Political Theatre category archive

Ron Paul considers that property rights trump civil rights.

Bob Cesca transcribed the exchange. Here’s a little bit:

MATTHEWS: But you would have voted for the — you know you — oh, come on. Honestly, Congressman, you were not for the ’64 civil rights bill.

PAUL: Because — because of the property rights element, not because it got rid of the Jim Crow law.

MATTHEWS: Right. The guy who owns a bar says, no blacks allowed, you say that’s fine. … This was a local shop saying no blacks allowed. You say that should be legal?

That property rights trumped civil rights is exactly what Edmund Ruffin, Jefferson Davis, Chief Justice Roger Tanney, and others of their ilk, also thought.

Afterthought:

What I find most striking about Libertarianism is this:

Its adherents are either

• strikingly devious, building their frothy meringues of baseless logic with knowing intent to deceive or, what I consider more likely,
• blindingly naive in a touching faith that somehow, in Libertarian world, there would be neither sin nor iniquity.

Well, I guess there is a third option:

that they are strikingly, blindingly, stupidly, naively self-centered.

Now that would be the Libertarian Randian Way.

Since Lexington joined a federal program in October aimed at deporting illegal immigrants convicted of serious crimes, 75.6 percent of the 41 people deported have been convicted of a minor crime or no crime at all.

Lexington’s percentage of such deportations is well above the national average of 60 percent, according to a Herald-Leader analysis of a report on the program released by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 4.

There has been mounting national criticism in recent weeks of ICE’s Secure Communities program, leading Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn to abandon the initiative earlier this month.

They forget that, in wingnut world, being brown is ipso facto evidence of criminality.

The charge is the heresy of thinking that citizens should have access to affordable health care.

Amanda Marcotte, in the Guardian, muses on the macho posturing so popular in wingnut world. A nugget:

Unsurprisingly, one of the biggest enemies these Christian warriors are mentally undressing and oiling up to fight is the gay rights movement. Perkins even testified in Congress against Elena Kagan’s appointment to the US supreme court, invoking her supposed desire to foist “the sexual counter culture” on the military by repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.

For all the posturing about toughness, the most salient aspect of this rightwing, over-the-top masculinity is how fragile it really is. The list of subversive threats that will topple redblooded American masculinity is mind-bogglingly long – and grows longer every day. A small sample: gay rights, women’s rights, reedy college professors teaching your kids non-propagandistic history, religious diversity, Democrats (especially of the non-white male variety) holding high office, responding to international tension with any tool other than invading a Muslim country, a social safety net that’s perceived as making it easier for women to avoid dependence on men … the list goes on.

Some days, you get the feeling that the American masculinity worshipped by those on the right could disappear if you blow on it too hard.

Hmmmm. Maybe this can help explain the gunnuttery, also. In the case of the symbolism of firearms, Freud was most likely correct.

Field takes my analogy for bankster hucksters and finds its application for racism hucksters. (No, I’m sure he doesn’t know it’s “my analogy”–I certainly don’t own it and I doubt he’s heard of me.)

I have to give it to the wingnuts, though, no one can work the three card monte like they can. While the governor of Indiana is declaring war on the women of this country, they choose to focus on an artist going to the White House for a damn poetry reading. Watch one hand while we f*&^ you with the other. That’s the wingnut way. Poor wingnuts, I guess they have to do something; O’s job approval is at 60% and they still can’t find a viable candidate to run against him 2012.

Jon Stewart also comments. Watch both if you can. If you can’t, watch the last two minutes of the second one:

Read more »

Libertarian, n:

A Republican unwilling to admit to polite company (or to himself) that he is a Republican. Frequently seen with a pocket-sized copy of the Constitution of the United States of America, which he will volunteer to misinterpret at the drop of an opinion.

Bob Cesca observes one in the wild.

Via Bob Cesca.

How can Republicans narrow their field?

XCurmudgeon spins the concept:

Here’s how it works. Each week, the aspiring nominees will be given a presidential task to complete. One week it might be reducing the deficit; the next it might be dealing with high gas prices, or taking out a wanted terrorist. After each task is completed, a panel of Republicans will decide which contender is fired. (Obviously, since Donald Trump is running–and believe us, he is–he can’t be the one making the judgments.) The panel will be assisted by voting (a la American Idol style) of the public, with the voting counting as 50% of the score.

Via Some Guy with a Website.

