Facing South explores similarities and one glaring difference between Teabaggery and the Southern Populist movements at the end of the 19th Century. A nugget:
The dilemma in American politics is that Wall Street is amoral, self-interested, and in today’s global economy incapable of allegiance to any nation. “Deep down, all of them know that they do not really care — that their own enrichment matters much more than any collective purpose or common vision,” Phillips-Fein writes.
Tea Partyers know this, but much of their anger is misdirected. Unlike the Populists of the 1890s, they despise organized labor. Their benefactors — the Koch brothers and the Club for Growth — would have it no other way. The old Populists wanted government to serve the people. The Tea Partyers want government to go away.
As Republicans stick their fingers in their ears and go “la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la.”
I don’t know what happened to it either. It was there when I wrote the post.
In a longer post about Tim Draper’s plan to separate California into six states (George Smith delivers a scathing take-down of that exercise in narcissism at his place), Tom Hilton highlights the one of the (many) logical fallacies inherent in Libertarianism:
The whole thing is an object lesson in the poverty of libertarianism. Libertarians think governing is easy. They think it’s easy because they don’t really care about the details, and they don’t really care about the details because they think it’s easy. (And of course they think it’s easy because at heart they’re fundamentally anti-democratic, fetishizing the dictatorial rule of all-powerful CEOs as their model for governance.)
And because they think governing is easy, because they don’t care about the details, whenever by some hideous mischance one of them is given a position of responsibility, they invariably prove spectacularly inept at governing.
Via Raw Story.
Watch it. If you don’t have time to watch it now, bookmark and watch it later, but watch it.
Jonathan Martin wants persons to say what they mean when they say stuff.
Interviewing Congressional candidates over the past two weeks, The Seattle Times editorial board kept a tally of vague but repetitive phrases. Top of the list: “secure the border first.”
I asked candidate after candidate to define “secure,” and got more vacuous rhetoric. Why is that so hard?
Find out his theory at the link.
Ruminating about a novel he read that included scenes from the War in Viet Nam, Dan Simpson concludes that the United States of America seems incapable of learning. A nugget:
Mr. Just (Ward Just, the author of the novel–ed.), by no means a severe critic of the United States, put it well: “American delusions, mostly of grandeur, often of the evangelical variety, the Good News of democracy … frightened people.” Worse, he also suggests that we can’t help ourselves: “ … [N]ationality is destiny,” he maintains, talking with two Germans. He considers Washington — “a greenhouse with the usual suffocating gases” — the nexus of the problem.
We should have learned a lot from the Vietnam War. It showed how ill-suited we are to engineer “regime change.” We signed on with a very corrupt, French-speaking Catholic minority government. When we tried to change horses to a series of generals, things got worse, not better. Vietnam also made it clear that pouring U.S. troops into a place like that doesn’t change the situation on the ground, and it eventually fractured our own society and wore out our own military.
Reg Henry considers the current state of American political discourse. His observations worth a read, though they are flawed by a gesture towards “both sides do it.”
Volume matters. Comparing a roar from one side to a whisper from the other is blatant false equivalence. When what is mainstream on one side is rare and isolated on the other, both sides are not doing it.
No wonder the nation is in such a ridiculous state, when people on each side think those who disagree with them are psychologically disturbed. Worse yet, this view has been encouraged from on high in the culture.
How many times are we told that “liberalism is a mental disorder”? The ones who email me this clearly think they are being so darned witty. Of course, they would never have come up with this, if talk show host Michael Savage hadn’t written a book with the same name as his contribution to the debasement of humanity.
Warning: Tasteless, just like the original.
Steven M. captures the wingnut belief system. Read it.
This should be interesting.
A judge threw out Florida’s congressional redistricting map Thursday, ruling that the Legislature allowed for a “secret, organized campaign” by partisan operatives to subvert the redistricting process in violation of the state Constitution.
Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis ruled that two of the state’s 27 districts are invalid and must be redrawn, along with any other districts affected by them, to bring the map into compliance with the state’s new Fair District amendments.
Much more at the link. You can read the ruling, including the judge’s reasoning, here (PDF).
Via Juanita Jean, who’s on a roll this week.
Juanita Jean explains why the Republican Party chose to convene in Cleveland, rather than Dallas. A nugget:
Seriously, think about it. Texas Republicans are so flatass crazy that other Republicans don’t want to be seen around them.
7. Ted Cruz wants to declare war against Mexico, and just to be safe, New Mexico.
8. Sarah Palin once described Texas as, “where the dumb people live.”
Follow the link for her other examples. You’ll be glad you did.
Really, now, that’s all it is.