…so we’re gonna *use* the recording studio in the yutz’s living room — the yutz in question being, of course, conservative America’s own bearded lady, Sarah Palin. (Or maybe chicken-head geek. Hard one to nail down, carney-wise.) TPM’s quoted quote was a cherce and representative example of the interview-with-a-schizophrenic-cat-lady-on-the-street genre:
You don’t bring a lawsuit to a gunfight, and there’s no place for lawyers on the front lines.
Never give the early bird an even break, and it’s an ill wind that brings May flowers, amirite?
Anyway, DailyKos’ Hunter nailed it yesterday vis-a-vis Mooseburgers’ being the conservative traffic circle smack dab on the corner of dog whistle and dumb:
The reason [Palin] still gets all that attention? Because she is not a unique little flower of the movement. Not by a stretch. Not even a little bit.
Her cookie-cutter wisdom, little bits and phrases taken from movement fortune cookies and stirred together into an incongruous word mulch, is precisely what the wider movement wants to hear; that much, and no more. If she says impeach, it is because the conservative zeitgeist has gotten its collective undies in a bunch over the word impeach, and if she stumbles over the reasons it is because not one person in her audience truly cares what the reasons might be. If she is considered a wise owl of the movement, it is because all the people clapping are that much dumber. Paul Ryan is the Budget Wonk, because he once wrote some numbers down. They didn’t add up, but by God he wrote them. John McCain is the serious foreign policy wonk, because John McCain demands we alternately bomb or arm every last faction he hears about, which are the only two serious foreign policies that the entire vast sweep of conservative think tanks have ever been able to come up with. The CPAC crowd and the NRA crowd are entirely indistinguishable because both define “freedom” to be something you get by taking it from the other guy.
And Sarah Palin is their prophet because the job was open, and the cash is good, and because it is a requirement of the movement that you dispense a soylent mush of symbols and shibboleths and angry exclamation points to your audience without ever saying anything that would be too specific, thus causing conflict, or too moderate, thus implying weakness, or giving a general flying damn about the law, or recent history, or what you said last week. She is their prophet because she is perfect at this job. She represents the id that has overtaken the party and swallowed it up whole, the id that has given us the Scott Walkers and the Chris McDaniels and the All of Texas. She is the painted clown at the entrance to the great conservative roller coaster, the one that grins and points out a finger and says you must be no smarter than this to enter.
How can a traffic circle be on the corner of anything, you ask? Grasshopper, you have much to learn.
More hathos from my re-read of the Quinn article:
Democrats as well as Republicans are very angry at the president, says retiring Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who emphasizes what he sees as a lack of respect for the office of president. “I’m angry at him,” he says. “I’d like to kick his butt across the White House lawn.”
I would think that letting President Ronald Reagan off the hook for Iran-Contra–and thus normalizing the notion that breaking the law is just what presidents do–would preclude a lack of respect for the office of the president. Then again, I’m not an eminence grise.
Worth remembering that the recently deceased, esteemed statesman was just as capable of prudish stupidity as anybody:
“Ambrose is right on both scores,” says Howard Baker. “But the difference between Clinton and Nixon is that Nixon resigned because he couldn’t stand it. Clinton is not cut from the same cloth. He can compartmentalize. I drive by the White House at night and think, ‘What in the world are they doing right now? How do they function?’ I would be destroyed.”
For Baker, the most serious consequence of the scandal is “the diminished capability for the U.S. to lead by moral example . . . the impact on Kosovo and Iraq. I can just see Saddam Hussein licking his chops seeing that the U.S. is less willing to respond.”
Just to clarify, that last part isn’t a joke. It was a serious thing that a respected person said–that Clinton getting his rocks off would lead to another Gulf War. And in a funny way he was right.
Going back over Sally Quinn’s legendary “villager” article from the late Clinton era, what’s most depressing is just how relevant it still largely is, how little the thinking has changed. I actually had to take a breather after reading this:
“People felt a reverent attitude toward 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue,” says Tish Baldrige, who once worked there as Jacqueline Kennedy’s social secretary and has been a frequent visitor since. “Now it’s gone, now it’s sleaze and dirt. We all feel terribly let down. It’s very emotional. We want there to be standards. We’re used to standards. When you think back to other presidents, they all had a lot of class. That’s nonexistent now. It’s sad for people in the White House. . . . I’ve never seen such bad morale in my life. They’re not proud of their chief.”
