Archive for November, 2010
The TSA Ruckus — Enough Already
America, famous for her need for 24/7 stimulation, loves a manufactured controversy. We can now add to the list of controversies the newly installed body scanners in many of our nation’s airports and the accompanying pat-down procedure for those who opt out of being scanned. With 10% unemployment, two wars raging and a newly belligerent North Korea, it is hard to believe we have any bandwidth left to fuss about “messing with my junk.” Maybe it’s time for some common sense:
- In the immediate aftermath of 9/11, we would all have willingly lined up stark naked at the airport to protect ourselves. Amazing what poor long-term memory does to a nation.
- There is only one way to take a picture of a naked body and that is to … take a picture of a naked body. No device has been invented that will show your truly naked body on film when you are wearing clothes when the picture is taken. The image rendered by the new devices, based on what I have seen by surfing the web, is your body in the form of a white Thanksgiving Day parade float … or perhaps the Pillsbury Doughboy. Yes, it captures the contours of your body but it looks like a blow-up doll. No skin color, no texture, nothing remotely human and certainly nothing remotely erotic (unless you are REALLY kinky and masturbate to Saturday morning cartoons). People need to get a grip.
- OK, you really don’t want someone looking at a white silhouette image of your fat behind. So you opt for the pat-down. Again, unless the TSA employee physically hurts you, what is the big deal? The real problem here (and with the scanner) is America’s extremely messed up mentality about our bodies and sexuality in general. We are the most repressed bunch of closet porno watchers on the planet. I seriously doubt the French would bat an eye at these procedures.
- There have been abuses. So what? A man was humiliated when his urostomy bag was broken during an aggressive pat-down. A woman was asked to remove her prosthetic breast. These are unfortunate exceptions involving stupid TSA employees. If we stopped every procedure in this country based on isolated examples of stupidity, we’d have no procedures at all.
- The procedure violates your rights. I really love this one because I get to toss this one in the face of my nutty “constitutional scholar”-cum-tea party fanatics. Please tell me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to travel by air? Guess what. Air travel is a privilege, not a right. If you don’t want to get patted down, take a bus, train or drive your car. It’s really very simple.
- Shouldn’t we do everything we can to make it difficult for a dangerous nutjob to board a plane? Do these procedures really rise to the level of the inconvenience of the precaution overshadowing the consequences of a security lapse? I don’t think so.
This is what will happen and I can predict it with 100% certainty. If Obama edicts that the new scanners be stopped and the pat-downs be “softened” and we are then attacked again, Obama will be blamed for going soft on security.
So my friends, as you travel this holiday season, my suggestion is that you view the scanner as a stop in front of a fun-house mirror and the pat-down as an overly robust greeting from your friendly airport security personnel.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Now I Really Understand Rich Lowry’s Hard-on
Back when then Governor Sarah Palin debated then Senator Joe Biden in a bid for the Vice-presidency of the United States, Rich Lowry of the National Review famously wrote:
Palin too projects through the screen like crazy. I’m sure I’m not the only male in America who, when Palin dropped her first wink, sat up a little straighter on the couch and said, “Hey, I think she just winked at me.” And her smile. By the end, when she clearly knew she was doing well, it was so sparkling it was almost mesmerizing. It sent little starbursts through the screen and ricocheting around the living rooms of America. This is a quality that can’t be learned; it’s either something you have or you don’t, and man, she’s got it.
via Projecting through the Screen – By Rich Lowry – The Corner – National Review Online.
Up until recently, I didn’t get the full thrust of Lowry’s sexual addiction. I assumed it was limited to Palin. But after reading an editorial in the Washington Post this week, I think I now really understand the cause of Rich’s hard-on.
Matt Miller, this week, wrote a most amusing analysis of our country’s preoccupation with “American exceptionalism”. He writes:
Oooh, you’re so strong, baby, so handsome. You’re the greatest.
I’m talking about you, America. You’re . . . why, you’re exceptional!
Does anyone else think there’s something a little insecure about a country that requires its politicians to constantly declare how exceptional it is? A populace in need of this much reassurance may be the surest sign of looming national decline.
