tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17450737063946711992024-03-05T02:14:47.163-08:00allinthegameGeneration X and its Destiny.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.comBlogger49125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-3669568714448743252011-04-02T04:38:00.001-07:002011-04-02T04:38:13.068-07:00U.S. Muslims Scapegoated<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This editorial in the New York Times notes, as other media have, that a great number of tips that have led federal authorities to U.S. based terror cells-- in so far as any of them have really deserved such characterization-- have come from U.S. Muslims. Yet still, conservatives persist in the claim that U.S. Muslims are not doing enough to aid the war on terror. The truth may more accurately be that conservatives pay no attention to anything U.S. Muslims actually say unless it's something they can complain about. </div>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-27644279397098279002011-03-14T13:06:00.000-07:002011-03-14T13:06:41.250-07:00These Are the People Training our Law Enforcement Personnel About Terrorism?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">This is a lengthy article but I recommend your reading it in full-- it's both interesting and a rather shocking revelation of the kinds of things those training our local law enforcement personnel about Islamic terrorism are teaching and an embarrassing account of how easy it seems to be to become a certified instructor. In a nutshell, it seems as though the only qualifications are that one adopt a strongly anti-Muslim world view and create a semi impressive sounding resume-- whether or not it's accurate or made up-- read the article to see what I mean by that.<br />
<br />
I hope to do a more detailed analysis of this article and its claims, and more importantly, the claims made by some of the individuals who are teaching our law enforcement personnel, but for now, I have two initial observations: First, that we can solve the easier of the two problems rather simply if we adopt a realistic set of standards for those who teach our cops about how to spot actual terrorists within the Muslim community in America. This might raise a constitutional issue related to the 10th amendment which you can explore by reading the article, but I'm confident it would not be difficult to create a set of standards which the federal government could impose on the states that would survive judicial review. The more difficult issue relates to the fact that the curriculum of the teachers cited in the article tends to be a conservative and anti-Muslim view that a majority of the nation's law enforcement officers seem receptive to since it comports with the world view they already hold. The article notes that officer feedback provides one of the only metrics for evaluating instructor competence, and officers tend to review most positively those instructors who tell them what they most want to hear, no matter how racist or untrue such instruction may be.<br />
<br />
Like I said above, this article is well worth your consideration. I hope to get back here to write more about it in the next few days. </div>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-62202035359246270952011-02-07T16:38:00.000-08:002011-02-07T16:38:24.060-08:00Arizona and Birthright Citizenship<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px;">What frustrates me most about this is that while there is no historic precedent supporting this move, and while the phrase in the 14th amendment "subject to the jurisdiction of" the sponsors of this move claim supports their objective has, not quite but almost on its face, no application to what they wish to "make" it say-- in fact, the very phrase supports the granting, and not the denial </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;">of "birthright" citizenship, as does all legal precedent related to this-- I still sense, as I think the sponsors of this bill also sense, that the only thing they need to prevail here, even in spite of everything I've just cited, is five S<span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">COTUS justices who would like to put the brakes on the growth of the Latino population in the U.S. That is to say that if five such justices exist, a way can and will be found, no matter how brazenly extra-constitutional it would be, to say, as the sponsors of this bill mean to: "This will be so;" and it will. </span></span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
I don't even care about the hypocrisy of the whole "judicial activism" claim so frequently made by the right, which is what this effort is. Rather, I care only that five such individuals could do this. I hope I'm being too cynical in thinking that they would-- and it's possible I am; I mean, it's one thing to break with 10+ decades of precedent when the court means to expand the rights of a group-- but it would be another thing ENTIRELY to do so when the aim was to restrict and limit someone's rights, and though the justices are appointed for life, they are not above the influence of public opinion, and of the conscience of the American people, and of individuals who, in this instance, would lock eyes and point a figure of derision at them-- but I'm thinking of the confusion, and the entirely unproductive waste of energy it will take to reverse such a ruling, and of the bitterness which it will fill so many of us with at the worst time for us to have yet another issue pumping such toxicity into the body politic.<br />
