taken by the abortion clinic is just to lay out the facts of what they're going to do, but the position of the Catholic run "pregnancy center" was to tell you that what is in your body is a human life and urge you to bring it to term.
What is most interesting about the women who seek or get abortions is that they are not often concerned with the actual birth of the child, they are concerned with how they will care for the child should it be born. The "pregnancy center" does little to help out those seeking abortion besides giving them toys for a newborn.
If I were a pro-life leader this would be my new platform:
1) I would try to get adoption portrayed on major TV shows as something that a woman of any age can/should do with no consequence. The majority of people seeking abortion are not showing. Adoption is always an option, but let's face it, every time a woman walks down the street with a big belly every other woman asks her about how excited she is and if the child's room is ready. There is a huge stigma with putting a child up for adoption.
and
2) I would get away from the Republican Party. Work on getting childcare credits/more programs aimed at allowing for a working mother/2 parent working household to function. Just focusing on getting the child out of the mother denies the reasons for abortion.
So, next time you're standing on the side of the road holding a picture of an aborted fetus how about dropping the sign and volunteering some time as a big brother/big sister or giving money to some organizations aimed at helping care for kids. You'll probably be helping the cause more than locking up every pregnant woman in America ever can.
Now, let me start off by saying I'm a pro-lifer who understands the need for choice. In short, I understand we are a nation of laws and freedoms, and some freedoms are necessary evils. I don't understand why anyone would want to abort a child unless there was some threat to the mother/horrible circumstance surrounding the conception.
That all being said what happened to this woman is unconscionable, and is sadly the preferred method of the pro-life movement. I would encourage anyone interested in this debate to watch the movie "12th and Delaware" for it's evenhanded portrayal of an abortion clinic and the "pregnancy center" across the street. The documentary shows several women who go to either place, and some that go to both. The strategy taken by the abortion clinic is just to lay out the facts of what they're going to do, but the position of the Catholic run "pregnancy center" was to tell you that what is in your body is a human life and urge you to bring it to term.
What is most interesting about the women who seek or get abortions is that they are not often concerned with the actual birth of the child, they are concerned with how they will care for the child should it be born. The "pregnancy center" does little to help out those seeking abortion besides giving them toys for a newborn.
If I were a pro-life leader this would be my new platform:
1) I would try to get adoption portrayed on major TV shows as something that a woman of any age can/should do with no consequence. The majority of people seeking abortion are not showing. Adoption is always an option, but let's face it, every time a woman walks down the street with a big belly every other woman asks her about how excited she is and if the child's room is ready. There is a huge stigma with putting a child up for adoption.
and
2) I would get away from the Republican Party. Work on getting childcare credits/more programs aimed at allowing for a working mother/2 parent working household to function. Just focusing on getting the child out of the mother denies the reasons for abortion.
So, next time you're standing on the side of the road holding a picture of an aborted fetus how about dropping the sign and volunteering some time as a big brother/big sister or giving money to some organizations aimed at helping care for kids. You'll probably be helping the cause more than locking up every pregnant woman in America ever can.
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Ragin' Against The Rules
Prepare to be blown away!
What, you ask, could make me be blown away? Well, you, let me tell... you.
Check out this video.
What you just watched was an exchange that took place on the House floor on 30 March 2011. It was between Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Representative Charlie Bass (R-NH) who was acting as Speaker of the House.
As to the facts of what Congressman Weiner was saying:
The bill Congressman Weiner is talking about was H.R. 471 or the "Scholarships for Opportunity Results (SOAR) Act" which was introduced by what was most likely a tearful Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on the 26th of January. It is the only bill he will introduce this year. The bill is basically a school voucher program for the District of Columbia. It is supposed to provide vouchers to underprivileged children so they can attend private schools. It should be understood that school vouchers have been a pet project of the Republican Party for years. The program is not a classic school voucher program though. Whereas school vouchers are generally accepted as you get a check for the amount of money the government pays for your education, and you are free to take that check to whatever institution you choose, this program gives federal money that would not otherwise come to the student and allows that student to attend a private institution with federal dollars. It's essentially a "stimulus" school voucher as it injects money into the local educational system only when someone uses the program.
