Today's op-ed of the day comes from George Will. In this column......... April Fools!!! I don't know if i could ever select a George Will column for op-ed of the day. Anyway today's op-ed is from Will's home paper, the Washington Post, and written by Matt Miller. His piece is titled The Republican crackup.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033101663.html
The Republican crackup
By Matt MillerTuesday, March 31, 2010;
Has anyone else noticed that seemingly well-adjusted Republicans have been driven insane by the passage of Obamacare? You can catch them muttering under their breath, whimpering on editorial pages and howling to the moon that this Democratic victory is the death knell for much that we cherish in American life. When I first saw a Republican friend jump out the window in this fashion, I assumed it was an isolated incident, or even politically motivated play-acting. Now that I've seen countless others follow suit, however, it's a phenomenon that merits deeper psychological inquiry.
As a matter of objective reality, after all, this Republican derangement seems an absurd overreaction. How could taking Mitt Romney's health-care plan national be seen by any balanced person as the beginning of the end? Still, everyone knows that too many big, stressful changes at once -- such as getting divorced, changing jobs and moving homes -- can push even sturdy people over the edge. Three sudden emotional shocks likewise explain the Republican crackup.
Shock 1: Losing big. For starters, Republicans simply have not lost on an issue this big in decades. Media coverage features so many breathless political ups and downs that it's easy to assume each party tastes victory and defeat in equal measure. But as a matter of ideology, these overheated fights take place between the 45-yard lines on a field that conservatives shrewdly tilted to their advantage several decades ago. That President Obama could move the debate to the 40-yard line and win is something the modern GOP has never experienced. Republicans mauled President Clinton when he tried to do the same; after 1994, Clinton's "wins" were trumped-up and tiny. Republicans have so successfully framed the debate for so long that they don't know what it feels like to be thoroughly beaten. Who wouldn't feel disoriented and angry?
Shock 2: The quest for security. The next blow is the dawning awareness that the quest for economic security in a global era is reshaping politics. The instant premise of Republican analysis -- that the public will never tolerate Obamacare's repeal once it is implemented -- concedes the point that health reform will bring a measure of security that families crave. The Republican psyche is having so much trouble digesting this reality, though, that the party is resorting to the kind of condescending arguments for which they normally damn liberals. Who's got more contempt for the average American? Liberals who say everyday Kansans vote Republican because they're too dumb to grasp their own economic self-interest? Or conservatives who now say voters are too dimwitted to see that Obamacare will devour their freedom?
Deep down, Republicans know they haven't developed serious policy responses to the economic anxieties of the middle class. This (rightly) scares them.
Shock 3: The death of the tax issue. The final shock is the cruelest of all: the demise of the tax issue that's defined the Republican brand since Ronald Reagan. There's been no shortage of conservative carping since the health-care vote that we're now doomed to have a value-added tax to fund the runaway welfare state. Well, earth to GOP: Taxes have always been destined to go up as baby boomers retire and we double the number of people on Social Security and Medicare in the years ahead -- and the scale of that retiree commitment is far greater than the tab for Obamacare. Trying to blame health reform for the higher taxes in our future is another species of the denial that has left GOP tax talk almost comically detached from reality. But this is just the GOP acting out its fears. When a party discovers that core aspects of its political identity no longer offer meaningful answers to the nation's problems, the torment is acute. Yet what else can we say of the GOP now that "rugged individualism" won't suffice to save American workers from competition from China and India, and when taxes are sure to rise, no matter how many Republicans we elect?
The signposts in the Republican universe have been abruptly altered. So don't let yourself become desensitized to the sight of conservatives stumbling, lost in the night, the way you avert your eyes when passing poor homeless souls on the sidewalk. Suffering is subjective. There are people on the street who really think they are Jesus. There are Republicans in our midst who really think Obama's version of Romneycare equals socialism. There but for the grace of God -- and maybe a little less sloppy thinking -- go we.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Late Night reading thanks to Frum
Late night reading. Piece from the FrumForum by Tim Mak discussing the rivalry between Hannity and Beck- goodnight
http://www.frumforum.com/high-noon-at-fox-news
http://www.frumforum.com/high-noon-at-fox-news
W V Vatican
Maureen Dowd, who I rarely think is on point, nails the Catholic Church's response to the latest accusations against them. MODO does a fantastic job of the parallels of contrasting the George W. Bush Administration and the Vatican. Yea,yea, i know its not the same thing but just read the column and see what you think- http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/opinion/31dowd.html
north v south round 2
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2009/05/04/090504taco_talk_hertzberg
I know the article posted above is a year old, but every time I see these gun nuts and conservatives talking about how universal health care is "Armageddon" I can't help but flirt with the idea of secession and think everyone would be a tad bit happier.
