In Defense of Palin's Death Panel

While writing a separate post on conservatives attempting to defend Sarah Palin's reference to Obama's "death panel," I saw that conservative blogger Donald Douglas outsourced his argument to William Jacobson of Legal Insurrection (yes, that William Jacobson), as well as conservative ninny Ann Althouse; suggesting that they indicate Palin is on "solid ground."

And I was intrigued to see if my theory would be proven wrong and that a conservative really would try to defend Palin's bizarre claim. But as I predicted, Jacobson was forced to dial back Palin's claim and turn it into something that could almost be considered reasonable. It was still stupid, but it was the sort of legal-like rationalization one would expect to see from a lawyer who had an extremely guilty client.

Death Panel as Metaphor

For example, when Palin referred to "Obama's 'death panel,'" she wasn't referring to an actual panel, but rather, to part of a medical ethics paper that one advisor to Obama had written with two other experts. And Jacobson assures us that Palin wasn't trying to suggest that Obama was establishing this concept, but rather was issuing a "warning shot" for him not to do so.

And apparently, Palin put "death panel" in quotes, not to indicate that it was a direct phrase anyone was using, but merely to "signify the concept of medical decisions based on the perceived societal worth of an individual." See, so when she said "death panel" she was referring to a concept; not a death panel. Presumably then, her quotes around the phrase "level of productivity in society" indicate that this also wasn't meant literally. Unfortunately, I lost my Conservative-to-Sane translator awhile back and can't tell you what concept she was indicating with this.

And he also says that Palin didn't really mean that Trig would have to prove he was "worthy of health care," as Palin stated, but rather wouldn't receive the "expensive advanced care" that a person with Down's Syndrome would need. Of course, in our reality, there's a Special Needs Plan for those with special needs, meaning that even this explanation has no basis in reality; but hey, Jacobson's job is hard enough without considering reality.

In other words, Jacobson's defense of Palin's claim involved him debunking every aspect of that claim.

Republican Death Panel

And as a last ditch effort to save Palin, he attempts to use Obama's words to show that perhaps a "death panel" might be on the way. His basis? A letter Obama wrote in which he suggests that MedPAC, a Medicare payment advisory board created by Republicans in 1997, be used to find cost savings by "going after the key drivers of skyrocketing health care costs, including unmanaged chronic diseases, duplicated tests, and unnecessary hospital readmissions."

And in the letter, it's clear that this was the idea of Senators Kennedy and/or Baucus, and Obama was stating his approval of it. And all the same, Jacobson says he has no idea if the commission would base their decisions upon a person's productiveness to society; ergo, there is no evidence backing Palin's claim.

In other words, the closest reality comes to Obama's "death panel" which Trig would "stand in front of" would be an advisory board created by Republicans which would attempt to make healthcare more efficient and no one would stand in front of.

As Jacobson correctly states:

Certainly, no Democrat is proposing a "death panel," or withholding care to the young or infirm. To say such a thing would be political suicide.

And well, duh. This puts Jacobson, a conservative blogger, firmly in agreement with just about every liberal I know; not just regarding Palin's absurd claim, but the claims of most conservatives. And that includes Donald Douglas, who still seems to believe that Obama is going to kill old people. Donald's "solid ground" just crumbled out from beneath him.

Ann Althouse's Defense of Palin

Oh, and I'd be loath to not mention Donald's other evidence of Palin's "solid ground," if only because it's the interminably dumb Ann Althouse. While Jacobson is clearly an intelligent man who is stuck defending the indefensible, Althouse is a complete lightweight whose best argument in every debate amounts to "Stop picking on me." His citation of her alone is enough to question Donald's own intelligence. But being that I'm not in the ad hominem business, I'll address her "argument" too.

And what's sad is that even Althouse knows better than to defend Palin's actual claim. Instead of a literal "death panel" which determines our fate based upon our productivity, Ann suggests that Palin was referring to "decisions of cost controlling bureaucrats" which no evidence suggests would base their decision on productivity. In other words, no death panel for Trig to "stand in front of."

Althouse was even forced to rewrite the criticism of those mocking Palin, in order to suggest that they were being unfair. Apparently, there's nothing wacko about fearing crazy ideas which no one is considering. And if there was a respectable part to Althouse's defense, it amounted to "Stop picking on Palin," which again, is a riff off Ann's only sensible argument. I should mention for disclosure's sake that I've had run-in's with Ann in the past and this was the only argument she made then, too. I have no regrets.

And again, this was the evidence Donald Douglas used to suggest that Palin was on "solid ground." Seriously, I'm beginning to doubt that Donald even reads the stuff he links to. The only positive out of all this is the acknowledgement that even conservatives have their limits. They'll defend Palin; just not the things she says.

Crazy versus Palin Crazy

In my last post I discussed Sarah Palin and her suggestion that Obama's healthcare plan included "death panels" which would decide who was worthy of healthcare based upon their "level of productivity in society." And those were both phrases she put in quotes, as if she imagined they were in the legislation. And this went waaaaay further than the typical "they want to euthanize the oldies" garbage the other wingnuts were spouting. Now, they're coming after all of us.

And in that post, I suggested that while conservatives were likely to defend Palin on this, they were unlikely to actually jump on the Death Panel bandwagon. Instead, they'd rewrite what she wrote in order to make it sound more reasonable. Still crazy, but just not Palin crazy. And sure enough, Newt Gingrich is out on the Sunday morning talkshow circuit doing that exact thing.

Via Carpetbagger, the headline of the article is Gingrich defends Palin's 'death panels', yet he did nothing of the kind; at least not in the clip they provided. While Gingrich did defend Palin, he didn't defend the "death panels" at all. In fact, he didn't even mention them in any way. Instead, he kept attacking "communal standards" and gave the standard scare-mongering about the government making healthcare decisions; as if it's much better to have these decisions made by insurance companies. Yet, he never said the word "death panel" or explicitly state that we'd be making Trig Palin stand before it.

It was all the sort of subtle scare-mongering we've come to expect from conservatives on the national stage. He didn't even use the word "evil" and the closest he got was to suggest that the government just can't be trusted and might possibly do such things some day. And that's a far, far cry from Palin explicitly referring to "Obama's death panels," as if this was an established part of the legislation. And so Gingrich was walking the fine line that Palin completely trashed. Sure, what he said was wrong and crazy, but it wasn't Palin crazy. And the difference is that Gingrich knows he's lying, while Palin doesn't.

As I suggested in that last post, every conservative is both huckster and believer. And in this case, Gingrich's Huckster to Believer ratio is far higher than Palin's. Sure, she knows she's exaggerating this at a certain level, but the fact that she went as completely far out as she did just shows how much of a believer she is. Subtlety just isn't her thing.

They've All "Read" the Bill

And something else I mentioned in that post was how conservatives firmly believe that they've read the legislation and that this stuff is in there. And sure enough, a scan of the comments show a commenter saying "Have you read the bill? The provision is in the bill." But of course, this person obviously hasn't read any such thing, because it doesn't exist. But he's been assured by the people he trusts that they read the bill and that's just as good as him having read it.

And here's another such comment:

Amazing. Blowhards here who haven't even read the bill want to claim that no language exists that talks about rationing and "elder consultations" performed by the government. I read it. It's there. Stop treating Americans who ask the questions you won't, as if we are the ignorant ones. You blindly agree with any edict from the progressive liberals and surrender your own common sense and free will. What a waste.

Pot, Kettle, Black. What a waste. And sure, he can't quote us the passage on "rationing and 'elder consultations,'" but he's read it. They've all read it. And sure, the actual bill just says that Medicare will pay for counseling with your doctor, but this guy firmly believes he's read a passage about the government doing it. Geez, and to think that some folks think Mr. False Memory is the ignorant one.

