From the Mouths of Babes (UPDATED)

Fox News has a story about a 13-year-old kid who posted a YouTube video criticizing President Obama’s decision to invite Ahmed Mohamed to the White House (h/t Tim). It pretty much covers all the usual points: why is the president taking an active stand on this issue and not on [other, possibly-unrelated issue]??? Even at its best, it’s not a very good argument. In this case, the kid mentioned the president’s purported silence about Kate Steinle and “cops…being gunned down,” even though the second point is decidedly not true, and neither point is relevant to Ahmed Mohamed’s story.

I’m not going to get too worked up about this, though, because this kid is 13 years old. The real question is why Fox News seems to be giving him so much of a platform.

See, this is not the first time conservatives have rallied around a teenager who said things they wanted to hear. Wonkette reported on young conservative darling Jonathan Krohn a few years ago: Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, February 18, 2015

Conservatives Smear Slain ISIS Hostage Kayla Mueller Because She Cared About Palestinians Too, Zaid Jilani, AlterNet, February 11, 2015

26 year-old Kayla Mueller accomplished much before her death while in ISIS custody. She traveled the world, working for various international nonprofits. By all accounts, she was a big-hearted humanitarian and represented the best of America’s values abroad.

But all of that is unimportant to a group of Islamophobic conservatives who took issue with Mueller’s advocacy for the Palestinian cause – which included joining protests against the Israeli occupation.

SF/F Saturday: The Years of Rice and Salt, Adam Lee, Daylight Atheism, November 15, 2014 Continue reading

Share

It’s the Distraction, Stupid!

We caught the guy who was allegedly behind the 2012 attack on our consulate (or whatever that building was) in Benghazi, Libya. By “we,” I of course mean U.S. Special Forces. Neither (presumably) you nor (definitely) I were involved in any way.

Since Benghazi, and all the supposedly unanswered questions about it, have been the subject of multiple Republican-led hearings and whatnot for almost two years, you might think this would come across as good news.

They—meaning Republicans and conservative pundits—have been accusing the White House of using [insert almost literally anything here] to distract us from Benghazi. So now that we have a warm body to ship off to Guantanamo, some of them are……….

………wait for it………..

………suggesting that this is all intended to distract us from something—perhaps everything—else:

It’s been just over a month since former Republican Congressman and current Fox News talking head Allen West took to his blog to complain that the Obama administration was focusing on the Boko Haram kidnappings in Nigeria in order to distract Americans from the ongoing investigation into the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Now that a key suspect in the attack has been arrested by U.S. Special Forces, West thinks President Barack Obama is using that Benghazi capture to distract from everything else.

You can’t make this sh!t up.

The only common, consistent factor is distraction. No matter what, the Obama administration is trying to distract us from something else. As soon as the White House observes or directly affects the thing from which they are supposedly distracting us, that thing changes. It’s politics by Heisenberg.

Share

What I’m Reading, May 28, 2014

The Conservative Movement Virus, BooMan, Booman Tribune, May 27, 2014

[T]he Conservative Movement is not the same thing as the Republican Party. The Conservative Movement is still animated by support for school prayer, opposition to Roe v. Wade, and a host of John Bircher heat-fever fantasies. When they gained power in Congress and in the state legislatures, they set out to do what they had been fighting for for decades. What they have done is totally consistent with what they’ve been saying for all these years.

The Conservative Movement has captured the Republican Party and they aren’t going to change just because the party needs to change if it wants to win. This is an anti-intellectual movement based in an anti-intellectual form of religion, that has been coupled with a paranoid and xenophobic strain of embittered nihilism. It’s greatest crime is that it has been able to take advantage of on-team solidarity to convince a lot of formerly moderate and reasonable people to abandon reality-based thinking.

***

This political weaponization of stupidity is at the core of the Conservative Movement. Until recently, the Republican Party was an uneasy marriage between the monied classes and the dumb, but now the dumb are leading the dumb, and the monied classes are the ones demonstrating on-team loyalty. They don’t care about school prayer or abortion or gay marriage, but they dare not buck the Conservative Movement. To some degree, after ingesting so much right-wing media, even the monied classes may come to devalue science and take on more socially conservative views.

The overall effect is that people who identity with the Republican Party and want it to succeed are continuously getting dumber.

Share

What I’m Reading, April 30, 2014

By Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg: Constitutional Convention derivative work: Bluszczokrzew (Constitution_Pg1of4_AC.jpg) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsLibertarian Law Prof Debunks Bundy Nonsense, Ed Brayton, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, April 25, 2014

As some of the more militant libertarians, especially the anarcho-capitalists, flock to the support of Cliven Bundy in his standoff with the federal government, most of the libertarian-minded law professors are debunking their absurd claims and pointing out how gloriously wrong those people are. Josh Blackman is one of them.