American exceptionalism is now the central theme of Sarah Palin’s speeches. The supposedly insufficient Democratic commitment to this idea will be a core Republican complaint in 2012. Conservatives assail Barack Obama for his alleged indifference to it. It’s part of their broader indictment of Obama’s fishy cosmopolitanism, his overseas “apology tours,” his didn’t-wear-the-flag-lapel-pin-until-he-had-to peevishness. Not to mention the whole anti-colonial Kenyan resentment thing the president’s got going.
Real men – real Americans – know America is the greatest country ever invented. And they shout it from the rooftops. Don’t they?
On Marco Rubio, Miller made the following observation:
Rubio described his Senate race as “a referendum on our identity,” adding that “this race forces us to answer a very simple question,” he said. “Do we want our country to continue to be exceptional, or are we prepared for it to become just like everyone else?”
And to think I thought the election was about who had better ideas for getting the economy moving again.
The key part of Rubio’s phrase is “continue to be exceptional”. You can’t continue to be what you are not presently. We are “just like everyone else” to the extent that we are in debt up to our eyeballs, and by many folk’s estimation on our way to becoming Greece. Again, Miller nails it when he says:
The conservative use of American exceptionalism as a political sword today is perversely revealing. There’s something off when the first generation of Americans that is less educated than its parents feels a deep need to be told how unique it is. Or that a generation that’s handing off epic debts and a chronically dysfunctional political process (among other woes) demands that its leaders keep toasting its fabulousness. Especially when other nations now offer more upward mobility, and a better blend of growth with equity, than we do – arguably the best measures of America’s once-exceptional national performance.
Wouldn’t it bolster Americans more to be told that we can meet the challenges of this moment? Wouldn’t we be better off striving to be exceptional at solving our common problems?
But no, of course not. Anyone who suggests America needs improvement is a traitor of the first order. And heaven forbid our President does this. Any modesty on his part amounts to an “apology tour”. Miller concludes:
Sarah Palin’s focus on this theme proves she is shrewder than her critics acknowledge. … If you don’t have real answers, soothing words are a start.
Oooh, you’re so strong, baby, so handsome. Palin knows the country she is courting.
George Washington was called “The Father of Our Country” and to some extent every President should serve this role. A father provides a strong example and encourages his “children” to excel with humility, to not accept “good enough”. Somehow over the past 10 years, America has forsaken the notion of a fatherly President. America now wants its President to be a fraternity brother or a best girlfriend. We want someone who would be fun to have a drink with. We want someone to give us an erection.
So you see, the star-bursts Rich Lowry saw went beyond a personal physical reaction. It was symptomatic of a nation that wants a huge collective blow job from its leader. It is commonly accepted that Vice President Nelson Rockefeller died in coitus with an aide. The typical male reaction is “what a way to go, at least he died happy.” And so it is with America. We may be near death, but as long as Sarah keeps winking at us and stroking our national dick, at least we’ll die happy.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
Bachmann May be a Rep But She’s No Leader
While the sixth congressional district of Minnesota may lack the intellectual fortitude to keep Michele Bachmann at home, at least the establishment in the Republican Party in Washington has the good sense to clip her wings. Last week Bachmann announced her intention to pursue a leadership position in Congress. After realizing she didn’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting the position, she bowed out and backed the favorite Jeb Hensarling.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), a favorite of conservative activists around the country, ended her campaign to join the GOP leadership late Wednesday, electing to bow out rather than face near-certain defeat in next week’s leadership elections.
While the slaughter we received last week leaves us stunned and a little depressed, we can be thankful for small victories. Keeping Bachmann out of any leadership position in Congress is just such a victory!
Respectfully,
Rutherford
George W. Bush: Delusion Points
43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush is making the rounds after two years of near silence. The occasion is his new book “Decision Points”. I decided to watch some of his TV appearances with as open a mind as possible. But watching Bush is a frustrating experience. You want to like him. He seems a nice enough sort of guy. Consistent with the popular mythology, he appears to not be the sharpest tool in the toolbox. That alone evokes a bit of sympathy for the man. However, as he discusses his eight years in the White House, you find yourself wondering is he deluded or just a liar?