Or here's another one:

I read parts of the Waxman proposal and I have to say, it is scary. By the way, it specifically states "special needs"individuals will not be enrolled in the national plan. Thats on page 354 if you care to check.

And maybe that's correct. Hey, he quoted a page number and everything. So I did a search on this, and while I kept finding people making this claim, I couldn't find any actual reference to the passage. And then finally I found a rebuttal of it, and of course, this dude hasn't ready the proposal. And as I suggested last time, this guy is playing "telephone" with the original claim.

The original claim was that "Government will RESTRICT enrollment of special needs people," and we're supposed to think "restrict" means they won't be enrolled. And so this dude furthers that idea by outright stating that they won't be enrolled. But that's not what the restriction means. The reality is that there are "Special Needs Plans" and that enrollment is restricted to their eligibility period. Yet this guy imagines he's read the bill because his source claimed to have read the bill, so he thinks he's read it. Yet, if he had read it, he'd know that special needs people are not only eligible, but even have their own plan.

Oddly, another commenter quotes from a WaPo editorial in which the guy apparently has read the legislation. But for as much as the columnist still finds a nefarious motive behind this, he at least realizes that it's a doctor who does the counseling; not a government bureaucrat. And his big complaint is that your doctor is allowed to initiate the discussion, which this guy doesn't consider to be "voluntary," because you might feel pressured by your doctor to have the discussion...and he'd be paid by the government to do it! (Cue Scary Music)

And that's it. That's the scariest thing someone who actually read the legislation could come up with. No longer is it a government bureaucrat getting between you and your doctor; now it's your doctor who can't be trusted. And that's nowhere close to Palin's suggestion that a "death panel" would try to deny care to the unproductive.

Crazy Commenters Less Crazy Than Palin

And the rest of the commenters are absolutely crazy. They're ranting about how Stephanopoulos was picking sides because he stated objective truth. One person ranted because the article referred to this as "Palin's death panel," insisting that this is Obama's idea, not Palin's; all evidence to the contrary. Another dude cited an AOL online poll which apparently showed that a majority of people agreed with Palin that Obama's plan is "evil;" which is proof that Palin isn't alone.

Perhaps my favorite was a woman complaining about "government advice" that came from her school, as they said her nephew was "overweight" and wouldn't allow her sick child with TB to come back to school for five days; and this shows how scary it is to "to have a bureaucrat making decisions for you and your family." And yes, the "bureaucrat" in this case was the school nurse. No, it's much better to have this crazy lady make decisions that affect the health of everyone else in the school.

But in all this, I saw no one willing to support Palin's actual claim. Like Gingrich, they're defending her; just not the claim about Obama's death panel. Sure, they're still ranting about healthcare rationing and euthanasia. But of the comments I skimmed, none actually repeated her insane claim. And that's the thing: For as crazy as these people are, none are as crazy as Sarah Palin. And while that's good enough for them to proclaim her their leader, I seriously can't imagine the Republican Party is dumb enough to allow her to be their nominee.

Sarah Palin and the Death Panel

Death panels. Death panels?? Sarah Palin imagines they're writing healthcare legislation with bureaucratic "death panels" which will decide who is "worthy of health care"? Holy shit, what a crazy fucking thing to say. I mean, who the hell would accept such a thing? I know they consider us to be mindless "Obamabots" or whatever, but...death panels which decide who lives and who dies? That's crazy dumb, even for Palin.

And the AP article I linked to is still a bit frustrating, as it won't outright blow the idea out of the water. Sure, they mention that Democrats have "dismissed" the idea, and how FactCheck.org "claim" it isn't true, and even make a feeble attempt at setting the record straight by saying the "allegation" is based on the voluntary end-of-care services Medicare will pay for. But they still leave open the possibility that it might have some basis in truth.

And that's simply not good enough. Because there isn't even a loose connection between end-of-care services and Palin's so-called "death panels." And while the end-of-care thing might have been the original basis for the claims which eventually morphed into Palin's "death panels," this is so far from the truth that it's safe to call Palin's claim entirely fictitious. And that's what the AP should have said. It's not enough to have people "claim" that this "allegation" is untrue. They needed to outright state that there are no such "death panels" in any healthcare bill. That's an objective fact and that's what they should have reported.

Playing Telephone with Truth

And the problem here is that conservatives are authoritarians who have no choice other than to accept whatever "facts" they're given from above. But rather than just convey the "fact" as given, they each try to embellish it just a bit, giving it a little tweak with their own analysis, in order to make the "fact" juicer. And they don't realize that the "fact" they were given was already juiced up by every other conservative that handled it.

And so they just keep embellishing and embellishing and embellishing. It's like a never-ending game of telephone: It just keeps going round and round, getting more and more distorted until the original "fact" is completely unrecognizable. And a wingnut who had already embellished the "fact" now imagines they're seeing a new fact which only adds to the "facts" they had seen before, and confirms their worst suspicion.

So what started as them noticing that Medicare would pay for voluntary end-of-life counseling turns into a mandatory bureaucrat forcing you to consider euthanasia, and soon enough, it's a "death panel" that determines the fate of everyone's life. Yet no one person is responsible for these lies, as they just kept tweaking it every time they saw it. And they all imagine they've read the actual legislation this is supposedly based on, because their source of the "fact" claimed to have read it. But of course, that source is also lying and are basing this claim on their belief that their source had read the legislation.

And that's the weird thing about conservatives: At some level, they're all hucksters and believers in their own material. Because they delight in making these "analysis" decisions to tweak a fact to make it a little scarier. Yet when it comes back to them, they really do believe that it's true, and then tweak it a little to make it scarier. They're getting high on their own supply and don't even realize it.

Sarah Palin: Shark Jumping Champion

And in this case, Palin screwed up. She's the queen of jumping the shark as she's simply too dumb to have the requisite subtlety to make this sort of attack work. Were she some small time blogger or even a mayor of a small town, this sort of thing would be fine, as no one would pay much attention to her. But as a publicity hog who the media enjoys covering, her scare mongering went waaaaaaay the hell too far. Even conservatives are going to be unlikely to jump onto this one.

An unscientific search on Palin "death panels" shows a whole slew of liberal blogs mocking her, yet no conservatives repeating the claim. And while I can easily see conservatives eventually rising up to defend her if the mockery lasts too long, I doubt even they will adopt her claim. If anything, they'll insist that her statement was taken out of context and that she doesn't deserve the ridicule being heaped upon her. And to help make that claim, they'll simply have to rewrite history to pretend as if her statement wasn't as crazy as it was...just like they always do.

And that's the weird thing about those who imagine she's the future of the Republican Party. Because yes, she's popular with the wingnuts. But only because she's crazy and dumb enough to sound like a wingnut. But there's a reason why no other wingnuts have made it on the national scene: They're crazy and dumb. And as such, she continually blurs the line between stupid and clever; preferring outright smears when only subtle jabs could work.

And so she keeps getting caught in a huge backlash which she can only survive because her supporters refuse to believe that she could possibly be as dumb as she sounds. And now "death panels" have been added to her long resume of insanity, which her supporters refuse to acknowledge. And for the rest of America, she put a very crazy face on Obama's opposition and just made Obama's job a whole lot easier.

Here's a follow-up post to this: Crazy versus Palin Crazy

Conservatives Heart Anger

American Power blogger Donald Douglas is a pretty useless source when it comes to learning anything new, because he so rarely states any opinions of his own, and instead uses his blog as a clearinghouse of other people's words. As if conservatives were in some dire need for yet another voice shouting "Me, too!" to the orders being issued from above.

