On ABC’s This Week, Centers for Disease Control Director Dr. Tom Frieden will discuss the first patient diagnosed with Ebola in the United States. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew will discuss the current economy. CNN Crossfire . . . → Read More: Sunday Talks, 10/5/14
Since we devoted last week’s column to Eric Holder’s record, we’ve got two weeks worth of stuff to cover today, so we’re going to have to whip through things in a whirlwind fashion. But we have included not just one… not just two… but three reader-participation contests in this week’s edition, for those who want to join in the fun in the comments. Ready for all that? Buckle up, then, here we go.
We got some good economic news, as it was revealed that the American economy grew a whopping 4.6 percent in the last quarter, and the unemployment rate went down to 5.9 percent. This probably won’t make much of an impact in the midterms, but both represent continuing good news on the economic front.
The head of the Secret Service abruptly resigned, after she got grilled by Congress over several disconcerting lapses which happened on her watch. She fell on her sword immediately, to her credit, rather than drawing the story out day after day.
The air war continues against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, which incidentally brings us to our first contest. Rather than “the war against the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq,” why isn’t there a catchy name for this new war? All the Pentagon could come up with was “Operation Inherent Resolve,” which led Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post to suggest an impressive fifty of his own ideas for a war moniker. Can you do better (in quality, if not in quantity)? What would you suggest we call this new war? My only idea is the rather snarky “Operation Here We Go Again,” so let’s hear your ideas in the comments.
Also worth mentioning from Huffington Post was a great article from Bob Cesca to remind us all of what Republican blowhards were saying on the subject of criticizing the president during wartime, from a few years back when a different man sat in the Oval Office’s chair. A handy reference, when listening to Republicans these days. Another handy reference (and a more serious one) for wartime comes from the Washington Post, which ran a fantastic collection of nine ways to look at the mind-boggling “friend or enemy” complexities in the Middle East.
President Obama is getting a good response from the public in the polling on the war, which proves that even in a “war-weary public” there is still a “rally ’round the president” effect.
The Republican stance on the war can politely be called “incoherent.” And that’s me bending over backwards to be polite, mind you. For instance, Senate candidate Scott Brown has the answer to defeat the Islamic State — seal America’s southern border! No, really, that’s his answer. Marco Rubio is very annoyed at President Obama’s war plan, and has his own ideas about what to do:
To confront the Islamic State terrorists, we need a sustained air campaign targeting their leadership, sources of income and supply routes, wherever they exist. We must increase our efforts to equip and capacitate non-jihadists in Syria to fight the terrorist group. And we must arm and support forces in Iraq confronting it, including responsible Iraqi partners and the Kurds. In addition, we must persuade nations in the region threatened by the Islamic State to participate in real efforts to defeat it.
The keener-eyed reader will immediately notice that Rubio’s plan is exactly what President Obama is already doing. One hundred percent the same. In other words, Rubio is annoyed at Obama for doing exactly what Rubio would do. “Incoherent” only begins to define such a stance.
Doug Lamborn, Republican House member from Colorado, does have a different idea about what should happen, but that certainly doesn’t make it a better idea. His plan? “A lot of us are talking to the generals behind the scenes, saying, ‘Hey, if you disagree with the policy that the White House has given you, let’s have a resignation.’” That’s right, he wants a mass resignation of America’s generals, in the middle of a war. Lamborn calls on them to “go out in a blaze of glory.”
Now, for just one tiny moment, let’s imagine that, say, Nancy Pelosi had suggested such a thing, back in 2003 or so. Let’s all imagine what the Republican response would have been, shall we? Think the words “treasonous” or “aiding the enemy” or “traitor” would have been used? Yeah, me too.
In the world of politics, the midterm congressional elections loom over us, and the polling took a turn in the direction of Republicans in some key states this week. There was some good polling news for Democrats from Michigan, though, so things are still in flux. In Kansas, a judge ruled that the Democrat who dropped out of the Senate race will not appear on the ballot, which makes a defeat of Republican Pat Roberts a lot more possible.
