Search

Thursday, June 23

The Grand Ol' Party (or: How Republicans Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb)

Let's flash back to 2008 for a moment. Spirits are high across the nation, and Democrats are fat with power and pride. It seems as if the excess of the Bush Administration has stirred a powerful backlash that, combined with the political and rhetorical skills of the newly-elected President, might just cause an era of Democratic control.


Just before Obama's landslide, the Republican machine went into full-on panic mode. Like a cornered animal, starving but resourceful, they lashed out full-force in a desperate bid to survive. Almost immediately, the Right-Wing Echo Chamber wrenched the debate away from silly trifles like economic recovery in a global market to important issues like the decades-long conspiracy to hide Barack Hussein Obama's international citizenship. Republican operators FreedomWorks and FoxNews seemed to spur the growth of teabaggers, the Tea Party Beta.

This proved most effective. The original mantra of the group was actually agreeable, on its face. They were tired of Democrats and Republicans and all the useless ideological quibbling. They demanded their government sober up and focus only on one thing: the economy. Jobs and revenue. Cutting waste, trimming bloated government, and - most intriguing to me - saving fights over social policy for a brighter day. This was the party that loved Ron Paul, after all, and he openly criticized government restrictions of liberty, and even the War on Drugs.

PARTY OF NOTHING

That turned out to be far from reality, but it was a potent platform. Combined with non-stop, unprecedented, vicious attacks on the President, and the (totally not racist) gutteral loathing many (in the South) seemed to have specifically for Barack Obama, 2010 saw the Democrats taking a huge political hit. The GOP as a whole had embraced the Policy of No, the art of opposition, and it had worked.

So far, the 112th Congress has passed less than 1% of the nearly 4,000 bills introduced. That's a bit misleading, perhaps, as their session is only part-way through, but the 111th passed only 3% of the bills introduced during their's. Most concerning, though, is that those numbers are owed, in part, to a surge in cloture votes. The 111th Congress used the filibuster in unprecedented numbers, and were it not for a corresponding historic rise in cloture votes, the recent inactivity would have been that much more glaring. The number of filibusters may fall in the 112th, but only because the House has greatly reduced the need for such measures by coupling opposition and inactivity with an urge to pass bills they know won't become law.

That's all political infighting and Congressional criticism. But there's a much more immediate and insidious side to these current politics, giving rise to a disturbingly interesting conspiracy theory. What if, the idea goes, the GOP has seen political oppurtunity in sabotaging not just their political opposition, but the constituency thereof? Put more bluntly: Are Republicans purposely destroying America?

This is a purely intellectual excercise. It would be wrong to assume that anyone could be craven enough, or deluded enough, to use their power in such a way. The members of Congress are in Washington to work as part of the government - you have to assume they're doing their jobs, and doing so with the best interests of our nation, this Grand Experiment of ours, in mind. Right? Right.

PLOTTING

But, what would you have to do to actually destroy America? If your aim was to tear down the framework of our nation, how would you go about it? Let's say you're a powerful politician whose sole aim is making life miserable for the people you govern, ultimately in hope they'll take their anger out on those you oppose. More specifically, the President.

It's a herculean task, really. You'd need a groundswell of popular support. You would have to somehow develop a rabid constituency, if not manufacture one altogether. No matter how corrupt your vision of government may be, it's still impossible to legislate without the power of the ballot behind you. Palpatine dissolved the Alliance to thunderous applause, I'm sure we all recall.

If you wanted to take out the President, the best way to do that -- historically -- is to make sure there's a bad economy. In our evil plot, here, there would be all sorts of other benefits to a declining economy, but the most dramatic, immediate and important would be the impact it would have on control of the White House.

Now, if we're deliberately maneuvering government to directly oppose the interests of our constituency, we need some sort of cover. Whatever we do, we have to create a general sense of panic, anger and frustration. Political crises can be manufactured, for example. Disasters of any sort would be beneficial, really, but must be accompanied with appropriate political spectacle.

Lastly, and least intuitive, it would be important to diminish the populace's opinion of Congress itself. The more they see the body as a collection of lazy, bumbling fools in a distant capitol building, the better. This is a sinister and far-reaching plot, and a perception of impotence or incompetence will only make things easier. It would be ideal if all useful government activities ceased to function. Failing total shutdown, any blows to efficacy or even efficiency would be beneficial.

THE CONSPIRACY

Let's slip off our corrupt politician hat and put on one made of aluminum. We've identified the steps one could take to sabotage a nation for sake of political expedience. Now, let's pretend the plot is real and people in the government are acting it out.

Congressional Republicans have quite a bit of support for crazy, destructive policies thanks to an outbreak of extreme conservative activists, most often calling themselves the "Tea Party." (To confuse things further, they actually belong to the Republican Party.) The movement started with a successful, screaming conservative on national television, and was supported, often even funded by major media outlets (most notably FoxNews, the most influential network on television).