But as such, he's actually quite useful as a bellwether, as he's just going to repeat what all the other conservatives are saying, and you don't need to worry about him going out on a limb with his own thoughts, as he rarely has any. In fact, he has no problem hyping contradictory posts, because he has no inner-consistency beyond the need to blame liberals for everything. It all goes straight from his source to his readers with little or no filtering by Donald himself.

And in that regard, I found "his" posts on the anti-healthcare reform mobs to be quite telling.

Here he is on August 3, proudly reporting about how conservatives disrupted Congressman Doggett's rally here in Austin, elating in the "the eruption of protest" from the "angry demonstrators." One of his commenters on that post states that "continued civility" isn't in the public interest.

And here's another from August 3, where he writes about a "freaking amazing" video of an audience which "shouts down" Senator Specter and Secretary Sebelius at a town hall meeting in Philadelphia. Donald describes Sebelius' "extremely frustrated body language" as "priceless" when she is "loudly heckled." He also quotes Atlas Shrugged saying that the "hostility" was growing as Specter and Sebelius are "heckled" and "jeered." The title of Don's post proudly proclaims that "Town Halls Get Results". Apparently, stifling debate was the result they were looking for.

And here we are on August 6, when Donald states that these disruptions are happening because "folks are really mad" and blames the media because they write articles describing the actions of these mad people, which Donald says "feed the anger and cynicism that's erupting at all of these town halls." And another post on that same day, he states that "Voters are steaming mad."

And it seems pretty clear to me that Donald Douglas thinks that the people disrupting these events are extremely angry and he approves of it. I think that's entirely undeniable.

Fuck! Fuck! Fuck! I swear I finished this post the other day and posted it, yet not only is it not posted, but the final draft wasn't saved and all I have is this early draft. Fuck!

Oh well. My point here was that Donald attacks liberals for being angry (as evidenced by posts Donald's made to defend conservative anger, which I no longer have the links to) and knows that anger is bad and hurts the side using it. Yet he continues to cheer on conservative anger and blames the people who made them angry. And he doesn't think twice about these contradictory memes, because that's what he was told to think and reflects what the movement as a whole is saying.

And in contrast, I mentioned how I've always rejected political anger, even when it comes from my side. And my final point was that as an educated PhD, Donald should be the conservative equivalent of my liberal voice of reason, but isn't. And how this shows how doomed conservatives are, as even their "intellectuals" are going batshit crazy and imagine that anger is the answer.

Oh well, I hate rewriting my post, so I guess I'll just chalk this one up to getting blogger'd. Damn. It took me a long time to write that.

They Shout Because They're Stupid

I get it. I now understand why it's necessary for wingnuts to disrupt town hall events so that nobody can discuss the issue of healthcare with their congressman.

Per Rich Casebolt, a regular commenter at American Power blog:

Sorry, Biobrain, but when the answers to the questions are based on falsehoods like the "47 million uninsured" that includes illegals and millions with means who CHOOSE not to purchase insurance, the civil discourse of the Q&A session is counterproductive to the public interest.

We've tried civility ... and all that has done is let the intellectually dishonest frame the debate, giving their lies (and yes, unlike Mr. Bush re Iraq, these ARE lies) the unmerited respect of civil repetition.

See? So the reason they have to shutdown the debate is because the congressmen involved use data that conservatives don't agree with. And rather than use these forums to highlight these differences and set the record straight, they have to disrupt the event and make sure that no one can be heard. And that's because if normal people (ie, non-conservatives) hear conservative arguments, they realize how stupid they are and prefer the Democratic plan. And while shouting makes them look stupid, rude, and angry; that's still preferable to what happens when they explain themselves. It's as simple as that.

And yes, they're still trying to unlose the debate over Iraq.

Why Does John Bolton Hate America?

Shorter John Bolton: America is so weak that we lose by even talking to North Korea.

Sadly, I could easily debunk this garbage without trying too hard, yet couldn't get in a news article short of setting myself on fire. And even then wouldn't make the Yahoo homepage.

And finally, is there really any point in using the word "terrorist" if you're watering it down so far that it just means "anyone we don't like"?

Here's Bolton:

"It comes perilously close to negotiating with terrorists," Bolton told AFP when asked about Bill Clinton's trip to secure the release of journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee.
[....]
"I think this is a very bad signal because it does exactly what we always try and avoid doing with terrorists, or with rogue states in general, and that's encouraging their bad behavior," Bolton said.

I wonder if Bolton even knows what that word means. And do I need to remind everyone that Reagan negotiated with actual terrorists? Or that he approved the illegal sale of weapons to Iran for the release of hostages? The concept of not negotiating with terrorists was always a rhetorical point, with no actual bearing in reality.


UPDATE: Well it looks like Bill got the two journalists released. Bolton, on the other hand, didn't think we should engage in any sort of diplomacy, beyond what a bunch of bombs could deliver. So were it up to John Bolton, we'd have needed to declare war in order to hope to get the journalists released, while rational thinking people did it with words. Does it need to be mentioned that John Bolton is a douchebag? I think it does.

As I've said before, the entire point of the "Diplomacy encourages bad behavior" rationale is because diplomacy helps avoid war, and these jerks don't like that. Their problem with diplomacy isn't that it doesn't work, but rather, that it does.

The Dangerous Fraud of Glenn Beck

The problem with conservatives isn't that they've got the wrong ideas, but that they've got the wrong facts. As I've said before, if the facts that conservatives use were correct, then I'd be a conservative.

If tax revenues really did go down after tax hikes, I'd oppose tax hikes. If it was in our best interest to invade other countries and act like a dick all the time, I'd want them to be dicks. If unemployment benefits made America worse, I'd oppose them. And if a public healthcare plan would pressure old people to euthanize themselves to save us tax dollars, I'd oppose it. Again, there's nothing wrong with the theory of these ideas, except that they have no basis in reality. It's a Garbage In - Garbage Out situation. As long as the data they're feeding into the system is flawed, you're only going to get flawed solutions.

And so that's one of the weird things about the Republican Smear Machine's efforts against Obama. They say he can't be our president because he was born in Kenya. They believe he's a Muslim plant who is controlled by our enemies. They claim he wants to murder babies and old people. They insist that he's trying to destroy our economy, weaken our national defense, and permanently damage America. And they hold firm to their belief that they need to arm themselves as protection against the eventual government takeover of our freedoms.

These are all articles of faith among conservatives and the belief that Obama isn't dangerous to America makes you a liberal. Any conservative who pushes back against these claims is purged from the movement.

How Terrorists Are Made

And if that's the case, then why shouldn't we be getting violent? That's simply the natural solution for these problems. If our democratic system is being used to steal our liberty, then working outside of that system is our only option. In fact, it would be crazy to NOT plan our rebellion, in order to stay one step ahead of the black helicopters and jack-booted thugs ready to steal our freedoms. And I'd completely support such a rebellion. I don't want some foreign-born Muslim baby killer destroying America. Guerrilla attacks against our government would certainly be reasonable.

And yet...Fox News doesn't want that. Rush Limbaugh might think Obama is a murderer, but he's not hinting that his listeners should start bombing government buildings. And now Carpetbagger is highlighting how Glenn Beck is telling his viewers that there is "no excuse for violence." Huh? Beck insists that Obama is a dangerous man who plans to steal our freedom and ruin America. If that's not an excuse for violence, I don't know what is.

And all this points to what a complete sham their anti-Obama rhetoric is. These people don't really believe this stuff. Beck isn't worried about government goons raiding his house or euthanizing his mom. They're just trying to scare people. That's all it's about. But they don't actually want anyone to act on any of it. And if anyone does, they'd just use that as proof of how dangerous Obama is, for inciting people to do this stuff.

