Political Theatre category archive

Explain to me once again all over again redundantly how it’s not about color and ethnicity.

Via the Booman Tribune.

Via Some Guy with a Website, who provides commentary here.

Michael Tomasky in the Guardian echoes what I said yesterday about there being no federal apparatus for taking over attempts to contain the BP’s wild well. (Note: His statement in the third paragraph of the excerpt is mistaken; there certainly have been other spills and accidents and even a blowout or two, but not in this scale):

This is different from the Katrina situation. There we had an agency, or a couple of them, whose precise jobs were to build the walls that would prevent that from happening, since everyone who studied the situation knew that New Orleans was a catastrophe waiting to happen, and to map the flood plane and set up the rescue systems to get people out of same.

In other words, with Katrina, we had a system in place to prevent it, and it failed. Here, we didn’t even have a system in place.

Why not? I don’t know the history, but I would guess that having such a system in place was deemed too expensive, and the risk of disaster too low. It is worth remembering that there are 15,000 extant offshore oil operations around the shores of the US, and there’s never been an accident until this one.

If we want such an agency, then fine, let’s spend the money and employ the manpower and buy the equipment necessary.

(snip)

That said, Obama has a failure here. It’s not as a manager but as, what shall I call it, emoter-in-chief, often more important. As he has in previous instances as president, he has failed in grasping and expressing the basic outrage of the average person.

As John Cole says (read the whole post),

I hear screams to “take over” the operations from BP. And do what? Is there some secret naval division that handles deep-sea drilling that we have not deployed? Does the government have some elite unit with better equipment than BP? I’m as pissed at them as anyone and want the government to make them pay for every penny of the clean-up, but I have to believe that all the people with experience fighting these things and all the equipment to deal with this sort of thing is already there with BP. And that if we “took over” from BP, it would still be the same people.

Certainly, there is reason for anger and there are nits to pick with Obama and the administration’s reaction, but this spill results from the incompetence of the drillers compounded by Bushie deregulation. Furthermore, any action must be within the law and within the possible.

We have just had an administration that disregarded the law and ignored the possible. We don’t need another.

Taking the anger out on Mr. Obama may satisfy emotionally–anger with a target always satisfies more than anger without one (that’s why wingnuts prefer to make personal attacks)–but it is blaming the crossing guard for being in the path of the runaway truck.

The last crossing guard caused the runaway. Blaming the new one may provide catharsis, but it doesn’t stop the truck.

Will Bunch:

. . . seeing the rights of corporations and looking past the individuals is what the modern conservative movement — libertarian or not — is largely all about.

Fox News.

Naftali Bendavid on criticism of the government’s response to BP’s wild well:

“People don’t want government to do anything at all until there’s a crisis, and then they want it to be doing everything.”

Some time ago, a fellow named George Fitzhugh wrote a book called Cannibals All, which purported to prove that black folks were suited only to be slaves. It was, by the standards of its time, a “scientific” and “intellectual” response to the abolitionist movement. It attempted to cast a cloak of rationality over chattel slavery. (Somewhere I have a copy; I bought it when I was doing grad work in Southern history. I’ve never worked up the nerve actually to read it.)

Such an argument is no longer socially permissible in American society.

So new arguments are necessary.

Rachel Maddow deconstructs how Libertarianism excuses racist behavior. It’s 11 minutes. It is worth every one of them.

Via the Richmonder, which points out

. . . the key distinction is between speech and conduct. If you want to say “I don’t like Black people,” then the 1st Amendment to the U.S Constitution protects your right to do so. But if you want to run a business that serves the public, you are out of luck: you can’t discriminate between who you serve based on race. Sorry, but that’s the deal: if you serve the public, then you have to serve the whole public.

Libertarianism addresses many more issues that racism, but its arguments that would excuse racist conduct expose it for what it is: intellectual three-card monte.

It is quite clever. So is three-card monte.

It is also, like three-card monte, dishonest.

I suspect that it deceives its proponents more than it deceives anyone else. It allows them to pretend to themselves that they are Deep Thinkers who Take Political Theory Seriously, when, in fact, they are traditional American rightwing whackjobs dressing their whackjobbery in Sunday go-to-meeting clothes.

Rand Paul has done a service by most unwilling and unwittingly demonstrating this.

This is getting stranger.

The principal of the public school where fetus dolls were being distributed (I mentioned it yesterday) has been “placed on administrative leave.”

Though the story does not indicate that she was involved in the fetus dolls, she does seem to have a record of proselytizing on the job. Read the whole thing, especially the last paragraph, which illustrates why this type of conduct can be creepy. (Some of the comments are rather outre, as well.)

If I ask a neighbor or friend or even some random stranger to come to church with me, that’s one thing.