As for economic sabotage, examples of GOP activity that has directly and negatively impacted the economy are many and varied, and date back to the previous Republican administration. Here's one of the theorists propagating this particular aspect of the Grand Ol' Conspiracy for HuffPo.

Then, of course, there's panic. Luckily enough for conservatives, though, we've existed in a culture of fear for about a decade. The Right has used every failed terrorist attack as a talking point, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the current administration and the agencies established to protect us from such threats. Numerous disasters have also been used to further political interest, most notable being calls to abolish FEMA.

As for evil mastermind credibility, have you seen Congresses approval ratings? They wish they had Obama's numbers! Every day another congressman does something so awful, so craven, we all shake our collective heads and swear aloud. If it was an evil plot, mission accomplished. Everyone hates Congress.


VERDICT

It's interesting to think about. And, though I hesitate to admit it, I would not be the least bit surprised if there were actually people in powerful positions who have actually see the political benefits of sabotage. When I hear talk of dramatic defecit reduction in an economic crisis worse than any since the Great Depression, I do wonder if the person making the argument is just oblivious to history, or economics, or if they genuinely want to see a double-dip.

But it isn't all insidious. A depressing number of people honestly believe, almost religiously, in certain ideals that are truly harmful to government and society. There's some hope; people yearn to be good, and to do good. If we just gather together, and work to share our beliefs, and the logic behind them, maybe -- just maybe -- we can talk some goddamn sense into these morons.


Monday, May 23

The Demon Licks Obama

One can't help but wonder about this
man's views on foreign policy
Gene Simmons, member of a band I'm told plays something similar to Rock 'n Roll, recently railed against Barack Obama - or, more specifically, Barack Obama's recent assertion that Israel and Palestine go back to the border agreed upon back in 1967.

For a president to be sitting in Washington, D.C., and saying, 'Go back to your '67 borders in Israel,' how about you live there and try to defend an indefensible border nine miles wide?
...

It’s a nice idea, when you grow up you find out that life isn’t the way you imagined it, and President Obama means well," Simmons said. "I think he’s actually a good guy. He has no fucking idea what the world is like because he doesn’t have to live there.

...

If you’ve never been to the moon, you can’t issue policy about the moon. You have no fucking idea what it’s like on the moon.
For reference, here's where Simmons lives. Note the similarities to Israel. (SPOILER: There are none.)

(via Politico)

Wednesday, May 4

Osama's Dead. Now What?



On Sunday, the White House announced a sudden and mysterious late-night speech by the President. For about an hour, the subject of the speech went unstated - causing a feeding frenzy among the media.

I sat with some friends of mine, all enjoying some old-school thrills, switching off on Super Mario 64. I - ever the nerd - was browsing the internet while the others struggled to find all eight of Big Boo's red coins, when I noticed a Breaking News alert on HuffPo. It said something to the effect of, "President to give speech; subject withheld." I announced this to the room, and the speculation was on! What could he be announcing? Why so late at night, so sudden? Why the secrecy?

Then it was announced it was "national security related." Cue full freak-out mode. We were all, apparently, going to die. Finally, finally, someone read the news on Facebook. Osama bin Laden had been killed. And that was totally awesome. I clicked "like," cementing my approval for the ages.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

We watched the President live on the White House web page. Obama swaggered to his podium, read the announcement, and footage started popping up of spontaneous mass patriotism outside the White House and in Times Square. Mario, long forgotten now, was fast asleep in Peach's courtyard. The rest of the evening was spent researching exactly how grisly Osama's death had been. (In the eye? Yikes. So much for kidney failure...)

The speech was brief, and as the President receded into the ominous Cross Hall, we all wondered aloud what this would mean for our country. Is this the end of the war in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? How did it all happen? Did we really have the body, or was this an elaborate ruse on the level of pretending to be an American citizen so you can run for President? How will this affect the election?

On the last point, some prognosticators have predicted that this news could bump up Obama's approval some 10 points or so, which might be sustained for up to six months. Seems sensible enough - even Republicans were having a hard time criticizing the President's handling of the operation.*

No, it's the liberals attacking the President this time. I had thought the execution of Osama bin Laden was a universal desire - he had masterminded at least one plot that resulted in thousands of deaths, possessed the ability to do so again, and stated his clear intention to do just that. I'm not the biggest fan of the death penalty, but goddamn if this isn't a worthy enough argument in favor. Osama's death wasn't just retribution, it wasn't murder, it was justice. More than that, it was the intelligent thing to do.

I understand some hesitation. We essentially committed an act of war in Pakistan. No matter how cool our equipment was, how smoothly the operation went, you can't change the fact that we flew troops into their country and rushed in, guns blazing. Hell, we blew up a helicopter on our way out - exactly the wrong sort of thing to do on the sovereign land of a nuclear power. Could this further anger the military of Pakistan?