That's what they're already saying about the shoutocracy they're using to shutdown Townhall meetings across the country; that it's all Obama's fault for going too far. Somehow, we're supposed to imagine it's a good thing for democracy that only the loud get to be heard. And if that means that our elected representatives don't represent their constituent's views, so be it. They got trounced in two straight elections, so now they're working outside the system to regain power.

Ratings, Ratings, Ratings

But again, the Foxes don't really believe any of this at all. Sure, they're feeding crazy-pills to the crazies as fast as they can, but that's just for ratings and power. It has nothing to do with any real belief that Obama is going to destroy the nation. After all, if any of these people truly feared Obama, they wouldn't be saying this stuff on national television. They'd be posting it online, hiding behind as many identity blockers as they can find. And I'm quite sure there are people doing that, and they're not nearly as influential as Glenn Beck is.

And so the whole thing is a sham, but a sham that even a fraud like Beck is worried might blow up in his face. Sure, the lies he's feeding people should incite violence, but that's the last thing he wants. He wants his viewers to feel powerless and as if there's nothing they can do about it besides watch his show. His goals are ratings and attention; not to save America from the Obama Menace. Obama is good for Beck, and if we somehow freed ourselves from Obama's tyranny, Beck would have to find a real job.

But of course, when people really feel like they're up against the wall and the system won't work for them, they turn to terrorism. That's what terrorism is all about. And for as much as Fox News and Limbaugh know they're playing with fire, they've already gone too far to stop it; lest they give away the whole game. And so they have to keep the heat on the crazy and hope that if anyone gets burned, it doesn't get pinned on them.

Shorter Donald Douglas: Obama Sux!

In response to a comment I made regarding American Neo-Con Donald Douglas' penchant for outsourcing his blog to others through the use of excessive excerpting, Douglas pointed to a piece of "orginal [sic] writing and analysis" he wrote for PJ Media. And with it, Douglas proves yet again why he's actually better off relying on others to write his blog for him. As the saying goes, it's better to quote others and be thought an idiot than to attempt to be original and yet again prove Doctor Biobrain right...or something like that.

Douglas was attempting to argue that Obama isn't the "post-racial" guy he pretended to be last year because sometimes he notices when people say racist shit about him. Additionally, Obama supposedly didn't condemn Reverend Wright for racist stuff he said against whites (a point clearly refuted below). And now with the Gates-Crowley ruckus, Obama said the police "acted stupidly," which somehow can only mean that he thinks they were racist. And because Obama notices racism, supposedly didn't notice anti-white racism, and didn't support the police when they acted stupidly, Obama apparently isn't transcending race. Right.

But just so you know, there was almost NO original writing or analysis here. All he did was recap a few well-known stories from the standard conservative perspective, while writing the same gibberish attacking Obama that could have come from any other conservative. He even pointlessly outsourced parts of his argument to others, apparently under the mistaken belief that quoting other people who express the same opinion that you're expressing somehow provides support for your opinion. Sorry, Donald. It doesn't. Opinion plus Opinion still equals Opinion.

This wasn't analysis; it was a fricking book report. All he did was regurgitate what he read elsewhere, much of which was entirely wrong. Brilliant, Donald. You're a true thinker's thinker.

Transcend Doesn't Mean Blind

And Donald's main premise is entirely flawed here. It's as if being "post-racial" means that you're not allowed to notice racism anymore...unless the racism comes from your side. Seriously, I see no other point here. And the only way that makes even the slightest sense is if you think it's racist to notice racism. But of course, the point of Obama being "post-racial" wasn't that he wasn't going to notice racism, but rather that his presidency would be for ALL Americans, and that he wouldn't just be the "black" president.

And at its most cynical, it was an attempt to let white people know that he wasn't against them and wouldn't blame them collectively for slavery or try to give their shit away to the negroes as slave reparations. I myself have never understood why that was necessary, as Obama is half white, was raised by white people, and has succeeded fabulously in White America. Hell, most of his best friends are white. Besides, the phrase was really just meant to be a nice piece of rhetoric, which helped bring Americans together.

I have no idea where Donald's specific interpretation of "transcending race" came from, but it wasn't from anything Obama said. Had he ever said "I won't notice racism anymore," Donald might have a point, but as with most rhetoric, it was a vague phrase that had all sorts of possible meanings. And without Donald's specific meaning for "post-racial," his entire piece is a meritless joke.

Racial Sensitivity

And as an aside, I sort of remember a time not too long ago when Donald himself got a little sensitive regarding what he thought was a racist joke against him; when a "nihilist" joked that Donald should fight his "hate monkey."

I myself clearly understood that the imagined monkey was to fight Donald, and wasn't meant to be him; but can almost sort of see how Douglas could be confused about this, if he was a complete nimrod who was looking for something to be offended about. And all the same, the smart thing to do is to be extra cautious about that sort of thing, in order to avoid any such confusion. That's why my offer to have Donald fight my pet Hate Falcon still stands. Let me tell you, Falky the Nihilist Falcoln will tear Donald's shit UP!

So, while Donald is clearly not ignorant of the problems of racism in this country, he seems to believe that Obama can no longer criticize racism at all. For example, when Geraldine Ferraro stated that “if Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position," Obama wasn't supposed to notice the racist turd Ferraro had dumped on Obama's accomplishments. Apparently, all one has to do in this country to win the Democratic nomination is to be black. If only someone had told Al Sharpton sooner...or Jesse Jackson.

And the reason Douglas mentioned this was because he claimed Obama attacked Ferraro for the comment. Yet, this "attack" consisted of him denouncing her comment, saying "I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party." Wow, how vicious. That's much worse than Ferraro saying that Obama's political success was due to his race. Oh, and Obama declined to say whether he thought Ferraro should be fired from Clinton's campaign. Ouch!

But I suppose if Ferraro had suggested that Obama fight her imaginary monkey that Donald would be the first to denounce her; particularly since Obama is apparently not allowed to do so with his post-racial attitude. And yes, my offer of fighting Falky also extends to Ms. Ferraro.

Misrepresenting Obama

And Donald's entire thesis is a weird hodgepodge that only makes sense when you cut through the garbage and see his true theme: Obama sux! Because he attacks Obama for noticing race and nationalizing the Gates' story, yet also chides Obama for not using this as a "teachable moment" to heal the racial wounds of the country.

So which is it, Donald? Should Obama have gotten involved or not? And perhaps I'm being unfair, but I'm pretty sure that Donald would have attacked Obama if he had kept trying to beat this story; which would at least add an element of consistency to Donald's argument. And I don't even want to imagine the shitstorm conservatives would have raised had Crowley apologized to Gates during the "Beer Summit" that Donald considers a failure.

But of course, another mistaken premise in Donald's argument is in twisting Obama's "acted stupidly" comment into a racial attack of some sort. In Donald's mind, Obama's comment was somehow meant to imply that he thought the cops had been racist. Yet, that ignores the first sentence in Obama's response, which was:

I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.

Oh, so before Obama said the cops had "acted stupidly," he had just said he hadn't seen all the facts and didn't know if racism was involved. So...where in the hell did Donald get the idea that Obama was referring to the racial aspects of the case? Oh yeah, from all the people who tell Donald what to think. Yet, if he had just bothered reading Obama's actual statement, he'd see that his entire thesis was a big giant turd.

Obama was criticizing the police for arresting Gates; not for being racist. And in case that wasn't clear, he clarified that the next day, saying "it was a pretty straightforward commentary that you probably don't need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged man who uses a cane, who's in his own home." So all the racial stuff in Donald's anti-Obama screed was entirely misplaced, because Obama wasn't saying anything about the racial aspects of the case. Color me unsurprised.

