Modern Politics and Joseph Heller

20130922-192041.jpgIf ever there was a character who managed to be memorable without inspiring many specific memories, it would have to be Major Major Major Major from Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. (I enjoyed the book immensely, but mostly only remember Major Major’s tragic haplessness.) Heller’s ridiculously clasic novel also proved to be quite prescient, as Atrios noted:

From Catch-22.

Major Major’s father was a sober God-fearing man whose idea of a good joke was to lie about his age. He was a longlimbed farmer, a God-fearing, freedom-loving, law-abiding rugged indi­vid­u­al­ist who held that fed­er­al aid to any­one but farm­ers was creep­ing social­ism. He advo­cat­ed thrift and hard work and dis­ap­proved of loose women who turned him down. His spe­cial­ty was alfal­fa, and he made a good thing out of not grow­ing any. The gov­ern­ment paid him well for every bushel of alfal­fa he did not grow. The more alfal­fa he did not grow, the more money the gov­ern­ment gave him, and he spent every penny he didn’t earn on new land to increase the amount of alfal­fa he did not pro­duce. Major Major’s father worked with­out rest at not grow­ing alfal­fa. On long win­ter evenings he remained indoors and did not mend har­ness, and he sprang out of bed at the crack of noon every day just to make cer­tain that the chores would not be done. He invest­ed in land wise­ly and soon was not grow­ing more alfal­fa than any other man in the coun­ty. Neigh­bors sought him out for advice on all sub­jects, for he had made much money and was there­fore wise. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap,” he coun­seled one and all, and every­one said, “Amen.”

Major Major’s father was an out­spo­ken cham­pi­on of econ­o­my in gov­ern­ment, pro­vid­ed it did not inter­fere with the sacred duty of gov­ern­ment to pay farm­ers as much as they could get for all the alfal­fa they pro­duced that no one else want­ed or for not pro­duc­ing any alfal­fa at all. He was a proud and inde­pen­dent man who was opposed to unem­ploy­ment insur­ance and never hes­i­tat­ed to whine, whim­per, whee­dle and extort for as much as he could get from whomev­er he could.

Our pol­i­tics never changes.

Share

More Talk of Secession from Texas Republicans

KellyP42 from morguefile.comTexas Attorney General candidate Barry Smitherman, when he’s not advocating for pre-birth voting rights, is apparently talking up Texas’ ability to go it alone as an independent nation (h/t Jenn). He apparently said in an interview that Texas is “uniquely situated because we have energy resources, fossil and otherwise, and our own independent electrical grid…. [Texas has] been very strong leading in the charge agains the Obama administration.”

People like this tend to wrap themselves in the American flag when it suits their purposes, then talk about taking their ball and going home when the rest of America doesn’t do exactly what they want. Democracy is messy, America is big and diverse, and affluent white men don’t always get what they want anymore. Sorry, Mr. Smitherman, but it’s life. (Also, no legal authority for secession exists.)

I could not find any specific statements Smitherman has made recently regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, but I do see that he was a guest speaker at a meeting of the Texas Patriots PAC on August 6, 2013, which reportedly opened with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. (The minutes do not mention if it was to the U.S. or the Texas flag. Yes, Texas has its own pledge of allegiance.)

My question for Smitherman is this: Did you recite the pledge to the U.S. flag that day, and say the words “to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible…”? Continue reading

Share

The NSA Isn’t Going to Stop Anytime Soon, Because Congress Won’t Stop It

Congress could amend or repeal the PATRIOT Act any time it wants (even overriding a veto if it had the will), thus curtailing the NSA’s domestic spying abilities. They just won’t do it.

The Republicans in Congress won’t do it because (a) the program gives them too many talking points to use against the White House right now, and opposing Obama is more important to them than governing; (b) they figure they’ll get the White House back eventually, so they want to keep those powers in place; and (c) so far, no one seems to have seriously asked them why it was okay for Bush to have these powers but not Obama (remember, we’ve known about the NSA’s spying, in one form or another, since at least 2006), and taking actual action might prompt those questions.

Congressional Democrats won’t do it because if the White House stops spying on us, and then there’s another terrorist attack, the entire country will eat them alive for not doing enough to protect us.

We want the government to protect us from “terrorism” at all costs, unless we are the ones actually paying those costs. We are trapped in a catch-22 of our own making.

