Political Theatre category archive
The Nostalgia Party 0
The good old days weren’t, unless you are Ron Paul.
Dick Polman comments on the point-counterpoint of Paul’s calling for the end of FEMA in the midst of flooding and death from a tropical storm. A snippet:
Actually, the answer to those questions is, quite literally, yes.
Here’s Paul again, arguing last Friday that Washington should go back to the good ole days, when it played no role in disaster preparedness or response: “We should be like 1900. We should be like 1940, 1950, 1960. I live on the Gulf Coast. We deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district.”
What’s wrong with those remarks? Pretty much everything – starting with the fact that Paul didn’t even bother to visit his congressional district after it was hammered in 2005 by Hurricane Ike. Most notably was Paul’s invocation of 1900, which happens to be the year when Galveston was decimated by a hurricane that killed upwards of 8000 people (as vividly rendered in the book Isaac’s Storm).
In Libertarian World, elegant theory trumps messy reality any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Rhinestone Cowboy (Updated) 1
Tom Papantonio’s language in this disturbs me, not because of any profanity, but because of his use of words like “hick,” “rube,” and “bumpkin.”
As a country boy, I dislike those words and others like them, which are often used to dismiss persons because of their backgrounds, rather than engage them in discussion based on their knowledge and abilities. (That’s part of why I could never fully enjoy The Beverly Hillbillies, despite plot lines in which, just before the last commercial, the good-hearted rubes always bested the cold-hearted banker.*)
I have also found that belittling folks, however richly they may have earned it, does not win friends, but it may influence people–to hostility. Indeed, it’s likely to fire up Perry’s supporters, who are already feeling mighty aggrieved.
Nevertheless, I recommend attempting to disregard Papantonio’s intemperate language and to listen to the facts that his guest brings to the discussion. The substance starts about two minutes in:
Rick Perry is an empty boot.
______________________
*Yeah. Right.
Addendum, Comment Rescue Dept.:
Dick Destiny comments:
Late in the segment they start going on about cyberwar and Richard Clarke being a savior. Which makes ‘em a bit guilty of a bit of the same kind of alleged bad thinking they accuse Perry of.
Goodness, there’s enough to criticize Perry over without going off on Yellow Peril tangents.
He has a point.
I agree that the whole cyber-war stuff is hype designed to generate full employment for consultants.
I purposely lowered my BS filter because I could not resist the irony of Perry’s embracing one of the few companies that even the Bushies could not love.
Natural vs. Unnatural Disasters 0
Priyamvada Gopal argues for a sense of perspective at the Guardian. A nugget:
Put simply, millions more homes will have been lost to bank repossessions than have been damaged by Irene. The storm caused some flooding, but much greater degradation has been inflicted on the US coastline by last year’s BP oil spill. A few days without electricity is challenging, but the blow to clean energy prospects posed by the State Department’s recent approval of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to Texas coast is more worrying.
Dis Coarse Discourse 1
Mike Malloy tees off on the lies. It’s a bit extreme, but only a bit:
Blind Justice 0
Steve Chapman discusses eyewitness identifications at the Chicago Tribune:
Alejandro Dominguez, age 16, had no tattoos or pierced ears, and he reportedly could speak only Spanish. The woman, however, said he was the attacker, and largely on the strength of her testimony, he was convicted. Not until 2002 did DNA analysis prove Dominguez was innocent.
It’s a dismally familiar tale: a victim making an eyewitness identification that later turns out to be horribly mistaken. This type of mistake is universally known as the most common cause of false convictions. Yet law enforcement authorities, courts and juries continue to treat it as pure gold.
He goes on to discuss recent appeals court cases that lean to more realism in considering eyewitness testimony, which, despite its cachet, is often the least reliable.
It’s not that persons can’t believe their eyes; they cannot remember them.
And police and prosecutors, even those of the best will, are rewarded for convictions, not for truth.
Coddled Yeggs (Updated) 0
Addenda:
Part II:
Part III:
Twits on Twitter 0
Political twits.
Mitt the Flip This House 0
I really can’t see why anyone would want an 11,000 square-foot vacation home other than to plump his vanity and impress his guests, but I don’t think it has any bearing on Mitt the Flip’s unsuitability for the presidency.