When i seriously think about it I wouldn't want secession to occur because I truly believe the varied culture and values across the country is what makes it great(corny, i know). I'll have more thoughts on tihs over time.
I also cut and pasted the piece below-
So Long,Pardner. by Hendrik Hertzberg
QUESTION: What do you think about the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state? GOVERNOR PERRY, OF TEXAS: Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios.
On April 15th, a.k.a. tax day, protest rallies promoted by conservative lobbyists and Fox News television hosts attracted a couple of hundred thousand people to a couple of hundred locations around the country. The rallies were called “tea parties”—more mad than Boston, by the look and sound of them—with “tea” standing for “Taxed Enough Already.” The partygoers’ main target was President Obama’s plan for an enormous tax hike, under which, starting in 2011, persons with incomes in excess of a quarter-million dollars could see their top marginal rate go from thirty-five per cent to 39.6. This means that a fellow making, for example, three hundred grand could see his tax bill go up $34.62 per week. (In a typical liberal trick, most people making under a quarter mil, which is to say ninety-seven per cent of us, are getting a reduction.)
Lifting the burden of taxation from the backs of the comfortable is no longer the exciting new panacea it was back in the nineteen-eighties. But another proposal that the tea parties were buzzing about merits the respectful consideration of concerned citizens: Governor Rick Perry’s suggestion that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own.
Independence wouldn’t be a huge stretch for Texas. It already has its own national flag, left over from its decade as a sovereign republic. As a result, transition expenses should be minimal. At the Austin tea party, Governor Perry, still flushed with the excitement of denouncing federal oppression from the platform, told reporters, “When we came in the union, in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.” He added, a little ominously:My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what might come out of that.
Or, translated into New Yorkese: Nice little Union you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
The Governor is mistaken about Texas having been admitted to the Union with an opt-out provision; the actual deal was that Texas, with Congress’s permission, could theoretically divide itself into five states. Exiting the United States is not as simple as resigning from a restricted country club. Since “the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union” (Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Texas v. White, 1869), Perry would need either a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court chock-full of Scaliaesque “originalists.”
Putting aside the technicalities, though, what about the merits? Secession has been in questionable odor ever since Fort Sumter, but there are big differences between then and now. The cause of the Civil War was slavery, and the white South’s determination, in Lincoln’s phrase, “to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend” it. That was something worth fighting against, if not worth fighting for. But a difference of opinion about a marginal tax rate? There is, to be sure, a superficial parallel: just as only a minority of Southern whites owned slaves, only a tiny minority of Texans are due for a tax increase. It’s an aspirational thing. According to a poll taken the other day, a mere third of the people of the Lone Star State, and only half of Texas Republicans, are currently inclined to secede. But, if the numbers mount, might it not be better for all concerned if we just let Texas—and, by extension, any other parts of the old Confederacy that wish to accompany it—go?
Despite Perry’s fighting words, there is no reason for the separation to be an occasion for violence. The globe is replete with two-state solutions: India and Pakistan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Israel and Palestine. Admittedly, these may not be the best examples. A closer parallel would be Czechoslovakia, which, in 1993, split peacefully into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Like Czechs and Slovaks, Americans and Texans speak closely related languages, share a common, if not equally intense, interest in football games (though the Dallas Cowboys could no longer style themselves “America’s Team”), and enjoy each other’s cuisines. (Houston has a number of acceptable organic fusion restaurants, and there is a pretty fair barbecue place just a block from The New Yorker’s offices.) The border between the United States and the Federated States (“Confederate” being a word that remains a little too provocative) might not be as trouble-free as that between the United States and Canada, but, compared to the border with Mexico, it would probably require somewhat fewer armed citizen militias and fences topped with concertina wire to thwart illegal aliens desperate for a better life. On balance, trade relations between the U.S. and the F.S. would be advantageous to both. Cultural exchanges, tourism, and even a degree of military coöperation would be far from unthinkable.