The CBO estimates that the cost of the bill would be $300 million from 2012-2016, a very small sum of money when compared to the deficit as a whole. Keep in mind that the bill has been in place since Fiscal Year 2004, and this is essentially a re-authorization of funding, so it does not fall under the federally mandated "Pay-as-you-go" law that requires all new expenditures be funded.
However, according to the new rules of the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives made their pay-as-you-go restrictions even stricter so that any new spending had to be taken from something else as new revenues were not to be considered. The House rule reads:
"10. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either---
(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years following that budget year"
I tried to prove Congressman Weiner wrong, because he's smug, and I don't like that level of smug being allowed to roam free. The exceptions to this rule deal with emergency spending resolutions, clearly not within the realm of a school funding bill. Since this would increase funding for the current year (as the fiscal year begins in October) and the 4 years after this, the bill clearly violates CUTGO.
Essentially what you just saw was a group of people (Republicans) who were brought to power because they told you their opponents (Democrats) were not following the rules. As a result they made all kinds of rules to make sure that the rules were followed.
I'll be honest with you, I wondered how anyone could govern with all those rules being passed. As someone who minored in Political Science that has maintained a lifelong interest in politics at the practical level I understand that almost nothing is black or white, and compromise and pork makes the wheels turn.
All that being said, if you're going to pass the rules, you need to follow the rules. Now, the real question is "When are all those guys shouting Nazi at Barney Frank going to turn that on John Shimkus?" The answer is, they won't, and that's why I rage.
What, you ask, could make me be blown away? Well, you, let me tell... you.
Check out this video.
What you just watched was an exchange that took place on the House floor on 30 March 2011. It was between Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) and Representative Charlie Bass (R-NH) who was acting as Speaker of the House.
As to the facts of what Congressman Weiner was saying:
The bill Congressman Weiner is talking about was H.R. 471 or the "Scholarships for Opportunity Results (SOAR) Act" which was introduced by what was most likely a tearful Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) on the 26th of January. It is the only bill he will introduce this year. The bill is basically a school voucher program for the District of Columbia. It is supposed to provide vouchers to underprivileged children so they can attend private schools. It should be understood that school vouchers have been a pet project of the Republican Party for years. The program is not a classic school voucher program though. Whereas school vouchers are generally accepted as you get a check for the amount of money the government pays for your education, and you are free to take that check to whatever institution you choose, this program gives federal money that would not otherwise come to the student and allows that student to attend a private institution with federal dollars. It's essentially a "stimulus" school voucher as it injects money into the local educational system only when someone uses the program.
The CBO estimates that the cost of the bill would be $300 million from 2012-2016, a very small sum of money when compared to the deficit as a whole. Keep in mind that the bill has been in place since Fiscal Year 2004, and this is essentially a re-authorization of funding, so it does not fall under the federally mandated "Pay-as-you-go" law that requires all new expenditures be funded.
However, according to the new rules of the 112th Congress, the House of Representatives made their pay-as-you-go restrictions even stricter so that any new spending had to be taken from something else as new revenues were not to be considered. The House rule reads:
"10. (a)(1) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c), it shall not be in order to consider a bill or joint resolution, or an amendment thereto or a conference report thereon, if the provisions of such measure have the net effect of increasing mandatory spending for the period of either---
(A) the current year, the budget year, and the four fiscal years following that budget year"
I tried to prove Congressman Weiner wrong, because he's smug, and I don't like that level of smug being allowed to roam free. The exceptions to this rule deal with emergency spending resolutions, clearly not within the realm of a school funding bill. Since this would increase funding for the current year (as the fiscal year begins in October) and the 4 years after this, the bill clearly violates CUTGO.
Essentially what you just saw was a group of people (Republicans) who were brought to power because they told you their opponents (Democrats) were not following the rules. As a result they made all kinds of rules to make sure that the rules were followed.
I'll be honest with you, I wondered how anyone could govern with all those rules being passed. As someone who minored in Political Science that has maintained a lifelong interest in politics at the practical level I understand that almost nothing is black or white, and compromise and pork makes the wheels turn.
All that being said, if you're going to pass the rules, you need to follow the rules. Now, the real question is "When are all those guys shouting Nazi at Barney Frank going to turn that on John Shimkus?" The answer is, they won't, and that's why I rage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)