<br />
And to those who would retort that the current state of the immigration policy has embittered them, I reply that the growth of the Latino population can only be slowed, it cannot be stopped, and it would not even be stopped much via this effort, should it succeed: Latino Americans add something like 400,000 new Americans a year simply by virtue of the births to Latino citizens and those Latinos married to non Latino Americans. Thus, a success of this effort, while it will bring about an emotional satisfaction, one akin to a sugar high, for those who support it will, as a result, shine a spotlight on what most of the rest of us believe-- regardless of what supporters SAY is their reason for supporting such legislation; regardless, even, if the reason in fact IS what such people claim it to be-- that the true motivation, which is to say, the central and most operative one in those who would amend or reinterpret our constitution this way, is to gratify an anti-Latino impulse.<br />
<br />
If it is true, then, that the growth of this community is by now an unstoppable force of history, then you on the right cannot do anything but harm your own long term interests by giving the members of this new community and its supporters reason to believe your rejection is of THEM.</span></span></span></div>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-63225352627463104492011-01-14T01:02:00.000-08:002011-01-14T01:02:41.556-08:00GOP to Meet to Discuss Outreach to LatinosI have to say I'll be interested to see what they come up with on this. They're making a smart, but obvious move by having the event in Florida, since Cuban Americans have always leaned right politically. It's also true that no segment of Latino Americans, not even Mexican Americans, are as reliably democratic as are, say, Black Americans, though considering how different the histories of the two groups are from each other, this is unsurprising. Still, as a total entity, Latino Americans definitely tilt left, and even when the GOP has a good year, it garners maybe 40% of the cohort's votes.<br />
<br />
Much in the whole immigration debate is more nuanced than many realize, and since I've been preparing a comprehensive piece of the DREAM Act and the larger issue of immigration reform, for now I'll simply note that I chuckle as I wonder what they're planning to talk about in Florida; for me, it's one of those "I don't envy them that" situations.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-31121118100496305582011-01-05T20:58:00.000-08:002011-01-05T20:58:54.129-08:00A Year of Anti-Islamic Bigotry in the United StatesThis is another subject I've got more to say about-- I'll get to it in the next few months. This article, though, highlights the major incidents in the U.S. The Qu'ran burning event was big in the weeks leading up to it but was otherwise not so significant-- the most important story of 2010 was the "Ground Zero Mosque" story. The worst thing about it was it never should have been a story, for many reasons-- it's not a Mosque, it's not headed by radicals, and most importantly because there are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, and they're as different from one another as are any 1.3 billion people.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, this entire sorry mess of a protest reflected America not perhaps at its worst-- because we have even darker chapters in our history, but certainly at one of its uglier moments, in which two of our worst traits-- our celebration of ignorance and our desire for easy wins-- were in control of the agendas of tens of millions of Americans.<br />
<br />
More to come.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-54678606882092875442010-12-26T14:05:00.000-08:002010-12-26T14:05:37.202-08:00Wow-- Shocking Allegations of Police Abuse in ConnecticutThis AP article gives the background of a Federal Investigation of the East Haven, CT Police Department, which is alleged to have treated Hispanic residents and business owners so badly businesses have been closed and many of these Hispanics have moved away. This doesn't provide much from the point of view of the police department, but even so, the story told in this article is one of a shocking abuse of police and government power which has ruined the lives of many people.