For the old country, the benefits would be obvious. A more intimately sized Congress would briskly enact sensible gun control, universal health insurance, and ample support for the arts, the humanities, and the sciences. Although Texas itself has been a net contributor to the Treasury—it gets back ninety-four cents for each dollar it sends to Washington—nearly all the other potential F.S. states, especially the ones whose politicians complain most loudly about the federal jackboot, are on the dole. (South Carolina, for example, receives $1.35 on the dollar, as compared with Illinois’s seventy-five cents.) Republicans would have a hard time winning elections for a generation or two, but eventually a responsible opposition party would emerge, along the lines of Britain’s Conservatives, and a normal alternation in power could return.
The Federated States, meanwhile, could get on with the business of protecting the sanctity of marriage, mandating organized prayer sessions and the teaching of creationism in schools, and giving the theory that eliminating taxes increases government revenues a fair test. Although Texas and the other likely F.S. states already conduct some eighty-six per cent of executions, their death rows remain clogged with thousands of prisoners kept alive by meddling judges. These would be rapidly cleared out, providing more prison space for abortion providers. Although there might be some economic dislocation at first, the F.S. could remedy this by taking advantage of its eligibility for OPEC membership and arranging a new “oil shock.” Failing that, foreign aid could be solicited from Washington. But the greatest benefit would be psychological: freed from the condescension of metropolitan élites and Hollywood degenerates, the new country could tap its dormant creativity and develop a truly distinctive Way of Life.
Not every Southerner would be eager to go along with the new order, so delicate diplomacy would be a must. New Orleans might have to be made a “free city,” like Danzig (now Gdańsk) between the world wars. If partitioning Austin along the lines of Cold War Berlin proved unfeasible, peacekeeping troops might have to be sent in. But, before long, living side by side in peace and tranquillity, we could all say either “God bless the United States of America” or “God bless the Federated States,” as the case may be. ♦
I know the article posted above is a year old, but every time I see these gun nuts and conservatives talking about how universal health care is "Armageddon" I can't help but flirt with the idea of secession and think everyone would be a tad bit happier.
When i seriously think about it I wouldn't want secession to occur because I truly believe the varied culture and values across the country is what makes it great(corny, i know). I'll have more thoughts on tihs over time.
I also cut and pasted the piece below-
So Long,Pardner. by Hendrik Hertzberg
QUESTION: What do you think about the idea of secession or sovereignty for your state? GOVERNOR PERRY, OF TEXAS: Oh, I think there’s a lot of different scenarios.
On April 15th, a.k.a. tax day, protest rallies promoted by conservative lobbyists and Fox News television hosts attracted a couple of hundred thousand people to a couple of hundred locations around the country. The rallies were called “tea parties”—more mad than Boston, by the look and sound of them—with “tea” standing for “Taxed Enough Already.” The partygoers’ main target was President Obama’s plan for an enormous tax hike, under which, starting in 2011, persons with incomes in excess of a quarter-million dollars could see their top marginal rate go from thirty-five per cent to 39.6. This means that a fellow making, for example, three hundred grand could see his tax bill go up $34.62 per week. (In a typical liberal trick, most people making under a quarter mil, which is to say ninety-seven per cent of us, are getting a reduction.)
Lifting the burden of taxation from the backs of the comfortable is no longer the exciting new panacea it was back in the nineteen-eighties. But another proposal that the tea parties were buzzing about merits the respectful consideration of concerned citizens: Governor Rick Perry’s suggestion that Texas might end its association with the United States of America and strike out on its own.
Independence wouldn’t be a huge stretch for Texas. It already has its own national flag, left over from its decade as a sovereign republic. As a result, transition expenses should be minimal. At the Austin tea party, Governor Perry, still flushed with the excitement of denouncing federal oppression from the platform, told reporters, “When we came in the union, in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that.” He added, a little ominously:My hope is that America, and Washington in particular, pays attention. We’ve got a great Union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what might come out of that.
Or, translated into New Yorkese: Nice little Union you got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it.
The Governor is mistaken about Texas having been admitted to the Union with an opt-out provision; the actual deal was that Texas, with Congress’s permission, could theoretically divide itself into five states. Exiting the United States is not as simple as resigning from a restricted country club. Since “the Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union” (Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, Texas v. White, 1869), Perry would need either a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court chock-full of Scaliaesque “originalists.”