Share

Some Excellent Questions for Libertarians

I often make common cause with self-styled libertarians on social issues, police brutality, military overreach, and the like. Where I differ greatly is on economic issues, for the basic reason that libertarians generally pretend that all individuals start from an equal bargaining position. R.J. Eskow has a piece at Salon called “11 questions to see if libertarians are hypocrites” that hits on pretty much all of the issues I have with the Ayn Rand style of libertarianism. Here are a few choice quotes.

On the lack of libertarian societies throughout history:

At no time or place in human history has there been a working libertarian society which provided its people with the kinds of outcomes libertarians claim it will provide. But libertarianism’s self-created mythos claims that it’s more realistic than other ideologies, which is the opposite of the truth. The slope from that contradiction to the deep well of hypocrisy is slippery, steep—and easy to identify.

On libertarians’ narrow definition of “order”: Continue reading

Share

Signal Boost: Anti-Choicers’ “Shocking Amount of Entitlement”

From “The Deeply Disturbing World of Modern Anti-Abortion Activism” by Amanda Marcotte, on anti-choice efforts in Kansas:

What all this bespeaks is a shocking amount of entitlement on the behalf of anti-choicers. It makes sense; the underlying premise of being anti-choice is believing that you have the right to control the reproductive decisions of perfect strangers and that your beliefs about what sexuality is “for” should be imposed on others by government fiat. Once you get into that headspace, all other kinds of shockingly entitled attitudes follow, including the belief that you get to misuse the medical records of underage rape victims and that clinics, and not you, are to blame if your protesting is an irritant to the rest of the community. The anti-choice movement, at its heart, is imperious and cold-hearted, but the situation in Kansas shows how an insular, radically anti-choice community can take the already grossly entitled attitudes of anti-choicers and blow them up into grotesqueries.

As I have stated many times in the past, I do not believe for a second that the higher-ups in the anti-choice movement have any serious interest in reducing the number of abortions. At best, it is about removing any legally-sanctioned access to abortion so that they can claim a clear conscience and place the blame for continued abortion on “criminals” (which really is quite the feat of rhetorical sleight-of-hand). At worst, of course, it is just yet another effort at imposing archaic notions of control over women.

Share

Fetuses, the 26th Amendment, and Texas Republicans

xandert from morguefile.com

Childhood hijinks, or sinister liberal plot?

If fetuses in Texas could vote, they’d probably vote Republican, at least according to one state official:

In a recent speech to an anti-abortion group on the economic impact of terminating pregnancies, Texas Railroad Commissioner Barry Smitherman, a Republican candidate for attorney general, said he believed many unborn babies “would have voted Republican.”

***

Smitherman spokesman Allen Blakemore called the candidate’s statement a matter of statistics.

“Of course he was referring to the ones in Texas,” Blakemore said, “and we know that the majority of Texans vote for Republican candidates.”

I am honestly just too worn out to bother trying to make fun of Smitherman directly, and this comment actually boggles my mind to the point where snark begins to fail me. Instead, I will point out the callous disregard Smitherman shows for children through this comment. Apparently he wants to give the franchise to fetuses, but nothing he said indicates that he would support granting similar voting rights to children between the ages of birth and eighteen. Individuals in that age range do not have the right to vote, per the 26th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

What does Smitherman know about children that would cause him to seek to suppress their voting rights in this manner? What is behind this push for a fetal franchise? Are Texas children far more liberal—and therefore more likely to vote for Democratic candidates—than their amniotic-submerged counterparts? Or is something more sinister at work here?

Or, in the alternative, is Barry Smitherman talking completely out of his ass? History will decide (assuming that we’re still even bothering to teach history in the future).

Photo credit: xandert from morguefile.com.

Share

“Social Welfare,” Loosely Defined

501c4 by Hollywata [CC BY-ND 2.0], on FlickrThe Tea Party might have been right about the IRS improperly applying the law, just not in the way they think. As opposed to the discredited claim-that-will-not-die that the IRS targeted Tea Party groups, and only Tea Party groups, a new lawsuit alleges that the agency is not correctly applying the requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for “social welfare organizations,” known as 501(c)(4) groups. Van Hollen, et al v. Internal Revenue Service, et al, No. 1:13-cv-01276, complaint (D.D.C., Aug. 21, 2013) (I love using legal citation forms that probably aren’t quite right, on the off chance that someone on a law review reads this and gets all eye-twitchy.)

