RUTROW.org » Political

Tired of the wisdom of the protected…

scathew — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 17:25:35 +0000

Regarding those against extended job loss benefits or with a Melon-esque attitude about the Great Recession:

Maybe people … who have no risk of losing their cushy tenured job(s) shouldn’t prescribe medicine that they have no risk of ever taking.

- Me

Really, it’s like successful motivational speakers who give “Get Rich” seminars that use themselves for examples. They don’t get the reason that reality doesn’t apply to them is because they already live in a different world. It’s also the reason that a government run by people who are generally far better off than average can’t possible represent the average.

The definition of “irony” is?

scathew — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:33:55 +0000

Republicans can’t extend unemployment because it costs $33 billion.

But happily approve $33 billion in addition war spending without such concerns.

To quote:

Republicans in Congress still were strongly behind the boost in war spending [emphasis added], but there was unusually strong opposition from members of Obama’s own Democratic Party. All but 12 of the “no” votes in the House came from Democrats.

Pretty clear what their priorities are.

Put a little extra in that card…

scathew — Tue, 27 Jul 2010 23:22:44 +0000

Michelle Obama wants you to sign Barack’s birthday card:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/barackbirthday

to “let him know you’re ready to take on the year ahead alongside him”.

Honestly I would be happy to “take on the year ahead alongside him” if he lived up to his campaign promises. Thus I put a little something “extra” in the card:

Happy Birthday Obama. I’ll happily “take on the year ahead alongside” you if you:

End indefinite detention

Reintroduce the use of Habeas Corpus

End the use of military tribunals (aka kangaroo courts)

Stop extraordinary renditions

Close the Bagram detention center

Repudiate the extra-judicial assassination orders against Americans

Give the transparency you promised

Stop going after whistle blowers who were reporting legitimate claims

Seriously, I happily would. Sure I still think the whole bit about Summers and Geithner sucks, but at least the largest reason why I desperately wanted the Republicans out would be taken care of.

How `bout giving your base a little “birthday gift” Obama?

My luck it’ll land me on the “no fly” list instead.

Prosperity “as far as the eye can see”…

scathew — Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:07:51 +0000

But only as far:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39851.html

Yet another piece of evidence to explain why the Village (aka D.C.) doesn’t get what the rest of the country gets.

The “new revolution”…

scathew — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 20:24:21 +0000

More and more on the left and the right (but particularly the later, specifically Libertarians) one hears the idea that the economic end is nigh – soon it’ll be time to break out the guns, ammo, and survival skills. It has gone from mildly paranoid to explicitly wishful.

Here’s my responses for this wistful desire:

Yes, the country is being run horribly.
No, your solutions are not the answer.
I have not met anyone proposing to lead the “new revolution” that I would want to lead the “new revolution”.
I care too much about people to wish this upon anyone, most specifically my family and friends.

Basically, what we have sucks, but the half-assed plans of a bunch of crazy Libertarians doesn’t sound much better. Ultimately I feel the same way about wanna-be revolutionaries as the fundamentalist Bible thumpers:

“I’ve never met anyone who was sure they were going to Heaven^TM, that I would actually want to be in Heaven^TM with.”

- Me

The curious case of “National Socialists”…

scathew — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:48:26 +0000

Here’s a quote from a comment in a liberal blog:

“The rabid right has useful idiots that call Obama a socialist and a fascist in the same sentence, obviously not realizing that the two are diametrically opposing!”

Forgetting the grammatical errors, I wish I could agree with that statement. In fact I used to believe it was true myself, however unfortunately I did some research on “National Socialists” (aka Nazis) and found there was in fact a curious mix of what we might call socialism and fascism – the “Socialist” moniker was not completely a misnomer.

To see this, you have to read the “25 point Program” (also known as the “National Socialist Program“). For instance among such clearly “fascist” gems as:

We demand land and territory (colonies) for the maintenance of our people and the settlement of our surplus population.
Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen Hence no Jew can be a countryman.
Any further immigration of non-Germans must be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who have entered Germany since August 2, 1914, shall be compelled to leave the Reich immediately.

we also have remarkably “socialist” sounding:

We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.
We demand the nationalization of all trusts.
We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions.

There are even one or two others that are sensible until they go spirally off into hateful racism:

We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood. If it should not be possible to feed the whole population, then aliens (non-citizens) must be expelled from the Reich.
We demand freedom for all religious faiths in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or offend the moral and ethical sense of the Germanic race.

So, does this mean:

socialism = fascism

or, as implied lately by a number on the right:

liberals = fascism

No, not at all. First of all National Socialists are just a single fascist group – Pinochet for instance was an entirely different animal. Second, it means humans and the movements they sponsor are more complicated than the little boxes we like to put them in. That when we say X or Y is “fascist” we better be careful that we see the whole.