On my way to Drinking Liberally last night, at the intersection of Wesleyan and Northampton Boulevard, a bedraggled and undernourished looking gent was holding a sign that said

Several weeks ago, I mentioned Virginia Beach’s approach to homelessness: Out of sight is out of mind.

City Council is pursuing its plan to shuffle the homeless out of view, while simultaneously stuffing more money into the pockets of developers.

In a vain attempt to persuade Council to look at the plan more carefully, my friend Andrew Jackson wrote a letter to City Council before Tuesday’s meeting. Although the vote has been taken, I felt that the points he made were worthy of more visibility–not that I am all that visible, but my regular readers outnumber the usual attendance at City Council meetings. (Here is the local rag’s report on the meeting.)

You can download Andrew’s full letter (it’s about a page and a half) in *.pdf format. Here’s an excerpt:

Approval of the Light House project as presently planned makes no sense. It will serve no more than it presently has the capacity to serve. In fact, the truth be told, it only serves 60 -70 percent (on a good day) of it’s present capacity of 90. It will not reduce homeless numbers to any noticeable degree (if any), it will not serve the homeless city-wide, and the cost of the land which is now planned is nearly four (4) times it’s original value and with no land improvement.

The fact is, that the only purpose the expenditure of nearly $5M will accomplish is the removal of the present suitable facility so that a convention center hotel complex can be accommodated. This comes about because the city has on two previous occasions missed opportunities to rectify the situation.

While the city claims to be bringing a committee of citizens together to review the present options for this project, it is at the same time planning to vote on the budget for the project even before the committees have completed their work. It is obvious dishonesty to the highest degree toward the citizens of this city. A meeting of the committee is scheduled for tomorrow, yet the Council is voting this evening.

In a resort town, “Republican” and “Democrat” are not meaningful classifications. “In the pocket of developers” and “not in the pocket of developers” are.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution recalls the Gingrinch’s Greatest Hits.

Warning: Questionable taste.

But on target.

Read more »

Also, what Shaun said.

Cartoon via DelawareLiberal, where the artist posts from time-to-time.

As burned out as I am on 60 Minutes (Out! Damned clock!), my friend (not yet burned out on 60 Minutes) and I watched last night’s show.

She was telling me this morning that she thought that some of the questions were insulting in how they pried into purely personal matters (her adjectives were much more numerous and colorful), even as the President comported himself with dignity, calm, and courtesy.

Here’s the whole thing.

Aside:

Bushies are having a lot of trouble dealing with this.

Among other things, now comes the claim that President Bush enabled President Obama to have Osama bin Laden killed.

I guess that, in a way, Mr. Bush did–by leaving bin Laden at large.

As they did during Bushie Presidency, Bushies have turned to dealing with a reality they find distasteful by using fantastickal thinking.

Via Balloon Juice.

Chan Akya, writing at the Asia Times, sees parallels in the West’s treatment of Pakistan and treatment of banksters. In both cases, miscreants have been rewarded and allowed to continue their miscreance. A short selection from a long article:

Pakistan from the mid-1980s but much more so from the beginning of 2002 had been weaned by two parental figures; namely the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United States of America. One provided cheap oil and money to keep the madrassas that recruited warriors into a holy war going; the other provided military aid that would make nervous opponents like India and Israel back off into the quiet corner. The idea was that economic and military aid would lead to a stronger Pakistan that could shake off its feudal society and arrive on the global stage as a full-fledged and responsible player. And yet no one really considered what the sum total of these opposing philosophies would be on the evolution of Pakistan as a society.

The same vein of (il)logic has applied in the global financial system since 2008; namely that between the parental figures in governments (in Europe and the US) and central banks there was a great attempt at inflating the financial positions of banks so that they could return to profitability and thereby resume a useful role in society. This has come to naught as none of the rescued banks have bothered to start lending more to governments and people in their home countries; instead they are using all their newfound capital and liquidity to purchase junk securities and speculate in commodity markets.

Think through this logic in moral terms. When you have socially destructive errant behavior, the worst thing possible may well be to bail out certain culprits in the obscene hope that their ways can be changed. If you wanted to stop drug pushers in the neighborhood, it would be a good idea to remove demand – ie cure the addicted folks – rather than attempt to buy the drug pushers out. The latter course of action would only result in the perverse situation of more people taking up drug-running in the hopes of either making money or being bought out.

Follow the link and pay close attention to the dates he finds notable.

Warning: Mild language.