If he lived in one room with kitchen privileges, he’d still make a lousy president.
Of course, if he lived in one room with kitchen privileges, Republicans wouldn’t give him the time of day.
As I have mentioned before, Republicans equate wealth with virtue.
Ben Stein’s Money 0
You know that the right wing has lost touch with reality when they lose Ben Stein.
The good part starts at the three-and-a-half minute mark:
A nugget from RawStory:
O’Reilly went on to argue that raising taxes on the rich would make the recession worse.
“That isn’t true,” Stein said. “There is no correlation, Mr. O’Reilly, between taxes rates on millionaires and people above that level, billionaires, and the growth of the economy… Higher taxes have historically correlated with more growth.”
“Mr. O’Reilly, sir, there is no correlation of raising taxes and unemployment,” he added later. “If you can show it to me, I’ll eat your shoe.”
Via IntoxiNation.
A Liberal: Origins Issue 0
Neal Starkman, writing at the website that is all that is left of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which was my favorite of the two major Seattle papers, muses over how he became a liberal what he considers the two distinguishing characteristics of liberals.
In some ways, it mirrors my own experiences; in others, it points to some of the reasons why liberals tend to be such a factious bunch. A nugget (emphasis added):
But am I merely justifying and ennobling my own prejudices? Don’t conservatives seek the truth and care about people? Consider some issues, past and present, with liberals on one side and conservatives on the other: Racial integration of public schools. The formation and continuation of unions. The invasions of Vietnam and of Iraq. Environmental protections. Women’s rights. Gay rights. Well, you can do the analyses. The next time you see a liberal and a conservative debate an issue, ask yourself: Which one is sticking to the facts? Which one is advocating something that will help people who need help?
Both Sides Now 0
- The young fellow timidly entered the office of the tough sales director.
“Wou-would you maybe think about considering maybe buying a life insurance policy?” he stammered.
The sales manager looked up. “What the hell kind of sales pitch do you think that is!” he bellowed. He wound himself up into a long lecture on the art and science of sales pitches, eventually talking himself into buying a $300,000 policy.
He finished up with, “So, remember young man, you have to have a toolkit full of different sales pitches and be ready to chose the right one for each prospect.”
“Oh, I do,” replied the young man, locking the signed application in his briefcase. “You just saw my stock sales pitch for tough sales managers.”
I’ve mentioned before that right wing politicians and commentators will say anything, regardless of how it contradicts what they said yesterday and or what they might say tomorrow. They can stand on both sides of any issue if it suits their tactics of the day.
The latest example is Texas Governor Rick “Fastest Lethal Injection in the West” Perry’s campaign’s responses to Perry’s own book. Eugene Robinson comments:
These and other wild-eyed views are set out in Perry’s book “Fed Up!” His campaign has already begun trying to distance the governor from his words, with communications director Ray Sullivan saying last week that the book “is a look back, not a path forward” – that “Fed Up!” was intended “as a review and critique of 50 years of federal excesses, not in any way as a 2012 campaign blueprint or manifesto.”
One problem with this attempted explanation is that the book was published way back in … the fall of 2010. It’s reasonable to assume that if Perry held a bunch of radical, loony views less than a year ago, he holds them today.
How can right wingers contradict themselves so fluidly?
They have only two allegiances: Winning and Wall Street.
All the rest is sales pitch.
Primary Election Day in Virginia 0
If there is a primary in your district, don’t miss it.
Pouring Oil in Troubled Waters 0
Carl Hissan discusses the destructive insanity of the Republican Party’s war on the EPA. A nugget:
The corporate mentality toward pollution has changed because the alternatives are heavy fines, criminal penalties and savage publicity. A reminder of why we still need the EPA was last month’s oil spill on the Yellowstone River, which affected ranchers, farmers, fishing guides and rafting companies. It also occurred seven months after Exxon Mobil insisted that its pipeline would never rupture because it was buried too deep.
I remember the bright orange eye-burning noontime summer skies of Washington, D. C., smog alerts.
Returning to those days, as Republicans seem to want, is not a good idea.