I watched his interviews with NBC’s Matt Lauer and talk show goddess Oprah Winfrey. The latter interview was the more folksy. Heck he almost seemed like a standup comedian. This Bush was easier to like, even if at times you were laughing at him and not with him. The Lauer interview though, paints a different picture. Particularly when it comes to Iraq, the Bush account of things just doesn’t add up. When Lauer asks him if he thinks he missed anything that might have avoided the 9/11 attack, Bush says no, forgetting that all of us have burned into our memory the moment when Condoleezza Rice told Congress that Bush had seen a briefing with the title “Bin Laden to strike within the US”. I’m not one of those to outright blame Bush for 9/11. I do expect however, if he’s going to write a historically accurate memoir that he at least admit that the White House didn’t properly pursue the intelligence they had at their disposal. To make matters worse, Bush said that 9/11 changed his presidency in that it became his first job to protect America from another strike. He seems oblivious to the fact that that was his job in the first place. Before 9/11 it was his job to protect America.
Then there are the nonexistent WMD’s. Bush says that Saddam Hussein’s behavior was consistent with someone who was hiding WMD’s. Matt Lauer then reminds Bush that he called Hussein a “madman” and based on that, how could any reasonable conclusion be based on Hussein’s behavior alone. Bush gave a non-answer that Hussein was power-hungry. Still the point stands that a “madman” has no credibility so other forms of intelligence must be relied upon. According to Bush, the failure of those other forms of intelligence greatly troubled him but he insists that the invasion of Iraq prevented another 9/11. His strange circular, self-fulfilling logic leads me to believe Bush to be more deluded than simply a liar. However, according to David Corn and Michael Isikoff in their book “Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War” Bush was not the least bit troubled by the failure to find WMD’s. By that time, the excuse was bought hook line and sinker by the American public and we were knee-deep in war … the mission to attack Iraq was indeed accomplished, even if victory there was uncertain.
It also makes it a bit hard to like Bush when his biggest self-admitted mistakes all involve optics. He says he should have landed in Louisiana during Katrina so it didn’t look like he didn’t care. (Kanye West’s accusation that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people” was, according to Bush, one of his low points.) He says he should never have appeared in front a “Mission Accomplished” banner when the war was far from over. Both of these are true but when you preside over an unnecessary war and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, these mea culpa’s hardly pass for deep introspection.
Perhaps the most alarming story to come out of “Decision Points” as told by Bush in the Lauer interview is his mother’s request that he (a very young man at the time) take her to the hospital following a miscarriage and that he transport with her, a glass jar containing the remains of his “brother or sister”. This incident helped to inform his pro-life stance. While it is a compelling experience that would shape anyone’s view of abortion it is also …. let’s be honest … a bit creepy. You have to wonder what Barbara Bush was thinking. It’s hard not to conjecture how that event impacted him psychologically.
Bush’s book will have no impact on history. It has re-opened old wounds and resurrected old debates. History will judge Bush based on his deeds and their consequences. The story of Iraq is not yet fully written. I have always said, if democracy flourishes in the region, history will vindicate George W. Bush and he will be viewed among our more accomplished Presidents. If the more likely scenario of an immutably chaotic region persists, the Bush presidency will never rise above the level of mediocrity.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
2010: Return of the Whigs
I’m well-known for saying that at current rate and speed, the Republican party is on target to be the Whigs of the 21st century. Based on last night’s election results my prognosis may have been premature. Then again, was it? If you listened to the victory speeches of Rand Paul and Marco Rubio you did not hear the defiant declaration of Bush-era Republicans returning to the helm. On the contrary, you heard a rejection of a political party that had lost its way. Rand indicated he was going to make the Senate “deliberate” on a thing or two. Marco reminded his audience that last night was not a vote FOR the Republican party but rather a rejection of the current leadership.