Which brings us to our second contest. Sarah Palin was back in the news, first for her family getting into a public brawl (you just can’t make this stuff up, folks!), and then for winging in to Kansas in an effort to salvage Pat Roberts with Tea Party voters. Palin, in an appearance, coined a new “Palinism” that we are still scratching our heads over. Here’s the full quote, as Palin compares Roberts to Independent candidate Greg Orman:
He’s not wishy-washy on the fence like you know who, the other guy. I am so thankful because we need those with that stiff spine, with the principles that are so invicted [sic] within them, that they take a side.
“Invicted”? Um… what? Now, I have previously (gasp!) actually defended Sarah Palin when the point she was trying to make was misunderstood by pretty much everyone, but I have to admit, I have no freakin’ idea what she meant to say here. Any guesses? The closest I could even come up with was “invested” but that doesn’t really work. So our second contest is: What Was Sarah Really Trying To Say? Good luck. Serious answers and funny ones will both be appreciated.
In other news from outer space (how’s that for a segue?), America is apparently keeping old nuclear weapons around because we might need them to shoot down asteroids. That’s so cool they could make a movie about it… oh, wait.
And finally, our third contest for you to enjoy (got those entries in for the first two yet?). Because a Republican organization is actually (again, can’t make this up) running a campaign designed to get everyone to think warm and fuzzy thoughts about Republicans. No, really. The ad campaign is called “Republicans Are People, Too,” and features such thoughts as:
“Republicans read the New York Times”
“Republicans have tattoos and beards”
“Republicans enjoy gourmet cooking”
and, most amusingly:
“Republicans have feelings”
Awww… isn’t that cute? They have feelings, the poor dears. Let’s try to add to their list, shall we? How about “Republicans have mighty thin skins,” for starters? Or maybe “Republicans can dish it out, but sure can’t take it thrown back at them.” Or perhaps “Republicans are totally OK not caring about you,” to capture the full flavor of Republicanism. The possibilities are endless, folks, so please let me know what you’d add to the touchy-feely Republican ad campaign. Points will be awarded for snark, points for originality, and points for accuracy. A game the whole family can play! Continue reading Friday Talking Points  — Games the Whole Family Can Play
It was clear she had been a dedicated agent and administrator, but Secret Service Director Julia Pierson was in over her head. She spent her years in the Service as a field agent in Jacksonville and Orlando, Florida, and except for four years from 1988 to 1992, she was never directly involved in Presidential Protections or White House duty except for oversight.
From her resumé:
In 1996, Ms. Pierson entered the agency’s supervisory ranks with her selection as Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the Office of Protective Operations. Later that year, she was transferred to the Tampa Field Office where she served as the Assistant Special Agent in Charge and was responsible for directing Secret Service investigative and protective activities in western Florida. Ms. Pierson established an Electronic Crimes Task Force to investigate cyber crimes in the Tampa Bay area.
In 2005, Ms. Pierson returned to the Office of Protective Operations as Deputy Assistant Director. In this position, Ms. Pierson oversaw the agency’s Presidential Protective Division, Vice Presidential Protective Division, Special Services Division, as well as budgetary operations for 1,200 employees.
Since June 2006, she has held the position of Assistant Director of the Office of Human Resources and Training. As Assistant Director, she was responsible for all human resource programs and training for the Secret Service, including policy development and management of the agency’s Personnel Division, Security Clearance Division, Workforce Planning, Work-Life Programs, and the James J. Rowley Training Center.
Good jobs. But do any of them sound like the kind of hands-on innovation and knowledge of drills required of the world’s most important Master Chief or Sergeant Major, responsible for the daily details and lightning responses, after long, numbing periods of maudlin ennui, to thwart potential threats against a President from an ever-growing list of crazies?
Did her resumé really prepare her for a laser focus on carrying out the policies and standard of the performance, training and conduct of the Secret Service’s Presidential Protection Division?
One Congress member at Tuesday’s House hearing pointed out that protection detail agents had received no training in 2013 and only one class the year before. Pierson acknowledged different segments of the Service can’t communicate because they use different radio frequencies. But most telling was an inspector general’s report that indicated the rank and file had little trust (less than 50%!) in the bosses, a vital tell that signaled the problems that kept reoccurring and the reasons why they are not fixed.