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-54522887048911187992010-12-24T21:06:00.000-08:002010-12-24T21:35:20.427-08:00<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2278578/pagenum/all/">Here's something</a> from Slate which I sincerely hope will not become a part of our national debate anytime soon:</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<div style="font: normal normal normal 0.75em/1.5em Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 12px; padding-left: 36px; padding-right: 36px; padding-top: 12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Sodomy and adultery laws do seem outdated and silly. But if those laws are repealed on the grounds that consensual sex is private, it's hard to explain why the reform shouldn't extend to other laws. What about bigamy and incest? The "polyamory community," claiming support from the ACLU, accuses the military of <a href="http://practicalpolyamory.blogspot.com/2009/10/army-disciminates-against-bereaved-poly.html" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" xmlns:tools="XslTools">persecuting polyamorous troops</a>. A Web site dedicated to "<a href="http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" xmlns:tools="XslTools">Full Marriage Equality</a>" calls on supporters of the DADT repeal to<a href="http://marriage-equality.blogspot.com/2010/11/veterans-day.html" style="color: #0066cc; outline-color: initial; outline-style: none; outline-width: initial; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank" xmlns:tools="XslTools">consider</a></span></div><blockquote style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 24px; padding-right: 24px; padding-top: 0px;"><div style="font: normal normal normal 0.75em/1.5em Verdana; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; padding-bottom: 12px; padding-left: 36px; padding-right: 36px; padding-top: 12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">the men and women who risked their lives (and those who gave them) and endured so many things in service to their country, who haven't been free to be who they really are and share their lives openly with the person or persons they love. Shouldn't someone who risked their life for this county be able to marry someone of the same sex, or more than one person, or a biological relative? Or at least share a life with the person(s) he or she loves without a fear that their own government will be against them? Is bravery and valor negated if a man loves another man, or his long lost sister?</span></div></blockquote><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">The problem with this, to say the least, is that though we have just removed the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" ban from the rules which govern our military, it will probably still require another generation for homosexuality to become truly accepted in our society. Furthermore, the arguments alluded to above which relate to a "right" to marry one's biological relations or to marry more than one person are some of those that are used to argue against gay marriage, which will in all likelihood be the next barrier we need to remove in the cultural wars over homosexuality, and this nonsense cannot help but complicate that set of goals.</span>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-82575691888155568602010-12-18T12:37:00.000-08:002010-12-18T12:40:36.563-08:00Don't Ask Don't Tell Goes to Obama for Signature!The Senate voted 65-31 to repeal the rule requiring gays to keep their sexuality secret while serving in the U.S> military.<br />
<br />
The measure goes to the president for his signature and its repeal! This is a big day.<br />
<br />
I am still regretful about the defeat of the DREAM Act, but this is a hugely important Civil Rights accomplishment.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-20145411952257247772010-12-18T09:03:00.000-08:002010-12-18T09:03:14.320-08:00The Dream Act Defeated<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">It seems to be over-- the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 19px;">Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act [</span>DREAM] Act failed to gain the needed 60 votes to invoke cloture, or end debate, in the Senate, allowing a vote on the act itself. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">This isn't terribly surprising, but it's disappointing to say the least. This was a bill which would have provided immigrant children who had been brought to the United States illegally by their parents, and who in most cases had become accustomed and acculturated to the U.S. with an opportunity to have pursued residency and citizenship. It would have only been open to such people who had no serious criminal records and who had either served in the military or attended college-- thus, it weeded out undesirable immigrants and it provided incentives to young people living under these circumstances to pursue positive goals which the nation would have benefited from in time. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">It's clear that the incoming <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/senate-rejects-dream-act-20101218">GOP controlled House </a>will not bring this legislation up for another vote, so hopes for this relief to people in this situation must be set aside now, probably until after the 2012 election. There may be some possibility of having such status adjustments included in an immigration bill that also addressed GOP concerns, which are focused on the enforcement side of this debate. It is unclear, though, whether either party would support the other's priorities in order to achieve compromise. </span>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-36869724710698939952010-12-12T01:06:00.000-08:002010-12-12T01:06:10.069-08:00Three Strikes TravestyI remember when California passed its three strikes law, and I similarly remember my relief and gratitude when the Supreme Court upheld its application during test cases in which the third strike was for rather minor crimes. This was early in the last decade while I was still teaching in the Juvenile Hall in Los Angeles and believed quite strongly in the need for harsh punishment for criminals in most cases. I still believe there are many felons for whom laws like this one are appropriate; however, this is the first case I've become aware of in which the first two strikes were handed down for a burglary and attempted burglary committed while a young and drug addicted offender was 19 years old and the third was then imposed when he was found in possession of ten dollars worth of methamphetamine.<br />