Nor should there be, since as we know there was zero sexual infidelity during the Kennedy Administration, and it’s a shame that Clinton couldn’t live up to the Emily Post standards of the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. This bit is not only unaware but also utterly childish in its inability to appreciate nuance. Our elites seem to have the emotionally-stunted worldview of late-teenagers who go from seeing their idols as perfect heroes to bullshit sellouts, which is not really a development so much as the other side of the same coin. In this case it’s still binary thinking that either worships the president, or treats him as the sole wrong thing with the country. Lewinsky is long past, but the same folks blame Obama for not being able to get Republicans to agree to things they’ll never agree to, and for a while all but worshiped the unsuccessful Bush presidency because he grabbed a bullhorn at Ground Zero. If ever there were a better argument for moving the nation’s capital–basically to get away from these people–I am unaware of it.
I shit you not:
This afternoon, the TSA published an announcement stating that passengers boarding flights to the US from “certain overseas airports” (the specific airports go unnamed) will first need to prove that “all electronic devices” they’ve packed can be powered up. No power? No flight — at least not while you’re carrying that dead device.
Security Theater just keeps getting worse and worse.
Day 1: We announce that you can’t bring a dead electronic device through security.
Day 2: Terrorists put their nefarious WMD in an electronic device that isn’t designed to be powered on.
But hey, no big deal, because furriners.
As a gay lawyer pondering the marriage equality issue for a long time, one of the key strategic advantages of gay marriage over [ugh] “civil unions” is that any laws that deal with married people are already written to include “married” people. For example, half the states in the U.S. prohibit discrimination in housing and employment due to “marital status”. Bingo: gay gets married + you discriminate based on that marital status = illegal.
Thus, it’s always (partially) surprising to me that articles like this never deal with the “existing marriage laws” angle:
The U.S. Constitution protects gay people’s right to marry the person they love. It does not, however, protect them from getting fired for doing so. Throughout the first decade of marriage equality, most states that legalized gay marriage also proscribed anti-gay employment discrimination, rendering this legal dissonance moot. But as more and more states find marriage equality foisted upon them by a judicial mandate, this discordance in rights presents something of a ticking time bomb for the LGBT movement. [...]
Thanks to federal lawsuits, judges are already considering the idea that existing law outlaws anti-gay discrimination in every state and that the Constitution guarantees same-sex adoption rights. The same logic that shoehorns anti-gay discrimination into sex discrimination could be used to turn the Fair Housing Act’s sex discrimination clause into a protection for LGBT people.
Anyone who’s been exposed to any state legislature will know that passing any new law that includes precise, targeted revisions to existing law(s) is far more difficult because shiny new sexy laws dealing with texting while driving and teen sexting have that so-enticing new car smell (for the children).
Thus, coming up with an all-new, kludgy, “separate but kinda equal” concept like civil unions requires both passing the new shiny law (admittedly tough for a topic like this), but it also requires a herculean exercise of reconciling nearly every state law — large, medium and teeny-tiny — to awkwardly wedge a “civil union” alongside its “marriage” counterpart. (And don’t even get me started on local county/parish/city/township laws, regulations and ordinances.) When you, as a legislature, have such a daunting task as that, you inevitably tend to limit your efforts on a few key, high-impact issues such as non-discrimination in employment and housing. But countless other thousands don’t get the attention they deserve. (This of course assumes that the state’s civil union law isn’t written as a sweeping, unqualified “in every instance, a ‘civil union’ shall be deemed to equal to a ‘marriage’ in all respects” — but (surprise) none of them are written that way.)
When you go full marriage equality, the analysis changes. Like I sad, “marriage” is already written in! It’s written into laws, it’s written into company policies, its written into hospital admittance policies, etc. All of this comes with some important caveats, including, e.g., a hospital can refuse to follow their written policies (because jeebus), or, a superseding constitutional amendment may be on the books banning recognition of gay marriages.
Anyway, just one more arrow in the quiver. I just wish it would get talked about a bit more.