The breach of the White House and the other recent failures in protection and agent misconduct begin with the loss of personal and professional integrity, apparently widespread among the Protection Division, according to an earlier Inspector General report. That 2012 report reviewed agents soliciting sex workers in Cartagena, Columbia ahead of a Presidential visit, and noted such incidents were numerous. Continue reading The Secret Service’s Open Secrets
The 2014 Values Voter Summit wrapped up Sunday in Washington, and Omni Shoreham Hotel staff must be working hard to expunge the building of the heavy stench of gunpowder and cliché. Like previous editions, this year’s version was a consummate freak show with a gaggle of grotesques worthy of Todd Browning, but even speakers making their second, third or fourth appearance seemed to bring a little extra Republican bile, guile and vile to the festivities this time around.
The theme this year was “Defending the Dream, Defining the Future,” a phrase so vague it could be used for a corporate training seminar, a high school valedictory address, or a Shriners convention. But VVS organizers know what they’re defending and defining; they proudly state their intention is to “inform and mobilize citizens across America to preserve the bedrock values of traditional marriage, religious liberty, sanctity of life and limited government that make our nation strong.”
Yes, that’s right. The same snake oil they’ve been peddling since the first iteration of the conclave back in 2006. The Southern Poverty Law Center’s terse description of the VVS really summarizes it much better: “An annual political conference bringing together some of the most extreme groups on the religious right.” That includes host organization and lead sponsor, the Family Research Council (which the SPLC calls a hate group), along with other America-hating organizations like Liberty Counsel (shouldn’t that be “council”?) and the American Family Association (which wants to destroy your family, if you’re gay).
But of course the real, ahem, elephant in the room is, as always, the Republican Party, which coyly maintains no “official” connection to the VVS even as elected Republicans madly stampede to its podium year after year to pander, preen and pose. Why, there’s even a presidential straw poll conducted, which purulent demagogue Ted Cruz topped for a second consecutive year, with up-and-coming conservative clod Ben Carson a close second and perennial pious pseudo-Christian Mike Huckabee a distant third.
As always, though, the real “attraction” was the speechifying. The Values Voter Summit showcases more know-nothing arch-conservative blowhards than any venue outside the even bigger freak show known as the United States House of Representatives, and VVS speakers don’t even have to make a pretense of obeisance to parliamentary decorum. Nor do attendees, who seem to spend much of their time whooping like gibbons on nitrous oxide. Thanks to the event’s video archives, which get sadly more generous every year, we can all experience the horror of being at an event we wouldn’t actually be caught dead attending.
The “values voters” were thrilled by lame duck Congresswoman and future convicted felon Michele Bachmann, who described herself, unasked, as “a normal, real person.” She decried the bailout that saved the automobile industry as “gangster government,” said that the “trillion dollar” stimulus that prevented the economy from collapsing “didn’t work so well,” and bragged about introducing “the very first repeal bill” against Obamacare.
She waxed nostalgic about her “deep dive into the leading foreign policy and national security issues of our day.” She also griped about Benghazi, the Bergdahl prisoner swap, and Iran “racing toward completing nuclear weapons,” called Barack Obama “the first anti-Israel President in American history,” averred that Hillary Clinton will be defeated in 2016, and thundered that “it is never too late to save the country.” The fierce urgency of whenever, you might say.
Ted Cruz smirked more than anyone I’ve ever seen not named Bush. He called Obamacare a “disaster,” which I suppose it is if you hate seeing the number of Americans without health coverage drop by 26% and counting. He made a Cat in the Hat joke harking back to his ludicrous “faux-libuster” last year, to show how charmingly self-deprecating his handlers have coached him to be. He served up a tasteless quip about the White House fence-jumper (which he admitted he stole from Jimmy Fallon), and then added one of his own. He called for a debate between Hillary Clinton and the Little Sisters of the Poor. He called the Democratic Party an “extreme radical party.” In short, he said not a single truthful, worthwhile or remotely intelligent thing. Naturally, the crowd loved his speech.