Donald Douglas: Republican Sock Puppet

And sadly, conservative spin entirely colors Donald's piece. Being an egregious authoritarian, he automatically accepts whatever his thinkers tell him and imagines them to be factual claims.

Like when Donald quotes Gates saying, “Yeah, I’ll speak with your mama outside," even though Gates has denied ever saying that. This is apparently now an established fact which Donald included for reasons I can't quite comprehend. If anything, I suppose Donald's used it as a way of undermining Gates, by showing how rude he was...or something. As if a "your mama" comment is an arrestable offense.

And Douglas blames Obama for this story not staying "localized," even though it was already a huge news story before Obama was asked a question about it. Donald seems to be aware of this, as he says the photos of Gates walking off handcuffed "immediately ignited a roaring national debate on race in America." So, which was it, Donald? A local story that Obama nationalized, or a roaring national debate that Obama commented? And blaming Obama for this is standard Republican spin, as it suggests that it was improper for him to comment on a story that everyone else was already commenting on, and which involved a friend of his.

The Intelligent Mistake

And then there's Douglas' regurgitation that Obama's "acted stupidly" comment was "ill-informed." Yet, he quotes one commenter who wrote "Gates’s arrest was an honest and understandable mistake by the Cambridge police." But perhaps she meant that it was an intelligent mistake. Sure, it was a mistake to arrest a man for being angry at his own home, but it wasn't a stupid mistake. Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

Oddly, Douglas refers to a "mutual misunderstanding" between Gates and Crowley. Misunderstanding? Ahh yes, Crowley misunderstood Gates when Gates was angry, and somehow imagined that he wanted to be arrested. Of course. It could happen to anyone. I hope Donald suffers a similar "misunderstanding" some day, so he perhaps might understand how stupid it is to arrest someone for being angry at their own home. Hopefully, those charges will be dropped too, as I really can't imagine Donald making many friends in jail.

Oh, and that commenter Don quoted was clearly a mind-reader. How else could she know that the police made an honest mistake which "clearly" had nothing to do with race, yet also know that Obama meant to "damn the Cambridge police as 'stupid'" when he said they "acted stupidly." That's the level of quality you get with a Donald Douglas original report: Psychics.

Divisive and Destructive

And shit, this got too long, so I'll just cut it short by highlighting only one of Donald's factual errors: When he claims that Obama "never actually denounced the race-hatred of his mentor Jeremiah Wright" during his big speech on race last March. But of course, in our reality, Obama said:

I've known Rev. Wright for almost 20 years. The person that I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church.

They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Rev. Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well I might not know him as well as I thought, either.

But maybe Donald missed that speech, seeing as how it came out a full month after the race speech Donald quoted from. But then, perhaps he could have bothered reading the speech he quoted from, in which he would have seen this:

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely – just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Yes, no denouncing there at all. Idiot. Later in that speech, he used words like "profoundly distorted" "wrong" "divisive" and "racially charged" to describe Wright's rhetoric, and that's just in the first page of the speech. Perhaps that's the reason why Donald provides so few links in his article, so people can't read this stuff for themselves and realize that Donald hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

But at a guess, I'd say the reason Donald doesn't provide fuller context to these issues is because he isn't familiar with it. He's heard repeatedly that Obama never denounced Wright, and therefore completely missed the denouncement that was in the speech Donald quoted from. And that can only be because he hadn't read the speech and was merely reprinting the part he was familiar with and relaying the same false spin he was given. He knows what he's been told and he's sticking to it.

And frankly, I'm not sure which is worse: That Donald's analysis wasn't original to him, or that the people he copied were so entirely wrong. But I suppose that's a question that applies to the conservative movement in its entirety.

Don't Feed Your Opponent's Attack

I seriously doubt there is anyone who imagined that Republicans would go easy on Obama or even make a serious attempt at working with him. It was widely known that Republicans would oppose him and attack him every chance they got. That's a no-brainer.

And to many hardcore liberals who don't like dealing with Republicans, that was the perfect excuse to completely ignore Republicans, because they wouldn't deal with us anyway. And that's exactly what the Bushies did, so much so that they intentionally would poison legislation to ward off any possible support from Democrats. They'd ensure that one or two Liebermans were on board for the fig leaf of bipartisanship, and do anything they could to scare off any other Dems from supporting their stuff.

But that's stupid. Because, yes, we have opposing political parties who will attack you, but all the same, adopting policies which legitimize those attacks only helps your enemies. So liberals attacking Bush for lying our way into Iraq was inevitable, but the fact that he really did lie us into Iraq was bad for Bush. And liberals attacking Bush's taxcuts as being handouts to the rich was inevitable, but actually designing them that way was bad for Bush.

Fueling the Attacks

And the rule is: You should avoid giving fuel to your enemy's attacks. That's it. It's that simple. Yes, they're going to attack you, but if you aren't doing what you're being attacked for, the attacks are likely to backfire and make the attackers look stupid. But conversely, by doing what you're being attacked for, you legitimize the attacks and make the attackers look intelligent.

So if you know you're going to be attacked for something, you should avoid doing it. While your attackers will continue to attack you, they weren't the ones you were trying to impress. And the more you add legitimacy to these attacks, the more likely people will listen to the other attacks against you. And it looks like Obama knows that perfectly well.

Of course Republicans were going to attack him for being a tax-and-spend socialist who would throw taxpayer money down the drain. And so the thing to do would be to avoid doing that. To make sure that taxpayer funds were spent wisely and to make the budget process open and honest. And that's what he did. Republicans have been telegraphing their strategy for over a decade now, and Obama reacted appropriately and is now making Republicans look stupid at every turn.

More Conservative Outrage

And the point of this is a recent attack on Obama's stimulus spending for supposedly supporting pornography. According to outraged conservatives, the NEA received $80 million of the stimulus' $787 billion (or 0.0001%) to support the arts, and the NEA gave $50,000 to a "film house" which happened to show a porn movie recently. And in their fevered imaginations, this is the equivalent of Obama funding porn; as if porn was some dying industry that required support.

But of course, by itself, this is a non-story. The funds supposedly went to the film house, not the movie or the studio that made the movie. But the reality was even worse than that, because this wasn't a "film house." The money went to a nonprofit foundation which supports the arts in cinema, including showing art movies. And the film in question, Thundercrack!, is a cult classic from 1975 and is admired for it's comedy, not its porn (not that I had ever heard of it before).

And so the whole thing was a joke. Their accusations were a non-story and the reality was absolutely absurd. And while Obama haters everywhere will view it as the proof they'd been looking for of Obama's dastardly spending habits, normal people will see it as yet more proof of how completely wacko conservatives are. And by doing so, they completely undermine every other attack they make against Obama. Cry wolf enough times and soon enough, folks won't listen once the wolf shows up.

And as usual, I support them in that completely. Please conservatives, continue to call Obama a Muslim socialist from Kenya who wants to murder old people and babies. You're just making things that much easier for us.

Appeasing Israel

Would someone care to explain to me why we need to make Israel happy? I don't even buy into the idea that having them in the middle-east is some great strategic advantage for us, and think it's the exact opposite. Israel is one of the biggest problems we have in the middle-east. That's not to say I don't support their existence or anything, merely that I fail to understand their strategic importance to us or why we need to keep appeasing them. As with our embargo of Cuba, I believe our support of Israel is more about domestic politics than foreign policy and anyone who suggests otherwise is selling something.