I honestly wonder what a complete US withdrawal from the Middle East would look like for us. I don’t think it would completely eliminate terror aimed at us–our support of Israel would still be a big sore spot, and while the notion that they attack us because “they hate our freedom” remains illogical and stupid, being #1 does mean you’re a target for all manner of people to take out their frustrations. I don’t think it would be a panacea. But I also think that there wouldn’t be much of a downside for America, being as we’ve proven entirely unable to shape or even respond to events there that “we” want to respond to, and eliminating one of the most-cited extremist grievances couldn’t hurt. Don’t know how much that reduces the threat, but even if it reduces it by a small amount, that’s a lot of money and lives we save with basically zero opportunity cost. Seems like a pretty good deal for me.
Of course, basically no politicians endorse this. I don’t really understand why. I mean, sure, Israel, but they’re the regional powerhouse at this point, and they survived for the first forty years of their existence when we didn’t station troops in the region (and when they were relatively weaker). Part of it may be that we’ve developed this region as the Ireland to our England, just keeping on with the rough tactics until we have “justified” all the resources we wasted on some unwise/narcissistic statebuilding project, until some futuristic George Mitchell puts it to rights. Undoubtedly much has to do with a three-letter word that begins with two vowels, though it needs to constantly be said that if the main goal of all this policy is to keep us from buying oil from people we don’t like, then our choices of allies in the region (e.g. Saudi Arabia) doesn’t make any sense. Nor does any of the rest of it.
- The Age of Innocence (1)
- We Got Played (1)
- Rand Paul (1)
- Sleazy as a Republican Governor (2)
- An Inside View of Education Reform (1)
- Stalin (3)
- Lev: I updated the post to include a link to the Amazon book. Well worth anyone’s time. My basic point is that while both are...
- CJK: Unlike Hitler, who ultimately lives down to the generalizations made about him, Stalin doesn’t. This is a fascinating sentence....
- Metavirus: hey! beghazi > liquidation of the Kulaks /s
- Mike Blessing's Heresies and Blasphemies: Comic-Con vs. Fred Phelps
- Personality crisis: Balloon Juice
- Give ‘em the boot, you know I’m a radical: Balloon Juice
- It’s not fair to deny me of the cross I bear that you gave to me: Balloon Juice
- Page 18 - Christian Chat Rooms & Forums: "LGBT RIGHTS"
- July 2014 (14)
- June 2014 (27)
- May 2014 (21)
- April 2014 (25)
- March 2014 (21)
- February 2014 (33)
- January 2014 (31)
- December 2013 (25)
- November 2013 (32)
- October 2013 (57)
- September 2013 (32)
- August 2013 (57)
- July 2013 (56)
- June 2013 (44)
- May 2013 (42)
- April 2013 (41)
- March 2013 (66)
- February 2013 (42)
- January 2013 (74)
- December 2012 (67)
- November 2012 (44)
- October 2012 (51)
- September 2012 (35)
- August 2012 (50)
- July 2012 (36)
- June 2012 (35)
- May 2012 (51)
- April 2012 (42)
- March 2012 (64)
- February 2012 (85)
- January 2012 (79)
- December 2011 (68)
- November 2011 (76)
- October 2011 (67)
- September 2011 (55)
- August 2011 (53)
- July 2011 (44)
- June 2011 (71)
- May 2011 (103)
- April 2011 (107)
- March 2011 (120)
- February 2011 (124)
- January 2011 (82)
- December 2010 (97)
- November 2010 (92)
- October 2010 (93)
- September 2010 (80)
- August 2010 (44)
- July 2010 (63)
- June 2010 (33)
- May 2010 (60)
- April 2010 (34)
- March 2010 (50)
- February 2010 (66)
- January 2010 (67)
- December 2009 (72)
- November 2009 (78)
- October 2009 (91)
- September 2009 (75)
- August 2009 (105)
- July 2009 (81)
- June 2009 (178)
- May 2009 (152)
- April 2009 (147)
- March 2009 (86)
- February 2009 (52)
- January 2009 (118)
- December 2008 (18)
Wine Labels2012 Election Abortion Barack Obama Bullshit Bush Christianity Congress Conservatives Corruption Debt Ceiling Democrats Economy Fail Foreign Policy Fox News Gay Marriage Hatred Health Care Ignorance Insanity Law LGBT Issues Libertarianism Lies Media Mitt Romney Music Policy Polls Quotes Racism Rebuttals Recession Republicans Right Wing Sarah Palin Scandal Stupidity Teabaggers Torture Truth Video War Crimes War on Drugs War on Terror