<br />
Until reading of this case, I had always assumed that strikes one and two had usually been required to include an element of violence either inflicted or strongly threatened; burglary would almost never meet this threshold. While cases like this one would not be typical of the sort that result in a third strike offender being sent to prison for life, it has opened my eyes to the facts of what this law-- a well intentioned and largely necessary one-- has also done with the lives of some troubled Californians.<br />
<br />
I thank God the case highlighted here seems likely to be reviewed favorably and can only hope we will seek out others like it in which a similarly travesty has taken place.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-91279834985586999622010-11-29T17:44:00.000-08:002010-11-29T17:44:00.531-08:00Rep. Gutierrez Rushing the Endzone for the Dream ActElsewhere I've written that the president would be wise to compromise with the incoming Congress. I still think he should. I have to say, nonetheless, that I'm with Representative Luis Gutierrez (Dem, IL) on this issue-- he wants the lame duck Congress to pass it before session'e end. The Right will oppose it and will turn on its bitch machine with the same stuff about failing to listen to what the American people loud and clear said that we're taking our country back... however, Gutierrez and the Latino community has been behind Obama since his own campaign, and he promised them comprehensive reform. He's done nothing, and at best, the Dream Act, which will legalize undocumented young people who attend college or join the military, now seems to Latinos like what's possible to still get-- but only now, before the Republican Congress is sworn in. The Tea Party has made clear that fighting against the undocumented is its only agenda vis a vis immigration.<br />
<br />
So it's now or never, and if Obama is smart, he will back this and do his best to make it happen. He'll pay a short term price, but it probably won't be a huge one politically; while I'm hopeful it will be otherwise, I expect the GOP to oppose Obama mindlessly and across the board and I don't believe that would change if he opposed passage of this good and noble initiative.<br />
<br />
This way, he accomplishes something inherently good, and in doing so, he gets the appreciation of Latinos and the progressive left. He loses nothing on his right side and he gains something on his left-- while doing something good for the country-- how bad is that?Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-17679416225447338092010-11-29T06:43:00.000-08:002010-11-29T06:43:49.598-08:00The Rising Political Gen X'ersYou'll some of these names, others will be new to you, but it is certain that Generation X is on the doorstep of power in the United States.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-44328908223443444782010-11-14T02:39:00.000-08:002010-11-14T02:41:22.985-08:00A Post Election View<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>I agree with the POV attributed to Speaker Pelosi in this Washington Post article by Perry Bacon, Jr. that the recession is what ultimately authored the results of this last election, in the sense that if we had removed that factor, there would have been minimal or perhaps no Democratic loss</b></span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><b>es, BUT, there WAS a recession, and no matter how you might otherwise slice it, the voters HAVE blamed our side for our real failures and also for our failure to improve things more than we have. It doesn't bother me for a micro second to say that the voters may have been wrong to do so, and while it's a useful bit of campaign rhetoric to say so, it's hardly incorrect to note that throughout our history, the voters often HAVE been wrong-- this is in part why we allow presidents four year terms; their attempts at solution often will NOT bear fruit as quickly as the people want and need to receive it. However, there were many reasons the voters voted as they did, and not all of them can have been without merit.<br />
<br />
So I reiterate my belief-- we should learn what we can from this vote, move cautiously and smartly-- but without hesitation-- to the center. Then let the improving employment situation and broader economy, enable us to win back the center. THEN, we gain both reelection in 2012, take back the House, and with power firmly back in the hands of what will then be a seasoned and humbled and prepared president, we decide what we really want out of this era.<br />
<br />