When a boss asks subordinates (whether those subordinates are employees, such as teachers, or charges, such as students) to come to a prayer meeting, that’s a whole nother thing.

The invitation becomes inherently intimidating, because the boss has power over subordinates. Principals have power over teachers and students and lunch room ladies (as teachers have power over students).

When the boss is an employee of the state, that is a whole nother thing squared, because the boss is an agent of the government, so the power of the state is implicitly behind the invitation.

The issue is not religion.

The issue is using power to promote religion.

That is not witnessing for the Lord. That is intimidation.

And it’s kind of creepy.

(There is a picture of one of those fetus dolls at the think.)

Anonymous Liberal pinpoints the internal contradiction of Libertarianism:

But this just highlights what a strange philosophy libertarianism is. While libertarians claims to be driven by a goal of maximizing freedom, what they mean by “freedom” is not what most people take that word to mean. To a libertarian, the only freedom that really matters is freedom from government intrusion. But often, meaningful freedom can only be created through government intervention.

Follow the link for the full post, including concrete examples from daily life.

Probably the worst thing that can happen to a politician is to become a laughing stock (see “Sanford, Mark“).

Michael Tomasky in the Guardian on Rand Paul (emphasis added):

I think the GOP has a big problem here. There’s no finessing this. Paul either thinks private business should be able to discriminate or he does not. And he clearly does. So either he sticks with a position that we thought we discarded two generations ago – the image of the segregated lunch counter is one of the most searing and shameful in US history – or he flip flops.

Of course, his position may not hurt him especially in Kentucky, I don’t know. But even people who aren’t liberals tend to find such stuff kind of embarrassing and don’t want their state to be seen like that.

Rand is going to be fun.

Left and Moderate Blogistans are roiling today over the Rand Paul interview in which he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

If you want to read about it, go to Memeorandom; it’s the top story there. Since the Memeorandum rankings will change, here’s a link to the Memeorandum page as of 2:00 p. m. today.

Many persons are inclined to be charitable, attributing his statements to the rigidity of Libertarianism and not to ill motives on the part of Mr. Paul. This bit from Jamelle Bouie is an example:

Paul claims that he isn’t a racist and abhors discrimination, and I completely believe him. But that doesn’t change the fact that Paul, like many libertarians, has an incredibly blinkered view of oppression and liberty. Simply put, and for reasons that I think have a lot to do with the demographics of the movement (read: a lot of white guys), libertarians have a habit of fixating on the state and its role in perpetuating oppression and constraining liberty, with many libertarians completely blind to the fact of oppression by culture and custom. It simply doesn’t register. As such, it’s no surprise that libertarians like Paul can make arguments about the desirability (or lack thereof) of the Civil Rights Act without once considering the oppression that can flow from ostensibly “just” arrangements of private property.

The argument seems to be that Libertarians’ desire to be intellectually pure renders them unable to see how their logical ivory tower conclusions fail when applied to real life.

I am not so charitable.

If Libertarians were so perceptive and so intellectually rigorous as they repeatedly and enthusiastically congratulate themselves for being, they would recognize the damnable results of some of their reasoning logical constructs.

Now, I’ve known some Libertarians (No, I can’t say, “Some of my best friends are Libertarians,” because our lives just didn’t flow in the same direction for reasons that had nothing to do with politics). One on one, they were quite pleasant folks to have a drink or go boating with.

Libertarians are easily recognized by the miniature copies of the Constitution* which they whip from their breast pockets on the slightest of pretexts, coupled with their belief that American society hasn’t changed since 1783. As a commenter to this excellent post by Steve Benen points out:

Rand Paul for Senate: 21st Century Problems, 18th century solutions

The problem with Libertarianism is the same as that with Ayn Rand’s economic and political theories (to which many Libertarians avow allegiance): both view the world as a crossword puzzle. If every player plays by the rules and enters the academically correct answer to each prompt or clue, a pleasingly correct and symmetrical result will be attained.

Living is not a crossword puzzle, nor is governance.

Living is more like a wading pool full of three-year-olds. A philosophy of governance that fails to recognize that is intellectually bankrupt and morally dangerous.

Libertarianism is not a coherent philosophy. It is a nice dress suit worn by a variant of traditional American rightwing crankery.

_____________________

*Most assuredly not the copy distributed by the ACLU, since the ACLU actually thinks about what the damned thing means in real life.

Addendum, Later that Same Afternoon:

Steve Benen rounds up Republican reaction so far. They seem to be running for “no comment” cover. A nugget:

Sen. John Cornyn (R) of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said he’s “really not in a position to comment.” House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said, “Not being familiar with the context of his response or his questions, I really can’t opine as to his position.”

