Showing posts with label The US Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The US Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, 9 August 2010

Palin jumps the shark in "Worst Governor Ever" gotcha



Sarah Palin defaults to stock memes and GOP talking points about "defending the Constitution" when asked simple questions by, of all things, her nightmare audience... a teacher. Actually, I'm just wondering whether it's possible for Palin to jump the shark any more than she already has done, and whether this example actually falls under the 'screws the pooch' category? You decide.


Thanks to Wonkette for the find!

Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, 23 April 2010

"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" - Tim Wise



"Imagine if the Tea Party Was Black" -  by Tim Wise

Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.

So let’s begin.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters - the black protesters - spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protesters — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.

Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.

Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.

Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.

Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.

Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”

Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.

In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Game Over.



Share/Save/Bookmark

Wednesday, 24 March 2010

Daily Kos: The "repeal" trap

Daily Kos: The "repeal" trap
Share/Save/Bookmark

Is it Unconstitutional to Mandate Health Insurance?




Superb piece here by Law Professor, Mark Hall, explaining why healthcare reform mandate is constitutionally sound - and why GOP legal arguments are specious:


"Conservative lawyers think compulsory health insurance is unconstitutional...Their reasoning is unconvincing & deeply flawed." 

Share/Save/Bookmark

The Party of the Past: Republican Obstructionism







The latest fevered attempt to use the courts to block and/or then repeal the healthcare reform bill is simply the latest tired throw of the dice by the Republicans in their strategy of obstructionism.

Their current rote rhetoric is based around two points:

1. "Obama's going against the will of the American people."

Bullshit: an Obama election campaign pledge was to try and introduce something as close to universal healthcare as he could get passed in Congress - he's now done precisely that. Apart from the Americans having had a belly-full of the Republicans, after eight disastrous years of GW Gump Bush, healthcare reform was the chief reason Obama won the presidential election. So how can he be accused of "going against the will of the American people" when he was voted in on that very ticket?

I know this may come as a shock to some folks, but the Fox News Borg, The Teabaggers and self-interest-only Republicans do not represent 'the will of the American people'.

2. "It's unconstitutional to require citizens to spend money on goods and services."

Again: bullshit - so how do they explain no Republican complaints when their taxes go towards their public highways, their military, their public schools, their drinking water, their public libraries, their ... the list goes on. And yes not a peep out of them.

So why whine like a cut snake specifically on healthcare - especially when it's for the greater good of the American public (and specifically 32+ million of them who are currently denied any healthcare cover)?

The only reason the Republicans bitch about healthcare reform can be boiled down to two things: selfishness and self-interest. This "constitutional" angle's just a smoke screen and will lose in the courts. LBJ had to go through this nonsense with Civil Liberties reform - and the opposition then came from the same crowd right-wing mentality.

Let them waste their time theorising: healthcare reform is now law. Time for the party of the past to deal with and get over it.

And last night I watched Michael Steele, RNC Chairman, being 'interviewed' on Faux News - he was embarrassingly inept and full of sour grapes at failing to 'kill the bill'. Tragic. Back-peddling like a JAMF when asked, by Greta Van Susteren, "so, this 'strategy' of just saying 'no' to everything and refusing to work with the Democrats on anything - how's that working for ya? Success or suicide?"

I doubt he'll be keeping his job for much longer - for the head of an organisation to screw the pooch so badly, in terms of having delivered no more than rancour and decisiveness, even the Republican village elders must see that their ship needs to change course if it is to re-engage with the mainstream American public.

And in a playground move of epoch-redefining proportions, if you go to the GOP's website, your session is hijacked by a captive portal and you're taken, instead, to a site they've knocked-up called "Sack Nancy Pelosi". Just pathetic. Though it's amazing what you can achieve in lieu of any actual or meaningful policies which might serve 'We The People'.