Rick Santorum has appeared at every one of these things so far, and so most of his speech was heavily recycled from his previous heavily recycled speeches. He spent a little of his time hawking his upcoming book, Bella’s Gift, about raising a special needs child. (Will Bella’s gift be saving her old man from having to get a real job for yet another year? Probably not, but we’ll see.) Santorum called the President “a descendant of the French Revolution,” which – bien sûr – was a refreshing change from years of ridiculous allegations about Kenya. Mostly, though, he stuck with the self-evident and obvious, as in his observing at one point that: “You don’t have any Baptist ministers going on jihad.” Continue reading A Good Year for the Poses
A new round of baleful partisan bickering – business as usual, in other words – could get underway this week if the Obama Administration follows through on a trial balloon floated Friday by White House spokesman Josh Earnest. Earnest suggested a Senate confirmation vote to replace outgoing AG Eric Holder could be called in the upcoming lame duck session. If that doesn’t come to pass, I reckon it’ll take Republicans about three and a half minutes to find something else to be hyperbolically indignant about.
Deficit hawks will applaud the timing of this week’s visit to Washington by India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In addition to an Oval Office summit focused on trade, energy and climate change, Modi is scheduled to have supper with the President and lunch with the Vice President, but he won’t be eating anything because he’s in the middle of a nine-day fast for Navratri, a religious festival honoring the goddess Durga. I don’t know if there’s some sort of penance aspect to Navratri, but I can’t think of any other reason why Modi will also be meeting with John Boehner. The Speaker’s office has commented that Modi will be offered “beverages.” Presumably, the PM’s polite “No, thank you” will be followed by a hearty “More for me, then” from Boehner, especially if the “beverages” have a measurable alcohol content.
Afghanistan’s new President, Ashraf Ghani, will be sworn in Monday, while his former electoral nemesis Abdullah Abdullah will become the country’s first “chief executive officer.” The two take office just days after the Afghan government’s announcement that thousands of civil servants will have to wait for their paychecks this month because the cupboard is bare, a sure sign that Afghanistan is moving from failed state to red state, American-style. John Podesta leads the US delegation at the inauguration.
One of Ghani’s first orders of business, at least as far as the White House is concerned, is to sign the new “Bilateral Security Agreement,” which outgoing Afghan President Karzai had refused to ratify. The agreement would permit 12,000 US and NATO troops to remain in Afghanistan beyond 2014. To what end, ultimately, I’m afraid I have no idea.
Literature & Law of American Slavery, a free non-credit online course offered by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, begins Tuesday. I recommend this because the eight-week course is taught by John Matteson, a too-rare example of a white man whose thoughts on the relationship of slavery to today’s race relations, and particularly to institutionalized violence against African-Americans, are well worth careful consideration. Continue reading Stormy Monday, 9/29/14
ABC’s This Week will interview John “Hell no!” Boehner. About what, I don’t know, since he and the House Republicans haven’t done a damned thing except block things that would actually help people. Former FBI . . . → Read More: Sunday Talks, 9/28/14
We have to pre-empt the usual Friday Talking Points column this week, because when we started writing about Eric Holder in the awards section, it just kind of grew and grew as a subject until it essentially consumed the rest of the column. We still have our notes on all the political foibles and foofaroo from the past week, and we promise we’ll keep this list handy and try to review parts of it in next week’s column, mostly because some of the stories were real doozies (like the Kansas governor’s race, where the Republican is now basing his whole campaign on “my Democratic opponent once visited a strip club,” while simultaneously presiding over a state which is about to hold a sex-toy auction because they really, really need the money after the Republican incumbent’s disastrous implementation of “pure” conservative economic theory, which consisted of: “Cut all taxes! There, all done — just sit back and wait for the boom times!”). But we digress.
The news that Attorney General Eric Holder would be stepping down sent a shockwave through Washington (even though he had admitted earlier in the year to an interviewer that he would likely step down before next January). Democrats (and pundits) immediately started whispering about who would be named to replace Holder, while Republicans — laughably — tried to make the case that no replacement should get a vote in the Senate during the lame-duck period (good luck with that one, guys). One thing worth remembering: Harry Reid’s “nuclear option” is looking pretty good right about now, isn’t it? If Republicans could filibuster Holder’s replacement, then he might still be still in his job when Obama leaves office in 2017.