But if their existence is somehow important to us, you'd think their existence would be even more important to themselves. And if our support of them makes their existence possible, then you'd think they'd owe it to us to keep us happy, not vice versa. And if our support isn't necessary for their existence and they're doing us a favor by accepting our support, then perhaps we should stop supporting them. That seems fairly obvious to me.

So I fail to understand why we need to be so concerned with keeping them happy. As I've said in the past, Israel is its own country with its own interests and that we should support them only as far as it benefits us. And that's their policy towards us too, so that shouldn't be a shocking thing to say. Yet all the same, the conventional wisdom seems to be that we not only need to support Israel, but also make them happy. It's as if they're the ones with all the power, instead of us.

And that's how you end up with idiotic columns in Newsweek suggesting that Obama send Bush to the middle-east as an envoy, based entirely on his ability to make Israel happy. But of course, the reason he made them happy is because he did stupid stuff we don't want Obama to do. And if he did what Obama wants him to do, Bush would be just as unpopular as anyone else we send. And as Carpetbagger pointed out, the real purpose of the article was probably to suggest that Obama be more like Bush and appease Israel; as if that worked out for us. And again, I fail to understand the logic of that.

If our support is required for their existence, then it's more important to them that we support them than it is to us. And that means they need to make US happy, not vice versa. That's how the game is played. I just wish the idiots at Newsweek understood that. Powerful nations shouldn't kowtow to their weaker allies, even if they are BFF's.

RedState Brain Food is No Brainer

As a member in good standing at RedState, I recently received the following email:

Conservative, Good news activists. The RedState Army now has a daily newsletter. It’s called the RedState Morning Briefing. Morning Briefing is where ideas are born, it’s grassroots, it’s to the point -- this is brain food straight from the RedState Headquarters delivered directly to your inbox. Try it for a week. It’s free. This one is a no brainer.

And I was so intrigued that I signed up. Now, I can get pointy grassroots ideas right where they're born. Brain food. Straight to my brain. It's a no-brainer and free, no less. I was afraid I'd have to pay $19.95 or more, but no. I can ideas right where they're born, for free. I can't wait. They had me at Conservative.

Governor ChatBot Resigns

Apparently, the purpose of running for political office is to run for political office, and if you're not running for a political office, you shouldn't hold a political office. Or so goes the reasoning of Sarah Palin's "obvious" rationale for resigning.

As she said in her final farewell address (we hope):

“Some still are choosing not to hear why I’m charting a new course to advance this state,” she said, adding that “it should be so obvious to you.”

“It is because I love Alaska this much, sir, that I feel that it is my duty to avoid the unproductive, typical, politics-as-usual, lame-duck session in one’s last year in office,” Palin explained, reprising some of the rationale she laid out in announcing her decision to resign earlier this month.

Yes. It's all so obvious. If you're not running for re-election, you shouldn't be in office. Brilliant. Apparently, the purpose of democracy is to have popularity contests. And what's stupid is that it'd make much more sense if she just said that all the attacks on her were distracting her from office, which is why she was stepping down. But of course, that's what the scandal-ridden always say when a scandal chases them from office, so perhaps she was trying to avoid the cliche.

And of course, the most likely theory is that she's a computerized chatbot with pre-programmed phrases and is merely selecting these phrases at random from her stored memory. Because that's most definitely the way she talks, particularly with her unproductive, typical, lame-as-usual, empty phrase sessions. The wonder isn't that she's incoherent, but rather, that anyone imagines she's making any sense at all.

Why Haven't We Nuked Santa Yet?

I'm not saying that I believe in Santa Claus. I'm just saying that if we don't ask questions about why our government hasn't yet nuked the North Pole on the off chance Santa exists, they'll never do it. It's just common sense. If you've got this rogue dude flying into American homes and leaving unsolicited packages, it's a problem. And while I don't myself believe that this is happening, it only makes sense to wonder why our government hasn't yet tried to fix this problem that I don't believe is real. That's all.

I'm not supporting any theories at all here. Just asking questions that need answers and there's no harm in that. Lots of people believe in Mr. Claus, including our impressionable youths, so it just makes sense to ask questions about his existence and why we haven't yet ended it. But all the same, anyone still asking for Obama's birth certificate is absolutely nuts, and I say that as the guy who secretly wants to nuke Santa (not that I'd ever admit to it).

No harm in asking questions. The people with the agenda are the ones who won't ask.

General Rule of Thumb

If someone can't quote you directly but has to use more inflammatory words to paraphrase what you said, what you said wasn't as inflammatory as they'd have you believe.

For example, saying that someone "acted stupidly" isn't the same as saying that the person is stupid. Everyone acts stupidly at one time or another, but that doesn't make us all stupid. And if Obama's "acted stupidly" quote was as offensive as his critics suggest, they would use that quote rather than paraphrasing his quote into something he didn't say.

The Police Power Trip

Regarding the black Harvard professor who was arrested for being mean to a cop, I really don't think this has much to do with race. I'm white, yet I find cops to be terrifying. Because in many respects, they have almost infinite power over your life and are permitted to do things to you that a judge or jury could never ever do.

Like taze you. It would be illegal for a judge or jury to punish you by tazing you, yet cops can do this simply because they don't like your attitude or because you didn't obey them quickly enough or just because you didn't understand what they said. And the only way it will ever be an issue is if it happens to be caught on video, and even then, you're unlikely to get sympathy from many people. And unless you die from it, a large portion of society will agree with the cop that you deserved it, and many people think even the deaths are deserved. Hey, at least he didn't shoot you.

And the thing is, this is all a tricky issue. I mean, cops need to have authority. Yet, they're still our employees. They're there to protect us, not scare us into obedience. And one of the quickest ways to get in trouble with a cop is to remind them of that. They're cops because they like being in charge and doing anything which suggests that they don't have complete control over you really pisses them off. They're like the ultimate street gang, which you just hope you don't get on the wrong side of.

Gates didn't get arrested because he was black. He got arrested because he tried to take control of the situation and cops hate that. While his skin color may have been a factor in his initial treatment, any of us would have been arrested once we tried to take authority away from the cop. Sure, it was Gates' house and he hadn't legally done anything wrong. But he tried to steal authority away from the cop and that's one of the most serious crimes in the eyes of police.

My Run-Ins with the Police

And while I'm sure race might make things worse, I've definitely received poor treatment from cops, yet I've always been a respectable looking white guy.

Like one time when me and a friend were walking along our quiet neighborhood one night and saw cops questioning a car full of guys. And because we were bored, we stood some distance away and watched. We weren't doing anything and weren't even close enough to hear anything they were saying. Yet after the cops dismissed the guys, they came over to us, asked us questions, and made us empty our pockets and show that we had nothing on us. Not because they thought we were doing anything wrong, but because we were watching them and they didn't like that.

Now, if either of us were black, I might assume this had something to do with race. But we weren't, so I can only assume it was part of their power trip. We were in our own neighborhood, actually standing on the edge of the college campus where my friend went to school, yet the cops didn't like that we were watching them. And because they have almost infinite power, they will punish anyone who doesn't do what they like.

My Headlight Offense

More recently, I got pulled over for having a burned-out headlight. Normally, cops won't care about that sort of thing. But this was on a special night in our neighborhood that the police have decided to crack down on, so they were looking for any excuse to pull people over.

And so the cop is questioning me about stupid stuff, like where I lived (even though she had my driver's license) and where I was going; probably trying to decide if I was drunk. But I didn't seem drunk, I guess, so another cop came up and asked me the same pointless questions, while a third cop started shining his flashlight through the tinted windows of my car, hoping to find something (beer cans or stolen TV's, I suppose). Not that they asked permission to search my car, but being terrified of police, I didn't want to create more problems by telling them to stop.