Here’s the actual statute defining a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization:

(4)(A) Civic leagues or organizations not organized for profit but operated exclusively for the promotion of social welfare, or local associations of employees, the membership of which is limited to the employees of a designated person or persons in a particular municipality, and the net earnings of which are devoted exclusively to charitable, educational, or recreational purposes.

(B) Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to an entity unless no part of the net earnings of such entity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(4) (emphasis added).

The regulation that the IRS uses to interpret and enforce that statute specifically states that “direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns” for or against a candidate does not constitute “the promotion of social welfare.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(4)-1(a)(2)(ii).

Here’s how the regulation defines “promotion of social welfare”: Continue reading

Share

I guess dogs won’t be getting married, then

"Anti Doggystyle Protester" via imgbit.com

“Anti Doggystyle Protester” via imgbit.com

A Mexican politician made an odd comment re: same-sex marriage, in which she seems to consider coital eye contact to be a prerequisite for nuptials (h/t Bob the Wonder Poodle):

Ana Maria Jimenez Ortiz, a local deputy of the PAN Party in Puebla, said during a forum on whether to legalize gay marriage in the state of Puebla that “marriage should only be considered as those relationships in which the members have sex while facing each other.”

The fun continued:

She said that this was based on the scientific method, asserting that only eye contract at time of copulation creates a true union.

“Who pretends to love decently using the favorite position of dogs!” she said.

The Facebook page that posted this link had an astute observation:

By this logic, heterosexual men can avoid commitment in relationships as long as they maintain a doggy-style only policy.

I’d just point out that Jimenez Ortiz is not being very creative.

Share

A Special Prosecutor Will Be Looking at Rick Perry and the Public Integrity Unit

Via empireonline.com

Via empireonline.com

A senior district judge from San Antonio announced that he will name a special prosecutor to investigate allegations of “abuse of official capacity” and other charges against Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Texans for Public Justice filed a complaint against Perry with the Travis County District Attorney and the Travis County Attorney in June. Perry had threatened to withhold funding for the Public Integrity Unit (PIU), which investigates allegations of official misconduct, unless Travis County DA Rosemary Lehmberg resigned in the wake of her DWI conviction. (Perry may have had other reasons to want the PIU shut down.) Perry eventually vetoed funding for the PIU.

That veto took away about $3.7 million from the PIU. The Travis County Commissioners’ Court voted in early August to use $1.8 million of Travis County (not Texas) taxpayers’ money, plus over $700,000 “from another fund,” to keep the PIU going. This gave Lehmberg the opportunity to “scold” Perry. Continue reading

Share

Contemplations on Current Events

Emerson's 2nd Adoption Day by themoonmachine, on Flickr

The world is beset by fools, so here is a dog in a party hat.

I seem to have a proclivity for quoting Kurt Eichenwald here. What can I say? It’s easier than writing my own content. His list of 25 Contemplations on Current Events is one for the ages. Here are few highlights:

1. Given the messages we’ve learned from the Zimmerman case, Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, and the N.R.A., all young black men should arm themselves and shoot anyone whom they believe threatens them. Because freedom.

2. It makes no sense to argue that you support Stand Your Ground and then condemn Trayvon Martin for confronting a guy who was following him. You can’t pick and choose who gets to stand their ground based on a perception of threat. Which is why that law is so obscene.

5. All anti-abortion protesters should be presented, on the spot, with an application to sign up as foster parents. They should also be given the names of children in their area in need of adoptive parents. And if they won’t sign or volunteer, they should shut up.

7. Whenever someone says zygotes are babies, I reply: “Imagine a thousand zygotes in test tubes in one room, and three toddlers in another. A fire breaks out, and you only have time to get to one room. Which would you save from burning, the zygotes or the children?” It’s so much fun to watch the forced-birthers try to wriggle out of the conundrum created by their bumper-sticker slogans.

12. Isn’t it amazing that almost every religious bigot was born into the only true religion?

17. Wealthy folk need to stop whining about “class warfare.” Rich people having their heads impaled on pikes and marched through the town square is class warfare; paying three cents more in taxes on every dollar earned over $250,000 a year is not.

21. Tea Partiers really must stop moaning about losing their freedoms until, you know, they actually start losing their freedoms. (Hint on how to tell when that happens: if the government no longer allows you to say that you are losing your freedoms, then you have started losing your freedoms.)

22. Sarah Palin must . . . ahh, who cares.

Photo credit: Emerson’s 2nd Adoption Day by themoonmachine [CC BY-ND 2.0], on Flickr.

Share