Holder certainly had a momentous term in office. Depending on when he is officially replaced, his will either be the fourth-longest or third-longest record as Attorney General in American history. Liberals found him lacking on civil liberties issues (especially in Obama’s first term), and conservatives just despised him because he was serving a president they really, really hated (he’s also the first Attorney General to be found in contempt of Congress by the House).
On the whole, was his term worth praising or condemning? We have to say that “both” is the only real answer to that question. Because it has many facets, we are going to spend the rest of the article examining his legacy. As we said, we’ll return to our usual, more lighthearted fare next week, but for now let’s weigh Eric Holder’s leadership at the Justice Department, as seen through the eyes of this column.
This is going to be a rather unique awards section this week, for two reasons. The first is that it will be a “lifetime achievement” review (or, more accurately “term in office” review) of one person’s accomplishments, good and bad. The second reason this is unusual is that it will actually be a review of accomplishments on the scale of “bad to good,” as we switch the order of presentation of our awards for one week. This is really necessary, because of the timeline involved.
Attorney General Eric Holder’s announcement that he will soon be stepping down from his job as America’s Top Cop brought mixed reactions from the left. Some choose to focus on only the good he has accomplished, while some insisted that the bad outweighed any good. We’re going to take a more comprehensive look, and have to say right here at the start that Holder seems to have balanced it all out fairly well.
But the story of Eric Holder’s term in office is really more of a bad-to-good transition, which is why we’re going to review his record of winning the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week awards first. Holder won the MDDOTW six times since this column began, and five of these occurred during Obama’s first term in office. In contrast, Holder won eight Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week awards, but only two of them during Obama’s first term. So you can see the progression, and why we had to flip the order of the two awards sections this week.
On the all-time Friday Talking Points “Hall Of Fame/Hall Of Shame” list, Holder’s six MDDOTW awards puts him (currently) in a five-way tie for eighth place, with the following unsavory characters: Jay “Rocky IV” Rockefeller IV, Charlie Rangel, Blanche Lincoln, and Rod “Blaggy” Blagojevich.
The first-ever MDDOTW Holder won was way back in FTP , for continuing the Bush policy on state secrets in three separate lawsuits. Holder had many other instances of continuing Bush’s national security policies, but this was the only one which earned him our award. Continue reading Friday Talking Points  — Eric Holder’s Record
I believe jihadists must be forcefully countered. Forcefully does not always mean “with force,” but sometimes it does mean that, and I believe the use of force is an important aspect of countering jihadists now. I have always resisted the use of force, essentially by anyone anywhere. But there are always exceptions to that for me, though rarely, if ever, at the full scale of war.
Not all jihadists are the same, obviously, but a virulent strain has been growing at the fringes of Islam. Even Al Qaeda as we knew it was not as extreme as ISIS or Boko Haram have become. Bin Laden initially fought against the Russians for invading Afghanistan, and he first turned his sights on America because we established military bases in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam’s most sacred sites. Al Qaeda justified terrorism using convoluted religious arguments, but it did not call for the death of “non-believers” precisely because they were “non-believers.” That is the trajectory the most extreme jihadists are on now. They are seeking a holy war because they see holy war as intrinsically desirable in order to spread their own version of their faith.
It is an ideology/theology that sanctions genocide as a morally justifiable, virtually required, means towards their end. It is an ideology/theology that embraces literal slavery as an institution to practice and spread in the name of God. And they are gaining momentum, territory and adherents. They represent a brutal expansionist force more akin to naked colonialism as it was practiced from the 16th into the early 20th centuries than to more traditional organized Islamist movements such as Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood. It is more like an early stage of Germany’s Third Reich, with a potent, virulent belief system that openly justifies the most barbaric acts against those to whom it does not assign basic human rights or dignity on a mass level. Like with hardcore Stalinism, the end will justify any means, and those beliefs are enshrined at the highest level of the movement, openly and proudly. In their version of reality, it is immoral not to act in that way.