Here, try it for yourself: www.gop.com

And finally, as if the Republicans haven't spent enough time tossing their toys out of their prams, because they're not getting their own way, they're now punting the line that for the bill to pass the US Senate, and instead of a simple majority (i.e. 51 of the 100 available seats, which the Dem's have), instead they'll now need 60 seats! Talk about making the rules up as you go along to suit yourself.

The GOP are designing themselves into irrelevance at a rate of knots - but give them their due: they're also providing some of the best unintentional political comedy I've seen since GW Gump Bush was in power.
Share/Save/Bookmark

Friday, 12 February 2010

When bumper-sticker sloganeering meets rampant paranoia


Thanks to New Left Media for their endeavours in putting this package together.

In February 2010, the group Tea Party Nation organized the first Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tennessee, a for-profit event. Some 600 people paid $550 to attend, and Sarah Palin was reportedly paid $115,000 to the be the keynote speaker. After criticism of the convention's cost, for-profit status, and payment to Palin, multiple national Tea Party organizations withdrew their participation.

But the event went on.

And so did the paranoid, conspiratorial assertions--that President Obama was born in another country, that he has covered up his college transcripts, that he is pushing a communist/socialist agenda, that he is protecting terrorists and endangering our country, etc.

The organizers of the convention made great efforts to limit access to the press, and even held "new-media training" sessions to help the Tea Partiers sound and look better on camera--the more people see inside this movement, the less they like it. But we got ourselves into the event, where the right-wing, fringe sentiments were on plain display.

That said, these Tea Partiers - at least those able to pay the cost of attendance - are more affluent than those at the 9.12 DC March, and more self-conscious of how they are portrayed in the media. There were fewer signs and homemade t-shirts here, but the attitudes, if more subtle in delivery, were the same.
 


Share/Save/Bookmark

Monday, 23 November 2009

Putin loves Palin










Share/Save/Bookmark

More Motivational Posters


Click on any picture to enlarge.




















Share/Save/Bookmark

Tuesday, 20 October 2009

Can Fox News really be considered a 'News' entity?

Bizarre that this topic should arise today in the news, as we were discussing this very thing on my website, over a week ago, when an Australian friend, Roger, made the following comment:

"[Can Fox News really be considered a 'News' entity?] ... from what I've heard and read (having never actually seen the station on TV), it's a PR company for the Neo-Cons."

Which is pretty much the way I feel about Faux News, also. So, as Loyd Grossman might say - let's look at the clues...

As a 'news' entity, it's certainly a Murdoch-owned opinionated vassal; catering largely for what I refer to as 'The No Passport Fox News Christians': the kind of analysis-starved mindset which eagerly accepts voodoo claims and deliberate dissembling, such as "Obama death panels", in the US Healthcare Reform debate, and "Obama's a Muslim and has no US birth certificate". And this is the same audience who, as default, use the term 'liberal' in the pejorative sense.

It also makes much of the "we can say what we want, regardless of how petulant, puerile or pernicious it might be, and it's protected by the Constitution" mentality, so redolent in the US (in other words, the liberty to be both stupid and offensive, whilst trying to paint your actions as some  duty, or noble and cherished rite of passage - it's not called 'Faux' News for nothing!).

Fox would have you believe that it does indeed offer 'news & analysis' - which is an utter and deliberate misnomer; and one to which it obstinately and repeatedly clings in the belief that mere opinionated rants are in some way synonymous with, or a worthy substitute for, proper and impartial analysis.

In short, all Fox does is cater for its 'target market' (the eponymous 'No Passport Fox News Christians') and sees no reason to trouble itself with what (outside the US) is the dictionary definition of 'news' - that means it's just an opinion: and an avowedly, no pretence, right-wing one at that. This is why it is not considered 'news' anywhere else outside its Limbaugh-loving target market.

And what marks it out as a transparent shill for the US Right is its chosen format and approach; as this is one, in Europe at least, which we associate with, and attribute to, the tabloids and habitués of rags like The National Enquirer - hence the reason why most Europeans treat it with a mixture of concomitant contempt and parody.

Share/Save/Bookmark
Related Posts with Thumbnails