And one last thing-- Shut up with this talk-- even rumored-- of primary challenges in two years. I mean, it's anyone's right to do it-- but such a candidate and his or her backers will NOT win, will NOT strengthen the president, and will NOT improve anything for anyone in this nation by doing so.</b></span></span></span>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-16291699951139499432010-11-04T02:20:00.000-07:002010-11-04T02:41:50.170-07:00What if we're going about legalization in the wrong way?Okay-- let me confess that this goes against my exhortation to my fellow democrats that we move towards the center in our effort to rehabilitate the Obama presidency and our left wing brand, but hear me out.<br />
<br />
I say we should stop trying to push decriminalization/legalization incrementally. I say we begin pushing for the legalization of all drugs on many bases, but most particularly, in the vein of its benefit to our fiscal condition. I understand that there are many obstacles to the legalization of drugs that have little to do with economics, but I still think we are shooting ourselves in the foot by trying to push legalization of marijuana by itself. I understand there is a vast difference, mind you, between smoking a joint and injecting heroin into one's veins, but I still think we are feeding into the puritanical strain of America by making the issue one of marijuana first-- counterintuitive as it may seem, I think this draws attention to the dangers of drugs (a crucially important issue but one that leads voters to fear the decriminalization movement) when what we need in order to pass such legislation is a more comprehensive movement towards liberalization of our drug policies. We should not allow this era of super debt and deficits to pass us by without using it to make a leap forward in our national drug policy.<br />
<br />
Mind you, one of the selling points for this policy change ought to be the fact that if this solution truly fails, then the prospects for changing it are good-- consider how difficult it is to amend the constitution, and then think about the fact that we amended it twice to deal with out policy towards alcohol. The same would be true with our policy towards illegal drugs. And it's clear, I think, that our current policy regarding the war on drugs has not succeeded; it's been nearly forty years since President Nixon first declared it, and now, we need to save the tax dollars we spend fighting the illegal traffic, and we similarly need the tax dollars we could gain if we legalized their use and sale.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-36272998592705183772010-11-03T19:53:00.000-07:002010-11-03T19:53:29.939-07:00AddendumMind you, as I've facebooked about a zillion times, and as I think I've noted here, too, there are problems related to strategy that have affected the Obama presidency, too, and I don't mean for this last post to cut them out of the ultimate calculus of what last night means. I would say, though, that that's the easy part, not to mention the fun part, of our intra-party debate of the next year. I just want us to put the horse before the cart, and unfortunately, that's going to mean our taking a bite of this whole shit sandwich which we should properly name "WHAT'S WRONG WITH US."Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-6872297409715630752010-11-03T19:00:00.000-07:002010-11-03T19:00:59.563-07:00Here's a thought of mine-- our side has acted upon an odd sort of assumption that because Bush turned the Clinton surplus into a deficit, it somehow is his, rather than America's, or to put it another way, that it didn't become Obama's and our own when Obama was elected. It's like we've been seeing it as something less than fully real because it has some immoral origin. I don't have any problem with the sentiment behind this thinking, but I do have a problem with our not doing more to recognize that it needs to become left wing and liberal to do something about the size of our debt. I rather strongly think health care might have been more popular if we weren't operating at such sizable deficits and debt.<br />
<br />
I realize the CBO calls the health care legislation deficit neutral, or even likely to reduce the deficit. However, the CBO's imprimatur only tells us the organization making its prediction is not an inherently political one. It does not mean nothing political affected its analysis, for our ability to say so would mean we'd have to believe it is humanly possible to ever remove politics from the vantage points human beings view any part of the world. It's less political than it would have been had it come from another source, but that's all we can say on that issue.<br />
<br />
But that's less important than the larger point-- the fact that the CBO says a thing about something like this only means it's a guess based upon the calculations of a group less beholden to a certain point of view than another group would be. It does not mean what it has said is automatically accurate. The problem with this is that when we're talking about legislation that will run into the trillions of dollars on the cost side, the CBO's projections don't have to be off by much for them to bring about profound economic consequences.<br />
<br />