That level of moral sanction given to inhuman behavior, that extreme a black-and-white worldview, without inconvenient moral ambiguities clouding the certainty of judgement, can be deceptively potent if not forcefully challenged head on. Continue reading Jihadists Must Be Forcefully Countered
What is racism? Is it a universal idea? A judgment about biological identity? A group of dysfunctional behaviors in a culture? Persistent myths about a community’s strength and weaknesses? Does it belong equally to white and black, and yellow and tan?
Is racism a political idea? A wedge for advantage? Does it exist? Is it an excuse? Do statistics verify its presence? What role does it play in society? How does it change individual lives?
Racism does exist; it always reflects the role race plays in society. For instance, the structures and forms of racism during slavery have virtually no role in society today. The laws, punishments, limits and ideas that governed race then were very different and many have been erased.
Since these ideas have lost their viability, does that mean racism has ended? In modern society with its pledge to equality, has racism been eliminated? No. But it has changed forms. Remember, each era produces its version of racism. Remember, the construct of racism is based on the role race plays in the social milieu.
Before looking at modern racism, let’s ask: How does race fit into today’s society?
In America today, race has become the major standard and measure for equality and equal opportunity. Collectively, through numbers and statistics; individually, through incidents and events, race provides the details and the rough measure of fair play and justice. Race sets the bar for social and economic improvement, the standard for civil liberties, but is also the target of anger for those in and out of power, and a source of constant confusion. This positivist function of race is rarely mentioned; race is most often framed as a problem or a source of friction, or as a factor of mistreatment.
But race has noble virtues. It is the source used to reflect how far America has come in resolving internal tyranny and it measures America’s social progress. It is also a measure of how far apart Americans stand on many social issues. It has been the bubble at the center of the builder’s level.
Race, in part, is the weight of a group response, for both blacks and whites. The shooting of whites by police, while tragic, doesn’t alert the nation to the attack of police violence and misconduct aimed at the American Promise; race is a sentinel for the entire country—not just for blacks. Race puts blacks in the vanguard of social change, yet also makes blacks one of society’s most vulnerable groups. The paradox leads to scepticism and ignorance about the fix for social problems as race as a change agent is caught in a fluid whirlwind of individual and indirect forces.
That is why whites were always visible and angry in the Ferguson protests, every night, in every frame, side by side with blacks. Race is America’s active metaphor for character and justice, for liberty and criminality, for alarm and good riddance. It is not a discussion about blacks or whites, but about the vision and substance of America and the content of the American character, not just of the individuals whose roles shape the discussion.
In the same way, America’s educational success is measured by race. The differences in student test scores reflect race as a means of distributed wealth.
Race as an American idea is always in motion; different than last year, changed by new experiences, redefined by the culture it represents. Unfortunately it is often tied to omissions, deficiencies and neglect more than success, and its noble side is missed.
From this view, I propose racism plays three key roles in today’s America, all three tied to politics and culture:
To unify race appearance (by skin color) into a common culture of values and desired qualities (i.e., loyalty, defense, ideology) that lead to mutual and joint actions for power and privilege limited to and controlled by a group.
To install social barriers supported by legal frameworks and individual decision makers that limit life chances and prospects for many of those outside of the group.
To deny the advantages that racism inherently seeks to make permanent.
The three are easy to understand with examples.
1. At the diner where I often eat, we wondered during the 2012 election how long it would be before Mitt Romney screamed, “I’m white!” to pander for votes. The opposite nearly occurred. Romney’s campaign adviser John Sununu approached that edge, claiming someone needed to teach the President “how to be an American.” Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich skirted the same precipice: he cited Obama’s “Kenyan, anti-colonial world view” “as the the most accurate, predictive model for his [Obama's] behavior,” calling it “a profound insight.” “The food stamp President” was another of Gingrich’s contributions.
Rick Santorum came within a syllable of an offensive racial slur before he caught himself. Recently, a New Hampshire police chief uttered the word publicly (saying the President “met and exceeded” his criteria). He refused to back down, resigning but never apologizing.