It also stands to help see that the Nazis were more human than we thought they were and thus we need to be vigilant in realizing that all humans are capable of great evil, even ones we might believe are “good”. Or to quote Simon Wiesenthal:

“because only the person who has grasped it knows that evil lies dormant in most people and can break out at almost any time. Let no man say that such a ghastly dictatorship is no longer possible today. That is the true lesson from the horror of National Socialism: we must fight against it constantly, against evil, so that it does not emerge again.”

I have no illusion that this might not include me or you, nor should anyone else.

“Anti-Terror” Law Upheld

scathew — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 22:20:00 +0000

The SCOTUS has upheld a law that limits aid, even non-violent to “terrorist” organisations. It was challenged on “free speech” grounds in that it limits donations to political organizations (they may be “terrorist”, but they are by definition also political). Thus like the recent Citizens United case, it hinges on the equation of “money = speech”.

Personally of the cuff I can’t say I’m not overly concerned – the organizations involved here are not likely the kind I’d want to donate to regardless. However I will say it does concern me that the designation of “terrorist organization” is defined not by Congress, but by the State Department. Thus in a “Executive gone bad” situation, one method to clamp down on opposition would be to simply name any group of question “terrorist”.

Moving on, the AP headline reads:

High court upholds anti-terror law prized by Obama

Which for a so-called “liberal” administration seems kind of ironic – one of their “prized laws” can best be considered, even if it may be the right thing to do, a “civil liberties limiting” law. Yet another example to put truth to the lie that this administration is anything remotely approaching “liberal”.

Finally I will note Justice Roberts had this little gem of a quote:

“Such support frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to violent ends”

Which I hope he’ll remember if “Faith-Based Initiatives” ever make it to the Supreme Court – this has been the issue that many of us has against “Faith-Based Initiatives” based on “separation of church and state” arguments. The point is – funding these initiatives “frees up other resources within the organization that may be put to” other church activities. Thus government support of “Faith-Based Initiatives” is actually “back door” to funding of religion.

Finally, as another example of “liberal” Obama (or rather, the fallacy of), you will note, Obama has not rescinded the use of such initiatives.

UPDATE:

While I noted I’m not “overly concerned”, don’t take that as endorsement of the law or its SCOTUS interpretation. All I’m saying is that it has so little immediate application to anything I care about that compared to the slew of other concerns today, it doesn’t sufficiently raise my hackles to feel clearly one way or another. That doesn’t mean I agree (nor disagree – though I am always dubious of anything that comes out of this court).

UPDATE 2:

Wretched Gnu in the comment section of Glenn Greenwald’s blog points out this little gem from the dissent:

“The dissent argues that there is ‘no natural stopping place’ for the proposition that aiding a foreign terrorist organization’s lawful activity promotes the terrorist organization as a whole.”

That is scary. One implication, as Wretched Gnu points out, is criticizing Israel might be seen as “aiding” Hamas. It will be interesting (in the sort of Chinese proverb way unfortunately) to see how this progresses.

Yahoo! News Insanity…

scathew — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 23:15:34 +0000

It’s always “interesting” (sarcasm intended) to read the comments to Yahoo! News posts. It always gives a good vision into the insanity that we call the American public.

For the fun of it I thought I’d respond to some of the quotes found in this article about the BP oil spill^TM:

Obama plans to take the stage this evening and take credit for what BP is already doing … This spill is not the dire emergency that the government propagandist are making it out to be.

Uh, so I assume the White House sent you an advanced copy of their speech thus you know what he’s going to say? Also, maybe you could tell me what advantage of making this look more “dire” give Obama other than killing his approval ratings.

[something-incoherent-here] … if not for all the environmentalists with their social senses on high alert preventing us from being self sufficient on oil with their constant lawsuits instead of making terrorist sponsors wealthy. They want to save the bat-winged, rabbit-tailed mosquito!

Yeah, and little things like the entire ecosystem of the gulf. Damn those environmentalists are so stuuuuuupid!

time for comrade obama to blame bush again and raise taxes again

How original! And so accurate given that Obama lowered taxes…

Revelation 16:4, and an angel will touch the oceans and it will become like blood and every living creature in the ocean will die.

It came from the “East” too (BRITISH Petroleum)! It must be true! I knew it – Tony Hayward is the Anti-Christ!

Even he even mentions cap & trade, he should be arrested for treason for selling this great country out to foriegners

Uh, yeah – I see the correlation. Er, not.

BTW – with all the shit on our beaches, we aren’t looking so “great” anymore.

Yes..a new estimate just in time for Obama’s speech. Yeah right.@#$%. Get ready for yet another crisis not going to waste . More taxes,more government control and take overs.

And it weren’t for those meddlin’ kids he would have gotten away with it too!

Anyway – you”re so right – clearly deregulation is the answer – look what it did for Louisiana!

God show us what to do with this element…should we FREEZE it? Should we add something to it to solidify it?

That’s it – God wants us to enjoy tasty Oil-cicles!