This does not mean I value by one iota less the millions of people who will now have access to health care. It does mean when we gained executive power we took ownership of everything that had come before us; the good and the bad. As much as the eventual judgment about why last night's election went as it did-- and many on the left are going to place all the blame on the Tea Party and our not having been even more progressive than we were, despite our not having political support for this anymore than the far right had for its candidates and positions-- <a href="http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/03/5403120-just-32-of-tea-party-candidates-win">note how NBC's Alexandra Moe shows us that in conditions as favorable as these, the Tea Party still only elected 32% of its candidates</a>-- the fact still remains that some of what just happened was Obama's fault, which to me, is nearly tantamount to our saying it was our fault. If we're too arrogant to learn what we can from this election, we deserve what just happened to us.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-80814332576113990112010-11-02T15:08:00.000-07:002010-11-02T15:08:18.639-07:00Are we ready to get spanked? And by these guys?Sort of lengthy piece on Slate that describes the Tea Party as I've always seen it. Mind you, it's got its good people, I think I've always included that. I've tried to, anyway. My big problem has always been that I don't think they consider very important the people in their ranks like the two whose letters are reprinted in this article. Now, I confess I don't know how representative of the whole movement such letter writers are, but I can say unequivocally that I'm not sure I've <i>ever</i> read a list of letters or responses on message boards, no matter the source, that doesn't include at least a few writers like these. And that's not an exaggeration, mind you-- I don't think I've ever seen one without at least a few-- and there are some boards on which this stuff is quite common.<br />
<br />
Check it out for yourself here, if you want, but I'm going to do more with this subject in the future.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-4689070642552956602010-11-02T00:01:00.000-07:002010-11-02T00:01:16.145-07:00U.N. Investigator finds migrants suffer the worst racismThis article is interesting in itself, but even more, there's an interesting timeline at its bottom that describes the changing immigration policies in the U.S. over the last two centuries. I'll try to add something to this post tomorrow if watching the election returns does not make it too difficult. If I don't comment tomorrow I'll get to it by Thursday.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-36391706219647505622010-10-28T09:24:00.000-07:002010-10-28T09:24:49.147-07:00NPR reports on conservative efforts to "protect" the votePerhaps one silver lining here is that the right wing is getting nervous about polls showing races narrowing.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-48384925974677341192010-10-24T14:18:00.000-07:002010-10-24T17:05:15.525-07:00Poll shows Brown and Boxer upAccording to an L.A Times poll, Jerry Brown leads Meg Whitman by 13 points and Barbara Boxer leads Carly Fiorina by 8 points. With barely more than a week to go before the election, this is good news.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-52013394651947608032010-10-22T13:28:00.001-07:002010-10-22T13:28:17.618-07:00AmenDmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-51435239614519220352010-10-22T12:19:00.000-07:002010-10-22T12:19:24.328-07:00A prediction about those supporting the Juan Williams firingYou know how these arch-conservatives who are into the harsh anti-gay rhetoric seem to manage to get themselves caught engaged in homosexual activities themselves-- usually in weird and lurid ways? I predict that all public figures who come out in support of the Williams firing will, in the next year, get themselves in trouble for saying something that can itself be interpreted as bigoted in some way, just as NPR's CEO <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/10/juan-williams-i-dont-have-a-psychiatrist-npr-ceo-low.html">Vivian Schiller</a> did yesterday, ironically and with not a little poetic justice, she was explaining Williams' termination.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-37171947694497219972010-10-21T13:53:00.000-07:002010-10-21T13:53:52.849-07:00More context to the Williams firing; still not justified.Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-63476255437856851442010-10-21T13:43:00.000-07:002010-10-21T13:43:30.188-07:00WTF-- NPR fires Juan Williams. Unless there's more to it than I see in this article, this is a mistake.<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">Wow, NPR fired Juan Williams for saying he gets nervous when he is flying with Muslims dressed in "Muslim garb." I read the article and he did say one thing I didn't like, "They are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims. After 9-11 that's the reality." But this hardly seems worth firing someone over. Something I didn</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;"><span class="text_exposed_show" style="display: inline;">'t realize, too, is that NPR asked him to stop allowing himself to be identified with NPR after he became a FOX commentator. This seems really wrong-- Juan Williams has always seemed to me to be a very reasonable, decent guy, and one who does a good job showing a left wing perspective on FOX. This really bothers me. </span></span>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1745073706394671199.post-10586570655525864332010-10-20T23:29:00.000-07:002010-10-20T23:29:06.638-07:00Tony Blankley touts the Tea Party's "sacrifices--" does he want us to thank these assholes?