Aside from the obvious — no Profile In Courage Award nominations for these two — it’s worth emphasizing that avoiding comment won’t do as a political strategy. Rand Paul was some oddball Kentucky ophthalmologist, but he’s now the Republican Party’s nominee for a U.S. Senate seat. At some point, the party will need a response to Paul’s extreme ideology.

Addendum-dee-dum-dum:

John Cole:

What Paul has nicely done is illustrate that libertarianism, taken to its complete extreme, is a ridiculous and useless ideology. Paul’s argument is, essentially, that in a free society you have to tolerate some assholes, and that some of them will be racist. I don’t think that makes Paul a racist, but I do think it kind of makes him an idiot.

I have been quite clear over my opinion that flying the Confederate Flag is generally in bad taste and often offensive. Indeed, its display is often purposely offensive, intentionally signifying base and repulsive political and social positions.

Nevertheless, recognizing that does not mean that we should deny the Civil War. Indeed, we must remember the Civil War, what caused it, why it happened, and what lessons we can draw from it.

This seems to me to be overkill. Note that Fredricksburg is surrounded by Civil War battlefields: Wilderness, Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania, Fredericksburg itself. Note, also, that this is a private business and I suspect it is more concerned with not alienating potential customers than it is with making any kind of statement.

A new movie theater in Fredericksburg is removing a Confederate flag from a mural after it received complaints.

The Muvico theater includes a Civil-War themed bar and the mural is painted on a wall of an outside seating area. The mural depicts a U.S. flag on one side, a Confederate flag on the other, and has stars, an eagle and other adornments.

If it weren’t for the offensive uses of the Confederate flag, a plainly commemorative use such at this would not be noticed.

A sitting member of the House of Representatives beats a sitting member of the Senate for the Democratic senatorial nomination in Pennsylvania, thereby sending an anti-incumbent message.

I’ll be out of town, but you may not:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Contact: Susan Mariner
Chair, Virginia Beach Democratic Committee
(757) 692-0989
chair@vbdemocrats.org
www.vbdemocrats.org

OFFSHORE WIND EXPERT to SPEAK at VIRGINIA BEACH DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE EVENT

Virginia Beach, VA, May 18, 2010 — Ivy Main, Renewable Energy Chair of the Virginia Chapter of the Sierra Club, will promote the possibilities of offshore wind versus offshore drilling at a May 22nd, 2010 Virginia Beach Democratic Committee Breakfast. The breakfast event begins at 9AM and will be held at Bubba’s Deli, 3600 Dam Neck Rd. The event is open to the public. Cost for a full breakfast buffet is $10 per person.

The Virginia Beach Democratic Committee believes that America’s prosperity and security demand an energy policy that focuses on clean, renewable sources. Committee members expressed disappointment that Governor McDonnell continues to push full speed ahead on offshore drilling in spite of the massive oil spill in the Gulf. “I am very concerned that Governor McDonnell doesn’t seem to be listening to the Navy, who has made it clear that they oppose drilling off Virginia’s coast, or to the citizens of Virginia Beach who are rightly worried about the welfare of our beautiful coastline,” said Virginia Beach Democratic Committee Chair Susan Mariner. [Virginian Pilot, May 18th, 2010]

The Virginia Beach Democratic Committee is the official branch of the Democratic Party in Virginia Beach. VBDC Chair Susan Mariner served as the Hampton Roads Political Director for Barack Obama’s 2008 Presidential Campaign.

Ivy Main can be seen giving a brief 2009 presentation on offshore wind at http://tinyurl.com/ydflyyl

Via Blue Virginia.

Via Bartblog.

From Fact Check dot org:

The latest development in the saga of the so-called “birther” challenges to Barack Obama’s presidency comes from Hawaii, Obama’s native state. Yesterday, Gov. Linda Lingle (a Republican–ed.) signed a law allowing state agencies to ignore requests for information if they determine the requests duplicate or are substantially similar to earlier ones. The law targets those who contend Obama wasn’t born in the U.S. and thus, under the Constitution, can’t be president; they still are sending 10 to 20 e-mails every week asking the state’s Health Department for verification of his birth certificate. Some file the same request even after receiving a response.

(As journalists, we wonder, “Since when has a government official needed a law to ignore a request for information?” But we assume Hawaii officials have their reasons.)

Shorter version: Hawaii is tired of wasting its time with whackjob looney bigots.

Well, not really gown. More like grade schools.

I started to write about this earlier this week, then decided that I did not know enough about the background to write competently, since I’ve only been back here in Virginia for a few months.

Instead, I’ll just point you to the editorial in today’s local rag, then second what Joel said Wednesday.

Rather than tap the city’s reserves, the city is tapping the school board’s reserves built up through good management on the part of the school system, just because it can. In this case, competence (on the part of the school board) is its own punishment.

Jamelle Bouie explains why.