New, higher estimates announced just in time for Obama’s propaganda speech tonight during which he will push his cap and trade/carbon tax scheme to bankrupt what’s left of Americal.

Yes, well obviously the answer is more of the same! It’s working so well!

They’re willing to let the Gulf become a “dead zone” in order to pass their “Cap and Trade”.

Can I borrow your tin foil hat for a minute?

obama is an ignorant jerk and a disgrace to America.

Sticks and stones…

more obama lies–this happened on your watch comrade president oil-bama–show some leadership professor and quit going on vacation already

Yeah, a Republican president would never take vacation!

This is why I don’t trust Obama and the Democrats. They are all talk and no action. This would have been cleaned up by now if Palin was President.

How? By clogging it with her beaudatious hairdo?

I could just go on forever with this fun!

It’s official – he’s a war criminal…

scathew — Mon, 07 Jun 2010 22:52:08 +0000

Well, he finally admitted to it:

“Yeah, we water-boarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.”

- George W. Bush, ex-President and War Criminal

Of course, he’s a little late to the show, his V.P. admitted to it two years ago:

“I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn’t do. And they talked to me, as well as others, to explain what they wanted to do. And I supported it.”

- Dick Cheney, ex-Vice-President and War Criminal

Of course fortunately we have a president now who will prosecute these admitted criminals.

Guns – it’s not about “principle”…

scathew — Mon, 24 May 2010 22:15:42 +0000

Here’s a typical blog comment on the subject of guns:

“The constitution can’t be much clearer – you have a right to bear arms”

Honestly I don’t argue that position – our forefathers were concerned about the fact that the British were confiscating their arms and they wanted to encode the right to overthrow a corrupt government.

However “gun rights” advocates also pretend this is an unambiguous and purely principled position, which it is not.

For instance, unlike in the days of our forefathers asymmetric warfare didn’t exist to the level it does today. It wasn’t possible to easily take out a building with a truckfull of fertilizer and some diesel. Moreover many of the weapons today couldn’t have even been contemplated.

Seriously, does the NRA or anyone of their ilk honestly believe you should be able to personally own?:

Stinger missiles
M1 Abrams tanks
Grenades
Apache attack helicopters
Daisy Cutters
Fully loaded F-18 attack fighters
Nuclear bombs

Clearly there are at least a few of those “arms” that even NRA members would agree that the “public interest” outweighs your right to “bear”. If not, I’m sorry but they are insane and undoubtedly there are some citizen jihadists who’d love to help forward the NRA’s agenda.

The point is, we do assign some “public interest” limitations to all rights granted by the Constitution. So if we agree that prohibiting owning a “Daisy Cutter” is a reasonable limitation to the “2nd Amendment”, then are we not saying. “It’s not strictly about principled literalism – there is room for interpretation/limitation.” Once we’ve agreed that there is some interpretation/limitation, then the “principled” argument is compromised and we’re just negotiating where the lines fall.

So, if we can sanely deny the right to an “M1 Abrams” as an unreasonable arm (which I certainly would hope we can), then why shouldn’t we be allowed to consider limiting hand guns, which in many people’s mind represent a similar risk to a peaceable society? If one returns then to the argument that the “2nd Ammendment” says such and such, then I would argue, “Ok – let the crazies buy the nukes too.” That’s idealism and principle for you.

Finally, clearly we can abridge the 1st Amendment, “Freedom of Speech”, and not allow vulgar language and/or porn on TV/radio. Certainly swear words and porn cause much less harm then a bullet to the head and yet we have little issue abridging our “1st Amendment” rights to them. Personally, when the NRA members decry that fact as much as their inability to own assault rifles, then I’ll take their “principled” stance more seriously.

UPDATE:

One thing that annoys me about pro-gun types is that they don’t have the balls to be at least honest about it. They want to have their guns not only because they like them, but also because they want the option to overthrow the government. That latter point they seem to curiously omit in general argument, I suspect because it might not go over so well with the soccer moms who are often the victims of the fear campaigns used to sell their inalienable rights to bear arms.

UPDATE 2:

Guns are fun. I don’t argue it. I enjoy shooting and at some level wouldn’t mind owning a handgun myself (my wife, who comes from a more sane country where guns aren’t like so much candy, would use it on me if I ever did though). I also have friends who have guns and I don’t think they’re evil people, not in the slightest. I just am trying to make the point there is a middle ground here, that the Constitutional “guarantee” to “bear arms”, like all Constitutional guarantees, is subject to reasonable limitations. Where those limitations are, is what we need to figure out. Moreover that solution, whatever it is, will not rest on strict literalist principle, but rather on negotiated compromise. It won’t be because “it says”, but because “we agree”.

UPDATE 3:

I will also note, and this was part of the “right to bear arms” shtick, our forefathers did not want a “standing army” either!

The constitution can’t be much clearer – you have a right to bear arms