And yes, it took three cops in two cop cars to pull over a dude for a broken headlight in his own quiet neighborhood. They eventually decided I had done nothing wrong and let me go with a warning, yet delayed me almost ten minutes while I was on my way to pick up my daughter from work.

And again, were I black, I might assume this was about race. But because I'm a respectable looking white guy, driving a respectable looking mini-van, in a neighborhood full of respectable looking white people, I know this was about the power trip. The headlight was the excuse to pull me over so they could hope to find something to arrest me for. Needless to say, I replaced the headlight the next day, in order to avoid any future fishing expeditions.

Limitless Authority

And seriously, I can only think of one time when an on-duty cop was actually decent to me, and lots of times that they were complete jerk-offs. I've known off-duty cops as friends and they weren't jerks to me, but even they were a bit frightening. Like one off-duty cop working as a rent-a-cop where I worked who "joked" about using his club to smash my shins while we were watching baseball on his little TV. I knew it was a joke, yet all the same, I didn't think it was particularly funny.

And again, I understand their need for authority. I understand why they act the way they do. And when it's needed, I'm glad that they act the way they do. Yet, this power shouldn't be limitless. There shouldn't be an automatic assumption of innocence on the part of police, in which only a video of the incident can ever get them in trouble. Because I've definitely seen cops try to incite a reaction from the people they're questioning. And they will HATE you if you ask them questions or act like you have rights. To them, you don't.

And without a doubt, they want to arrest you. They want you to do something stupid. They want you to get pissed off and disrespect them or find any excuse to take you in. That's what it's all about. And they don't even necessarily care if the charges are dropped. They got to arrest you, thus firmly establishing their ultimate authority. That's why they became police. And again, while I find it necessary for cops to have authority, this authority shouldn't be nearly as limitless as it is.

Lessons in Democracy: Paying For Shit You Don't Like

And another thing about my dad's abortion beliefs, he firmly is against having to pay for abortions, and he is unanimous in that. And yet, when I pointed out to him that I didn't want to have to pay for the war in Iraq, he acknowledged it as a good point and thus ended the debate. But, when I was back a few weeks later, he said the same damn thing about not wanting to pay for abortions, as if we hadn't already gone over that before. And I again mentioned the war and he again acknowledged it as a good point and ended that part of the debate.

It's as if it hadn't occured to him before that we all pay for things we don't like and that our system of government isn't based upon us only financing the things we want financed. But of course, in our government, the majority picks people to represent our interests and we all agree to go along with whatever those representatives do (within certain limitations, of course). That's how it works. That's the system. And so you get stuck financing wars, abortions, Halliburton, welfare queens, and any number of other egregious things that chap your hide.

And while it's not a perfect system, at least we get to have some say in where our money goes, and that's the whole point. And if you feel that you'll never be part of the majority and don't like how things are run, leave. It's that simple. And sure, my dad could argue that he's a Veteran who fought for our country and somehow deserves special considerations. But no. Soldiers fight for our democracy, not their own personal dictatorships. And democracy today means paying for abortions, even if you don't like them.

The Price of Freedom

And the other part of this is that abortions are most definitely the cheap way out for my dad. According to this site, a first trimester abortion costs between $300-$600, while a second trimester abortion can go up to $5000. Not chump change. But in comparison to the cost my dad would have paid to have that fetus birthed, fed, educated, and quite possibly imprisoned; abortion is definitely the cheaper option.

Of course, my dad might not want to have to pay to birth, feed, and educate that fetus (the prisons he'll pay for). But too f-ing bad. That's not the deal. If he wants to get involved in the decision of this baby's birth, then he's reponsible for the outcome of that decision. And again, if he doesn't like it, there are definitely other countries which won't require him to pay for shit he doesn't like.

Somehow, I suspect he'll miss the stuff he does like, however. Like not living in a country full of stupid hungry children whose parents couldn't afford birth control. Sorry dad, but that's the price of freedom in America.

Freedom of Ignorance

Carpetbagger has a post about yet another Republican-generated scandal which was created entirely from their inability to comprehend things. In particular, some nimrod misread a report and thought the government paid $1.19 million for two pounds of ham, when they actually bought 760,000 pounds of two pound hams. And so every rightwinger who heard this went apeshit, finally having that nut they were looking to hit Obama with; completely unable to use critical thinking skills long enough to bother fact checking any of it.

And as I joked in a comment, I can't wait until I visit my folks for Thanksgiving and listen while my dad makes a few jokes about how we're having turkey because Obama made ham so expensive. And I'll have a polite smile on my face while I try to explain the truth to him, but he'll insist that he read the original contract and it was all there: Ten million dollars for one ham (yes, like a bad game of Telephone, he'll have goofed the details). And even if I get him to realize the truth, by Christmas, he'll be saying the same damn thing. That's just how it works.

But all the same, these sort of goofs are absolutely HORRIBLE for conservatives. While the base gobbles it up, anyone who isn't fervently anti-Obama will smell a hoax, which will create yet another divide between the sane and insane in our nation. It's been a long, long time since Republicans have truly benefited from a fake scandal.

Forced Abortion on Demand

But what's sad is that this actually describes a discussion I had with my dad on abortion when I visited a few weeks ago. This was part of the same discussion I described before, in which my father seemed uncomfortable with the idea of criminalizing abortion and didn't seem to realize that this was the position of his church and political party. Somehow, he never connected the anti-abortion position with any action he expected the government to do about it. It was about saving babies, not imprisoning doctors, nurses, or mothers for murder.

And in that discussion, he railed against the Freedom of Choice Act, which he demonized as supporting "abortion on demand" and asked me if I supported that. And I said that I naturally did. In fact, I can't quite figure out what's so scary about the phrase "abortion on demand." They use the phrase as if it's an ultimate evil, as if a mother could demand that other mothers get an abortion. Or perhaps the government would do forced abortions; which is the exact opposite of abortion on demand. But I stood my ground and he seemed taken aback that I would support such an evil proposition as the dreaded "abortion on demand."

And that's when he brought up FOCA, which he insisted would force all hospitals and doctors to perform abortions. And I immediately pushed back, saying that this was a myth and that it didn't do that. But he insisted that he had read the bill and it did exactly that. Now, knowing my father, I knew it was absolutely impossible that he read the actual bill; and that, more likely, he read a "paraphrase" of the bill in the stupid emails he gets all the time. Not that it's a long bill, but all the same, I was quite sure he hadn't really read it.

Catholics Debunk FOCA Lies

And so I actually had to go on Wikipedia and read the damn thing to him, particularly the part about how the Catholic News Service opposes the legislation but definitely doesn't think this will affect Catholic hospitals.

As the head of the Catholic Health Association said:

the legislation "has never contained anything that would force Catholic hospitals or Catholic personnel to do abortions or to participate in them."

Yet, my dad didn't know any of this. In fact, my ability to use the internet to research things absolutely amazed him. Not that he's technologically illiterate, as he was a computer expert going back into the early 70's and even now accesses the internet on his phone on a regular basis. He knows how to pay his bills online, but doing research on positions he firmly holds...inconceivable.

So he read the scary emails and I'm sure listened to radio shows which also got their information from the scary emails, and that was the end of it. No further research required than an anonymous email that even Catholic leaders reject. I swear, those wingnut emails are more influential than the Pope, even among Catholics.

Lies Upon Lies

Those emails also contain such insanity as suggesting that it'll lead to a future amendment which will "force women by law to have abortions in certain situations (rape, Down syndrome babies, etc.) and could even regulate how many children women are allowed to have." And that's probably what my dad thinks "abortion on demand" means. Slate's Melinda Henneberger actually promoted the moronic theory that Catholic churches would rather shutdown than perform abortions, and wouldn't even sell their hospitals to non-Catholics; an absolutely insane theory that CHA also firmly disputes.