Putting aside the technicalities, though, what about the merits? Secession has been in questionable odor ever since Fort Sumter, but there are big differences between then and now. The cause of the Civil War was slavery, and the white South’s determination, in Lincoln’s phrase, “to strengthen, perpetuate, and extend” it. That was something worth fighting against, if not worth fighting for. But a difference of opinion about a marginal tax rate? There is, to be sure, a superficial parallel: just as only a minority of Southern whites owned slaves, only a tiny minority of Texans are due for a tax increase. It’s an aspirational thing. According to a poll taken the other day, a mere third of the people of the Lone Star State, and only half of Texas Republicans, are currently inclined to secede. But, if the numbers mount, might it not be better for all concerned if we just let Texas—and, by extension, any other parts of the old Confederacy that wish to accompany it—go?
Despite Perry’s fighting words, there is no reason for the separation to be an occasion for violence. The globe is replete with two-state solutions: India and Pakistan, Ethiopia and Eritrea, Israel and Palestine. Admittedly, these may not be the best examples. A closer parallel would be Czechoslovakia, which, in 1993, split peacefully into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Like Czechs and Slovaks, Americans and Texans speak closely related languages, share a common, if not equally intense, interest in football games (though the Dallas Cowboys could no longer style themselves “America’s Team”), and enjoy each other’s cuisines. (Houston has a number of acceptable organic fusion restaurants, and there is a pretty fair barbecue place just a block from The New Yorker’s offices.) The border between the United States and the Federated States (“Confederate” being a word that remains a little too provocative) might not be as trouble-free as that between the United States and Canada, but, compared to the border with Mexico, it would probably require somewhat fewer armed citizen militias and fences topped with concertina wire to thwart illegal aliens desperate for a better life. On balance, trade relations between the U.S. and the F.S. would be advantageous to both. Cultural exchanges, tourism, and even a degree of military coöperation would be far from unthinkable.
For the old country, the benefits would be obvious. A more intimately sized Congress would briskly enact sensible gun control, universal health insurance, and ample support for the arts, the humanities, and the sciences. Although Texas itself has been a net contributor to the Treasury—it gets back ninety-four cents for each dollar it sends to Washington—nearly all the other potential F.S. states, especially the ones whose politicians complain most loudly about the federal jackboot, are on the dole. (South Carolina, for example, receives $1.35 on the dollar, as compared with Illinois’s seventy-five cents.) Republicans would have a hard time winning elections for a generation or two, but eventually a responsible opposition party would emerge, along the lines of Britain’s Conservatives, and a normal alternation in power could return.
The Federated States, meanwhile, could get on with the business of protecting the sanctity of marriage, mandating organized prayer sessions and the teaching of creationism in schools, and giving the theory that eliminating taxes increases government revenues a fair test. Although Texas and the other likely F.S. states already conduct some eighty-six per cent of executions, their death rows remain clogged with thousands of prisoners kept alive by meddling judges. These would be rapidly cleared out, providing more prison space for abortion providers. Although there might be some economic dislocation at first, the F.S. could remedy this by taking advantage of its eligibility for OPEC membership and arranging a new “oil shock.” Failing that, foreign aid could be solicited from Washington. But the greatest benefit would be psychological: freed from the condescension of metropolitan élites and Hollywood degenerates, the new country could tap its dormant creativity and develop a truly distinctive Way of Life.
Not every Southerner would be eager to go along with the new order, so delicate diplomacy would be a must. New Orleans might have to be made a “free city,” like Danzig (now Gdańsk) between the world wars. If partitioning Austin along the lines of Cold War Berlin proved unfeasible, peacekeeping troops might have to be sent in. But, before long, living side by side in peace and tranquillity, we could all say either “God bless the United States of America” or “God bless the Federated States,” as the case may be. ♦
Irish food. yup, it exists
On occasion I discuss food, the main source being Wednesday's dining section in the NY Times, so here ya go. Showing some love to the Irish-http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/dining
great stuff from daily show
Vintage Jon Stewart. Rips up, what soon could be former, RNC chairman, Michael Steele. Is ken Melhman still looking for work?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/jon-stewart-revels-in-gop_n_519748.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/31/jon-stewart-revels-in-gop_n_519748.html
Drill Baby Drill!
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/31/science/earth/31energy.html?hp
Obama co opts the GOP's offshore drilling strategy. More brilliant politics from POTUS.
"The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.
The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. "
Obama co opts the GOP's offshore drilling strategy. More brilliant politics from POTUS.
"The proposal is to be announced by President Obama and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland on Wednesday, but administration officials agreed to preview the details on the condition that they not be identified.
The proposal is intended to reduce dependence on oil imports, generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases and help win political support for comprehensive energy and climate legislation. "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)