First, Bundy seems to reject the Constitution’s property clause. (It was a wonderful twist of scheduling fate that I assigned the “Property Clause” in ConLaw the week after the Bundy Ranch standoff. ) In an interview he said that the federal government has “no jurisdiction or authority” on his grazing rights. Under the Property Clause, Congress has the power to “dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” The land at issue was owned by the United States prior to Nevada statehood as a territory. I suspect Bundy will argue that his family has obtained a prescriptive easement on the land, as it has continuously, openly, and (absolutely) hostilely, grazed on the land for 170 years. Though, adverse possession is not permissible against the federal government. Continue reading

Share

What Exactly Is Being Shoved Down Your Throats?

20140105-223300.jpgTo all the people who feel that gay people being allowed to marry somehow infringes their rights, be warned—those of us who see how dumb this argument is will not be able to avoid laughing like Butthead for much longer whenever you complain that gay people are shoving their agenda down your throat.

Photo credit: Via it.wikipedia.org.

Share

Some Conservatives Love America Far More as an Idea Than an Actual Country

From Fareed Zakaria:

The era of crises could end, but only when this group of conservatives makes its peace with today’s America. They are misty-eyed in their devotion to a distant republic of myth and memory yet passionate in their dislike of the messy, multiracial, quasi-capitalist democracy that has been around for half a century — a fifth of our country’s history. At some point, will they come to recognize that you cannot love America in theory and hate it in fact?

Share

Life Exceeds Art, in Terms of Racist Absurdity, at CPAC

ST-slaves

I have no idea what conservatives think would have happened without slavery.

I’m having a hard time believing that this guy, who went on a bizarre rant in defense of slavery and only went downhill from there, is for real.

A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

ThinkProgress generally seems to have good reporting, so let’s assume for argument’s sake that its reporting on this story is accurate. Because that’s not all, folks:

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

Look, I wouldn’t claim to be an expert on comedy, satire, or political subterfuge, but I’ve done a reasonable amount of comedy-related writing and performing in my life, such that I know a thing or two about creating a caricature of an opinion or attitude that you want to mock. The trick to creating a character who expresses or embodies a position that you want to lampoon is that you have to make that character over-the-top and believable at the same time. Have the character express opinions that might represent an absurd yet realistic extension of an actual opinion. The character has to be someone who could exist in our world.

At the moment, I am having a hard time believing that Scott Terry exists in our world.

By this, I mean that several possibilities occur to me:

  • Terry is an earnest, if catastrophically misguided, young man, but the depths of his depraved beliefs make me wonder how he was able to hold these beliefs, wake up and get dressed in the morning, eat food with utensils, and get to the meeting hall, all without somehow hurting himself. You know, by walking directly into a brick wall because he thought it might be a special doorway reserved for white people or something.
  • Terry is a James O’Keefe-caliber troll sent to make conservatives look like epic doucherockets. For the record, my opinion of James O’Keefe, based on what I have seen and read, rests somewhere around the level of inorganic material intertwined with forest undergrowth—no one really wants to come into contact with either it or the organic undergrowth, and unlike the organic stuff, it doesn’t even help trees grow. My point being, this is not meant to be a compliment for Mr. Terry.

I’m pretty sure this guy was for real, as much as it pains me to think that people younger than me think this way and are able to function in society. CPAC, after all, is the place where two white guys did a rap number last year and dropped an almost-N-bomb for comedic effect. The Republican Party boasts among their 2012 candidates a guy who thinks slavery was good for Africans because it meant that their descendants could live in the U.S. and not, you know, Africa. So yeah, I guess it’s plausible that a CPAC attendee would actually believe all the things that guy said.

Anyway, if an actual liberal wanted to smear conservatives by infiltrating and posing as a racist idiot, it would have been far more clever than this.

Photo credit: See page for author [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

When Conservatism Meets Empathy (UPDATED)

1146008_19639910Modern-day conservatism cannot survive a head-on collision with empathy, at least when the empathy is for a close loved one. That is really the only way to explain Senator Rob Portman’s (R-OH) about-face on same-sex marriage.

To be clear, I’m very glad that he has seen the light, so to speak. I also have no doubt that he will face severe backlash from his party’s “base,” who don’t seem to like any policy that expresses any sort of kindness towards people they dislike. So he went out on a limb here, and his specific reasons are perhaps not as important as the fact that he did it. I am less interested in why someone comes to the right conclusion as I am in supporting the fact that they got there. The reasons become important, however, when you consider how a change in tune will affect their positions on related issues. In this case, Senator Portman pretty much flat-out said that his mind was changed gradually after his son came out as gay in 2011. I assume he will continue to be a Republican darling on issues that do not affect his loved ones.