My oft-cited example is the empty chairs that appeared after the 2012 Republican National Convention, tied to tree limbs on private property, often with roped nooses hung over chair backs—performance art that starkly expressed the dark dread of justice as lynching. These spontaneous racial installations were a reminder that the media never reported in 2008 the high degree of fear in the black community for Barack Obama’s life; people were frantic and the hysteria went unnoticed.
Racism is tasteless and invisible—until the first tug of attitude pushes one of its many structures into place to block progress—and to strangle black success. Members of Congress have said Barack Obama was only elected because he is black. Others say he won due to white guilt.
These conversations and actions call white people to band together under a banner of skin: a favorite principle of racism is to unite to defend and defeat the idea of the other. The other is different—and also more dangerous, more deadly, more deficient. The most important other in America is race. Its group tensions involve a history of violence, lynching, lawlessness, blame, poverty and social control.
I think that race as a social measure should change. Women and children are suffering greater attacks than African-Americans in this historical moment; women and children need a movement worthy of the anti-war and Civil Rights movements, yet they remain on the edge of America’s conscience. Thankfully, ending domestic violence has become a noble virtue. So should ending the murders of children by their peers.
2. Examples of social barriers abound. The most prominent and dangerous, as US House member John Lewis rightly recognizes, are the state-level bills that are redefining the right to vote. The new tactic recognizes it is not necessary to disenfranchise minority voters en masse (the old, pre-1960s tactic). Trimming voter turnout by 3 to 10 percent will often be enough to swing close national elections.
Remember, racism fits the role of race in society. In politics, that’s votes. After the Civil War, bills sought to disenfranchise the entire Negro vote, which ended with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Now, in this era, with this Supreme Court, the same outcome can be achieved with a more limited, targeted effort to restrict early voting, raising the bar to voter access by requiring more paperwork and reducing polling hours. Continue reading Racism and Noble Virtues
Back in 2010, Media Matters posed the archly rhetorical question: “Jim Hoft: Dumbest Man on the Internet?” Hoft, who has the nerve but not the expertise or insight to pontificate about politics under his nom de spume, Gateway Pundit, has spent the four years since then proving the question mark unnecessary.
Hoft has made a long-time specialty out of posting photos of the President, which he then subjects to the most preposterous “analysis” possible, arriving at the most negative conclusion possible. As far as I can tell, he does this sort of thing for two reasons. One, his site visitors, being idiots, expect it. And two, being an idiot himself, Hoft just can’t help it. And so it went today with his “Featured Story,” viewable here through a handy donotlink link provided by Little Green Footballs.
Hoft got his dander up after seeing a White House video of the President arriving in New York City this morning on Marine One. As he disembarked from the copter, the President returned the salute of the two Marines flanking the steps, with a coffee cup in his hand! Thereby apparently befouling a presidential tradition dating, as Little Green Footballs notes, all the way back to the Reagan Administration!
To Hoft, this is “A NEW LOW” and the “Most Degrading Salute Ever to Men in Uniform.” Little Green Footballs was quick to trot out the familiar photo of Oval Office appointee George W. Bush saluting members of the military while awkwardly holding First Dog Barney, an event Hoft either missed or, more likely, found entirely acceptable. What’s really astounding is that Hoft overlooked a mile-wide opening to level some valid criticism at the President; the optics of arriving in NYC for a UN Climate Summit carrying what looks to be a Styrofoam coffee cup certainly made me wince.
But Hoft, like the rest of the President’s critics in the fetid swamps at the far right side of the Internet, isn’t interested in the environment any more than he’s interested in objectivity and honest critique. Which he proved later in the day with another post entitled: “Lawless President Announces New Executive Actions on Fighting Climate Change & US Prosperity.” Hoft’s considered opinion is that global warming is “non-existent,” conveniently ignoring a mountain of empirical evidence including the fact that “13 of the 14 warmest years in recorded weather history have all occurred in the opening years of the 21st century.” He’ll probably still be railing about the climate change hoax as the rising seas slip over his mouth some years from now. I wish I could live to see it. Continue reading TSW #38