After listening to a good six hours of talking heads (yes I’m obsessive) I came away with a few perspectives on last night’s mid-term results which I shall share in no particular order:
(For the most part) Nutjubs, Racists, and Misfits Need Not Apply
A few weeks ago MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow mourned the demise of the “macaca moment”. It was her assertion that the type of gaffe that could destroy a candidate the way “macaca” destroyed candidate George Allen in 2008, seemed to go unnoticed and completely forgiven in 2010. Alas Rachel was being a bit melodramatic. One thing we learned last night was that if you send pornographic photos via email (Carl Paladino), use blatantly racist campaign ads (Sharron Angle), declare that you are not a witch (Christine O’Donnell), dress up like a Nazi on the weekends (Rich Iott) or can barely complete a sentence in an interview, with a sex-offender accusation pending against you (Alvin Greene) then you are not going to be elected dog catcher by Americans in 2010. I cannot overestimate what a relief this was to me as I watched the results come in last night.
It’s The Economy Stupid
Liberals will burn me in effigy for saying this but if last night taught us anything it was that we wasted eighteen months on health care reform that most of the nation didn’t want when we should have had a full court press on job creation. Before you stick your pin in my voodoo doll, let me distill this for you. I walk up to you and say I am going to ensure that your employer can provide you with health care and that you cannot be rejected for pre-existing conditions. Your reply, “that’s fine and dandy but I don’t have an employer. I haven’t worked in two years. I’m about to lose my house.” And then I say “but I insist it’s your right to have good health care!” Then I wonder why you don’t vote for my ass in the next election.
There are those who say there is never a “good time” to introduce health care reform. That may be but I can damn sure tell you there are some particularly bad times to do it. If Obama presided over a booming economy, he would have still encountered philosophical opposition to HCR but at least he could have made it a reasonable priority. Whether or not it makes sense, people prioritize earning enough money to keep their home over good health. That is a social and political reality that the Obama administration, most liberals, and I ignored. Yes, I admit it. I fell in love with the Utopian idea of health care for everyone. I did so ignoring my own underemployment. I was a fool. We liberals paid a price for our principles last night and I’m not at all sure it was worth it.
Some Hispanics, Our Youth and Minnesotans Have Got to Go
If you don’t know when you’re being insulted, you deserve everything that’s coming to you. 30% of Hispanic voters in Nevada voted for Sharron Angle after she portrayed them as a criminal threat to law abiding white folks. Guess what 30%? That makes you a bunch of nimrods, oh pardon me, estupidos! Marco Rubio was right to call out Harry Reid when he wondered aloud how any Hispanic could vote for a Republican. Harry should have wondered how any of them could vote for Sharron Angle.
Apparently our young voter count was lower than expected. You know what? All I hear the Tea Party Movement and other conservatives say is how terrible it is to leave all this debt to the younger generations. Well, I don’t feel one shred of remorse today. They came out in droves in 2008 to vote for the rock star like it was some friggin’ edition of “American Idol”. Now when policy and our future is at stake, they had better things to do. Until the lazy selfish bastards stop texting their BFF’s while watching the latest installment of “Jersey Shore” and get out and do their civic duty by voting, they can choke on my debt.
Finally, Minnesota. What to do about Minnesota? OK I know they like colorful characters. Just look at Prince or Jesse Ventura. And yes I can forgive them for electing Michele Bachmann the first time. But now that we know what a show-boating brain-dead, rhetorically dangerous woman this is, how in the name of all that is good and decent, could she be re-elected? There is only one solution but I will limit this solution only to the sixth congressional district of Minnesota because unlike the average conservative Islamaphobe, I don’t smear the whole with the faults of the few. The solution is that the sixth district of Minnesota must be sold to Canada. I don’t know how much we’d get for it, but it would certainly help bring down the deficit that Ms. Bachmann is so fired up about.