The misinformation is just piled on here, with lies upon lies upon lies. Here's a crazy anti-FOCA website which lists all the "irreparable danger" FOCA will create, and uses a quote from Planned Parenthood to confirm that it's all true. But of course, PP's quote mentions everything except forcing Catholic hospitals to perform abortions, which is the only truly scary item on the list. BTW, one of the funniest parts of all this is to read the horrors if parental notification laws are repealed. As if it requires more maturity to abort a child than to raise one.

But again, the sad thing is that these emails are far more influential than anything any of us can do. We can use internet to correct these lies, but all the same, the crazy will flow right back in like sand in a hole and they'll have forgotten everything we said; thanks partly to these anonymous emails. Not because they believe these emails to be the irrefutable word of God, but merely because the emails finally provide a reason for why these people hate Obama so much. They know they hate Obama. They just need to figure out why.

Round Table Conspiracies

One of the main reasons I don't believe in conspiracies is my faith in the incompetence of others. And so I read about a fairly botched cover-up by the CIA regarding a former DEA agent who says he was illegally wiretapped in 1993. I have no idea of the legitmacy of this case, but thought this part was interesting.

Horn says he became suspicious when he came back from a trip out of town to find his government-issued rectangular coffee table replaced with a round one.

Uh, yeah. That's a bit suspicious. Now, assuming there's something to this, what the fuck? You're planting a secret listening device into some dude's house, something that should be discrete and unnoticeable (or so I would imagine), and you have to replace the dude's coffee table to do it? Seriously? And it wasn't even the same shape? Incredible.

Or perhaps this guy's insane. Perhaps there was some perfectly good explanation for why his coffee table changed shape while he was out of town. Perhaps it was bored. Or perhaps this guy is totally insane and it was a round table the whole time. I don't know. Sure, you'd think if his case had no merit that the government wouldn't require a head and former head of the CIA to lie about it. But maybe it does. I don't know. This isn't really my area of expertise, not having been a spy or anything.

All I know is that people are f-ing crazy, aren't nearly as competent as they'd have you believe, and will generally do a far more piss poor job of covering anything up than you'd possibly imagine. The wonder isn't that we find out about conspiracies, but that anyone believes in them at all. Remember, either the CIA is incompetent for doing such a botched job in tapping this guy, or the DEA was incompetent for hiring an insane person. Either way, it doesn't speak well of the government's ability to keep a low profile.

Sunday Morning Discussion Questions

Sunday morning is the perfect time to contemplate why God did this to you. Discuss.

Christians gave us Sundays. Unions gave us Saturdays. Discuss.

Do you believe that God will punish Newt Gingrich the way he deserves to be punished? Why or why not?


Bonus Material:
God's purpose for Earth: Test of Morality, Test of Faith, or just screwing around.

Name three things God did wrong. Give specifics.

How Not to Run an Opposition Party

You've got to pick your fights. And reflexively opposing everything your opponent does is a mindlessly stupid tactic which most assuredly will hurt you, because it completely removes your capability to use strategy and plan your attack. And without that, you might as well just pack up and go home, because it's just a matter of time before your luck runs out and you lose. Republicans believe they can win this as a war of attrition, with every attack building on top of the last. But instead, every attack waters down the strength of any future attack, so mindless attacks are not only ineffective, but also counter-productive.

And sure, Republicans did pretty well in the 90's with their knee-jerk attacks and reflexive hyper-partisanship. It really paid off for them, so much so that it actually appeared to be some sort of strategy. But it wasn't. All that happened is that a bunch of jerk blowhards happened to be in the right place at the right time for jerk blowhards to succeed. The conservative exodus away from the Democratic Party was in full-swing and it appeared these guys could do no wrong.

Yet all the same, they sucked. In fact, everything after 1995 really sucked for them and they really didn't achieve much of their agenda. Sure, they impeached a president, but the whole point of that was simply to help them pass their agenda. But that never really happened. Even after winning the Whitehouse and owning a rubber-stamp Congress, kind Supreme Court, and obedient media, they still couldn't enact most of their agenda. It always must be remembered that conservatives had once planned to make enormous changes, like eliminate the Department of Education, destroy Social Security, dismantle all welfare programs, and all sorts of fantasy ideas that will never happen.

And instead, the best they got was a stupid war that crippled them politically and which was forced upon them by the neo-cons in the first place. And even Bush's budget busting tax cuts had to be sold with smoke & mirrors, with promises that they wouldn't be as expensive as they were or benefit the rich as much as they really did. If they had real power, they would have made the big cuts immediate and permanent. But even the hubris-filled Bushies knew better than to try that. Even now, they are forced to lie about Bush's tax cuts to make them sound less expensive than they were.

Hapless Republicans

And now with them out of power, they're utterly hapless. Even in the 90's, Republicans were extremely predictable, as they only had one play that they know how to run. And now it's ten years later and they're still running the same damn play. It's just a knee-jerk reflex to oppose anything Democrats want, and it keeps hurting them in the long run. And this is even more noticeable with Obama as president, as he's actually using Republican predictability to his advantage.

And so it's funny to read about how Sotomayor is likely to cruise to an easy confirmation. Because this was it. Conservatives drew their lines in the sand and were cuckoo over Sotomayor from the moment they heard the announcement. And they huffed and puffed and nothing. Nada. Zip. They probably even held their breath until they turned blue, but nobody cared enough to notice. As Carpetbagger notes, if anything, we know less about Sotomayor than before the hearings began. For as much as the Conservative Movement was upset with Sotomayor, they couldn't do a damn thing to stop her. Which was entirely predictable going back before her name was even mentioned, and why conservatives never should have even bothered.

And that's why you can't accept every fight. You should only pick fights that you have a good chance of winning. Because if you win, you look powerful and make it more likely you'll win in the future. But if you lose, you just demonstrate your impotence. And the harder you try, the more impotent you appear if you lose. And so by accepting bad fights, you're making it more likely you'll get stuck in bad fights in the future. Politics is all about expectations management, and if you're not actively honing expectations, you'll lose many more battles than you win.

The Backfire Offensive

And worst of all, your attacks might be so foul that you end up hurting yourself. And that's exactly what they've done with Sotomayor. They reflexively looked for the hardest material against her they could find, then fired it at her with both barrels and ended up looking like complete douchebags. Elmer Fudd couldn't have done it better.

Every time they screamed "Latina Racist" it hit them hard in the face. They heaped great scorn against the "wise Latina," but most folks were unlikely to get the reference and so it appeared to be a racist joke against dumb Latinos. But of course, that's the way it appeared because that's the way it was. They really were insulting Latinos. They really were mocking the idea that a Latina could be wise. And for as much as they wrapped it all up in tortured rationalizations by insisting that Sotomayor was an undeserving affirmative action racist, that merely displayed the level of their delusion; by imagining that anyone was fooled by this.

But of course, it's not just the confirmation hearing. They've been doomed from this sort of thing all year. They've been reflexively opposing Obama at every turn, with dismal results. Sure, they've made things difficult for him and clearly have some power. But all the same, the harder they try, the worse off they look. And that's because they have absolutely no strategy whatsoever and now have no capability for developing one. They're just acting on reflex and those reflexes are betraying them.

Conservatives have firmly established the principle that every fight is the last fight, which is why they can't decline a challenge. And they'll continue to throw everything they've got at anything they can hit; oblivious to the damage it does to themselves. And they're becoming increasingly angry that the harder they try, the worse they do. And that just makes them more reflexively stupid, and more likely to do something stupid, which just makes things worse. And I see no easy out for them on this.