I don’t much feel like quoting from the senator’s self-serving justification for his flip-flop in the Columbus Dispatch, so I’ll quote Sylvia Nightshade, writing about it in Daily Kos:

[H]e never considered how the issue of gay marriage affects people until it affected him.  Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad he’s come over to our side (we have cookies!), but this reveals exactly why Republican politicians suck.  They don’t think about things from other people’s perspective.  They don’t have to struggle to eat, so they don’t think about what happens when they cut food stamps and people who already have too little to eat have even less.  They have retirement savings and won’t have to depend on Social Security, so they don’t think about how gutting SS effects people who depend on it to survive.  They can afford their own healthcare without any problem, so this big scary Obamacare mandate is all bad news, it can’t possibly help people who have no insurance now and just pray they don’t get sick or injured, because it doesn’t help them.  They just end up paying extra taxes for people who are lazy, right?  Because how else would you end up in a situation like that, unless you were lazy?  Because Republican politicians aren’t lazy, and they’re all well-off, so the opposite must be true–if you’re lazy you fail at life.  Thus if you’ve failed, it’s your own fault, so why should anybody else help you?  Help yourself, damnit!

Leaving aside the misuse of the word “effect,” she raises many excellent points. Much of the ideology of the modern-day Republican party derives from a near-total failure (dare I say refusal?) to understand the actual lived experiences of the people affected by their policies. Perhaps the most obvious example from the past year would be Rush Limbaugh’s treatment of Sandra Fluke, who offered expressly non-sexual reasons for women to use contraception. Limbaugh, either because he is cognitively incapable of understanding that she was not talking about sex, or because he knows that his fan base won’t care that he was wrong, ignored all of the actual words that came out of her mouth and called her a slut. Repeatedly.

Same-sex couples want to get married? Well, they are sexual deviants, conservatives know, despite the fact that they want to get married and raise families.

Meanwhile, individual Republicans declare their support for policies deemed anathema to conservatism once it affects them or a family member directly. See Dick Cheney on same-sex marriage, Nancy Reagan on stem-cell research. Compare Nancy Reagan’s position on that issue to that of Rush Limbaugh.

It is tiresome to argue these points, because the only surefire way to make the point clear, apparently, is to put the effects of their policies directly in front of their faces, where it affects someone who actually matters to them.

UPDATE (04/18/2013): Peter Miller at Vice has a good piece on this phenomenon, “Republicans Don’t Have a Ton of Empathy for Strangers.” The whole thing is worth a read, but this jumped out at me:

I’m not saying that Republicans are monsters. I’m not even saying they don’t care about other people’s kids. They probably don’t, but that’s beside the point. The point is, right-wingers of all stripes, from the feisty libertarian to the noble Santorumite, are incapable of learning from the experiences of others. They just can’t help it.

He goes on to list examples, but this really captures the phenomenon for me.

Photo credit: twitchtoo on stock.xchng.

Share

Stan Lee Wept

'lfa_1_covera' [Fair use], via ACC StudiosSo, apparently this really exists:

ACC Studios has published the most politically divisive comic book ever written, Liberality For All #1 (in a series of eight issues) releases nationwide November 2, 2005 . It is an all-new take on the Orwellian future, this time with a captive society oppressed by doves, not hawks. It is the first comic book directly marketed to the “vast right-wing” audience.

While this action-packed, patriotic knee-in-the-groin to the embodiment of the ultra-left is a blatant satire of liberalism, it still asks significant questions about the end result of liberal political policies.

‘It is 2021, tomorrow is the 20th anniversary of 9/11. America is under oppression by ultra-liberal extremists who have surrendered governing authority to the United Nations. Hate speech legislation called the “Coulter Laws” have forced vocal conservatives underground. A group of bio-mechanically enhanced conservatives led by Sean Hannity, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, and a young man born on September 11, 2001, set out to thwart Ambassador Usama bin Laden’s plans to nuke New York City.’

When first announced in late July, Liberality For All immediately touched off a controversy that is still raging. The resulting enthusiasm from conservatives, and simultaneous denunciation as neo-con indoctrination propaganda by those on the Left, continues to feed a firestorm on this provocative, full-color, eight-issue, comic book mini-series.

This press release is from November 1, 2005, but I had never heard of this epic controversy until just now. I had also forgotten just how stupid things got around the middle of the last decade. Lest anyone think we have presently entered an unprecedented era of self-styled conservatives completely losing their shit, I present Liberality for All. Things have been stupid for quite a while. (Incidentally, the ACC Studios webpage appears to have received its most recent update in June 2006. Perhaps its editors rage-quit after the Democratic victory in the 2006 mid-term elections.)

The “alternate cover” is pictured here. The fantasy-fulfillment element is quite remarkable. This appears to depict a one-eyed Sean Hannity, for some reason holding an Apple laptop and dressed sort of like an X-Man. The real kicker though, is G. Gordon Liddy, who would be 90 to 91 years old in 2021, riding a hog. The other cover also depicts a by-then 78 year-old Oliver North, but at least it shows him with a cane. Maybe he didn’t receive any “bio-mechanical enhancements.” It is impossible to look at this and not make a joke about how these three probably can’t look at these comic book covers without getting erections. Continue reading

Share