Two Lib Losses that Don’t Upset Me That Much
A good number of our lib heroes survived last night with nary a scratch. Icons like Barney Frank (yeah conservatives … SUCK IT), Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Barbara Boxer and that other boxer from Searchlight, Nevada, Harry Reid. Even that old example of political decay, Charlie Rangel lived to see another day. However there are two losses that don’t have me all that bothered. The first is Alan Grayson from Florida. I have maintained almost from the beginning that Grayson was all show and no substance. In a political climate where there is too much heat and too little light, Grayson generated a lot of the former. Was it great for catharsis? Damn straight it was! Did it move the ball forward in any meaningful way? Not one bit. Grayson was doing an audition to replace Ed Schultz on MSNBC but he was doing it on the tax payer’s dime. I’m not shedding a lot of tears that the audition was canceled.
The other loss that I almost cheered was that of Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. When Sestak unseated party-switcher Arlen Specter for the Senatorial nomination he made a huge self-righteous ruckus about how the Obama administration tried to buy him off so he wouldn’t run. Honest-Abe Sestak rejected the “bribes”. All this did was fire up the “impeachment” advocates claiming that Obama had authorized political dirty tricks for which he should be punished. A good Democrat would have kept his big fat mouth shut but no, Joe had to prove to everyone what a virtuous guy he was. I nearly vomited at the time and I found him equally obnoxious in his concession speech last night. By the way, his daughter was obnoxious too …
Most Obnoxious Performance on Election Night
That award goes to Joe Sestak’s daughter Alex. Yes, I know I’ve been beaten up on this blog in the past for prodding at politician’s families but I’m sorry, this kid needed a good swift kick in the ass. As Joe attempted to give his concession speech, not five seconds would go by without Alex interrupting him with some pithy comment. Her mother smiled ear to ear with that look you’ve seen on mothers who mistake their children’s rudeness for “just being precocious”. Joe seemed slightly less amused and I was expecting him any minute to scream “I JUST LOST THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL RACE OF MY LIFE …. WOULD YOU SHUT THE F**K UP?????” Instead, Joe just grinned and carried on. At the end of his speech he lifted his “little girl” up in the air and for a split second, I thought he was gonna throw her into the crowd like Alice Cooper throwing a chicken into a mosh pit. No such luck.
Later in the week, I’ll share my thoughts on where progressives should go from here.
Respectfully,
Rutherford
How the Lame Duck Will Quack this December
Over the next few weeks, Congress has the opportunity to vote on a number of key legislative initiatives. What follows is my brief take on what will and will not happen.
Extension of “Bush Tax Cuts”: This one will be a compromise solution. The rich will get an extension of their tax rate for two or more years. The Democrats will not agree to make it permanent but they will cave on the $250,000 limit temporarily. Some folks say the findings of the Deficit Commission, due out in the next week or so will have some bearing but I think ideological compromise will win the day.
Extension of Unemployment Benefits: This one will likely go hand in hand with the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats will save face on the tax compromise by forcing the GOP’s hand on this extension.
Ratification of the START Treaty: This one will not fly in the lame duck session. Despite liberal claims of urgency, the GOP led by Senator Jon Kyl will drag on this one. Kyl has already gone on record saying that there is too much on the plate to give this treaty the attention it deserves. First, he cites the length of the document (the prior START treaty was supposedly only three pages long) and there is grumbling about insufficient discussion of missile defense systems. We won’t see action on this until next year. How this will make us look on the international stage is anybody’s guess. I suspect it can’t be good. Then again, after the latest “Wiki-leaks”, should we really continue to worry about our reputation?
The Immigration Dream Act: This will not see the light of day this December. Despite the fact that the legislation is focused on giving young illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, I believe the anti-immigrant fervor is so strong right now that the act will garner insufficient support in Congress.
Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The results of a feasibility study will be published this week. We will see the GOP move the goal posts following the lead of John McCain, who has already stated this study does not satisfy the questions he has about repealing DADT. Since Obama’s track record on gay advocacy has been abysmal, expect no movement on this in the next few weeks.
That’s my quick take. What’s your opinion?
Respectfully,
Rutherford
WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance
November 30, 2010 at 2:03 am Rutherford 72 comments