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">For the most part, Blankely is simply gloating over the beating we on the left are about to take at the polls next month. One sentence in this editorial stood out for me, though-- "<a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/28/ruling-class-on-the-run/">[it is] <span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 21px;">the Tea Party middle-class Americans who are prepared to sacrifice for our grandchildren's freedom and prosperity."</span></a></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Oh my mother of Christ, he actually said that. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now these assholes are not just fucking up our country with their selfish venality and their racist bigotry, they're making sacrifices to accomplish it. They'd even appreciate a thank you, I'd wager. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">I jest. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">What part of the Tea Party agenda is not about ensuring that it and its people never have to sacrifice anything? It refuses to accept reductions in ITS medicare and social security benefits-- which are by far the biggest contributors to our deficit. Yet it also aims to take health care away from millions of people, to cut what it calls welfare-- mostly food stamps and housing assistance, to deny the American dream to millions of Latinos, to prevent the Park 51 project, and to end programs designed to aid the disadvantaged in our society in succeeding, to resist efforts to keep the planet from overheating and making it a less hospitable place for future generations to live. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">The only sacrifices the Tea Party favors are ones forced upon people other than themselves; where its interests are concerned it has but one objective-- ensuring that it is given the maximum portion of society's resources for as little in return as it can get away with. Note how it twists the semantics such that its plan to strip the poor of their health insurance morphs into the right wing euphemism of "smaller government." Right-- smaller because someone other than itself will lose services vital to them. It aims to restore advantages to itself by stripping them from black Americans, even though it took 300 years of U.S. history for blacks to win the vote-- this it will call a "return to founding principles." Right-- as though the moral principles of people who allowed slavery are beyond question and criticism. Or perhaps it will take a stand for America's lost work ethic by telling ten homeless people a day that it will not give them any change. Even if they aren't asked, they'll tell their daily ten anyway just to ensure that-- to borrow the lyrical and classy language of </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><a href="http://thenewbostonteaparty.com/2010/04/17/the-american-revolution-the-civil-war-and-the-tea-party-movement.aspx">The New Boston Tea Party</a> -- "<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333;">These parasitic leachs [who] live off productivity of others, they are blood suckers--" are kept well aware that some red blooded Americans have still got the will and fortitude to ensure the leeches don't get to thinking about receiving a hot meal and a kind word-- it's that kind of progressivism is threatening America with destruction. This, I guess, it will call "taking our country back." And how much do you want to bet that it follows that last line with the bit about "restoring our Christian values." </span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">Every one of the right wing/Tea Party's objectives has but a single purpose-- to make things better for itself. It has but a single suggestion for how to pay for the things it wants-- by taking away things that improve the lives of others. The biggest drain on the nation's resources by far is Medicare and Social Security but AHHH! these are government handouts that benefit <i>it</i>, so these programs are worth borrowing from China to fund. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">And true to form, the American right is never satisfied with simply sucking the lifeblood of the nation for its own benefit-- it must also construct a narrative that makes it a hero-- once it was how it had saved the people of Africa from barbarism and taught them Christianity; making a virtue-- and a moral virtue, at that-- of slave owning. Today it is that despite all it is claiming for itself and stripping away from others, it is no one but they themselves who are making the sacrifices for the kids and grandkids. </span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br />
</span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">To me, that's a favor it can shove straight up Glenn Beck's fat ass, and if there's anything left over, it can shove that into its founding father.</span>Dmerrin10000http://www.blogger.com/profile/18355664808534645943noreply@blogger.com1