IMPLICATIONS

Bin Laden was found not far from the Pakistani capitol, in a prominent, even affluent, military town. The "Pakistani West Point," Kakul Academy, is a stone's throw from where Navy Seal Team 6 exploded a cutting-edge stealth helicopter in Osama's walled-in compound. It's hard to imagine such a feat from the most wanted man in the world without some assistance, or at least a few turned heads, from the nation's powerful military. Will this lead American war-hawks to put more pressure on Pakistan? Could actual complicity come to light? And, if so, will our relations with the country, already frayed, prove irrevocably severed?

And, so long as we're asking questions, what does this mean for al-Qaeda? Without its founder and leader, can it remain the galvanizing, frightening organization it has been? Further, after this blow, and continued reports about what seem to be al-Qaeda's death throws, with the Taliban a distant memory in the national consciousness (hell, there's an entire generation now that doesn't even know who Osama bin Laden was), what purpose are American troops serving in Afghanistan? Isn't this grounds for immediate withdrawal?

All this ruminating, and no answers. Just question after question. The death of a madman is inarguably good news, and seems somehow to resolve so much. But it seems everyone seems stuck in the same loop as I, pondering mysteries that always seem to resolve themselves in the unshakeable refrain of, "Now what?"

_______________

*UPDATE 5/8: Not that it stopped them from trying.

Monday, April 25

Mid-West Mafia Take Over NLR


Alright, maybe the title's a little hyperbolic... but this is awesome.

I'm pretty new in Arkansas - I've been in Little Rock, the state's capitol and largest "city," for about a year - so I'm still catching-up on the intricacies of local politics. Sometimes it can be so hard to wrap your head around city politics in a new area. It's all dense with names and locations that have no meaning, no previous relavance. In short, it's all boring. But, every so often, due diligence can result in the discovery of a juicy news morsels like this one.

I love a good corruption story, but what's really savory here is the mob connection. George Wylie Thompson was arrested by the FBI in Cabot. The charges span from possession of 147 firearms and 80,000 rounds of ammunition to bookmaking and marriage fraud, going all the way back to 2008. (A lifetime ago, really.) A felon isn't supposed to own a single gun, and I hear the Feds really start to raise an eyebrow when the total exceeds 146...

Thompson had first been arrested at the tail end of 2009, on stereotypical mafioso charges in an East Coast sting. One can only conclude drug mules that speak in broken English aren't always the best business associates. Also, Arkansas isn't as boring as it seems.

Thompson got 10 years, the Alderman got four months. At least Thompson totally knows karate. That'll come in handy in the Pen, I'm sure.

Pretty cool, huh? A made man in the Mid-West. And somehow I still can't find a decent cannoli in Little Rock.

Wednesday, December 22

Thy Brothers' Keeper

I'd like to honor my fellow Americans, just now emerging from the darkened recesses of legislative oppression, on the eve of our President's signing what will undoubtedly be considered yet another historic piece of legislation. An era of discrimination has finally ended, and now that it has, I think it's important to view the evolution of a potent and divisive debate.

Congress, always on the cutting edge, has finally caught up with the majority of Americans and given equal rights to our nation's fearless fags. In honor of this momentous occasion, let's review the life and death of the military policies and guidelines we all affectionately called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
__________

30,000 BC - First homo gets erectus for a dude. Cave-paintings appear as popular home decor. Local cave values skyrocket.

1924 AD - The Society for Human Rights begins advocating strange new ideas, apparently misconstrued from a literal interpretation of the Constitution.

1948 - Kinsey publishes Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, alerting the public to the growing dangers posed by the personal lifestyle choices of others. Also, people get all weird about how many gays are actually out there. Lurking.

1950 - President Harry Truman signs the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which details proper procedure for punishing homosexual activity among troops. None of the methods you're now imagining were ever implemented -- expulsion chosen instead.

1962 - Illinois legalizes sodomy. Gay people have sex for the first time. Initial reports indicate the fabulous nature of such encounters.

1973 - The American Psychiatric Association stops classifying The Gay as a mental disorder.

1982 - President Ronald Reagan signs Defense Directive 1332.14, which states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. History in no way proves this to be the ranting of an increasingly senile former actor.

1993 - President Bill Clinton, trying to fulfill a campaign promise, pushes hard to let gays into the military. Opposition is, ironically enough, very stiff. DADT, a compromise between civil rights and homophobia, is adopted as official US military policy.

1994 - Col. Grethe Cammermeyer becomes the only person allowed to serve her country and be openly gay at the same time. Waits three years, changes her mind.

2000 - Vermont allows gay marriage. The institution of marriage immediately dissolves. Every citizen of Vermont marries their favorite pet or vehicle by mid-2003.

2001 to 2008 - George W. Bush.

2009 - President Barack Obama campaigns on repealing DADT. Doesn't seem weirded out by gay dudes. America approves. Also that year, the Supreme Court disagrees with America. (Again.)

2010 - Republicans grant the conceit that gays are people too, in exchange for tax-cuts.

2011 - DADT officially dead. Nothing bad ever happens again.