winterbadger: (python)
The most recent horrific "scandals" in Washington seem to be:

  • an investigation by the IRS to ascertain whether organizations that claimed tax-exempt status were acting in violation of that status by actively engaging in political action

  • several investigations by the DOJ to determine (a) who had criminally leaked classified material, violating the oath they took in order to gain access to it and severely damaging national security in the process and (b) whether the journalists who solicited those crimes had done so in contravention of the laws on espionage

These are in addition to the ongoing hearings into the events in Benghazi, despite a thoroughgoing review that resulted in a report harshly critical of the State Department, which led to the resignations of four senior DOS persons. But no hearings, strangely, on more than a dozen attacks on embassies in recent prior years, in which over 100 people were killed.

The politicos I don't expect reason or balance from. Hypocrisy and demagoguery have replaced honesty and responsibility in the opposition--that I have come to accept. What I find disturbing is that the press seems to be more interested in smearing mud and crying foul than at looking at the facts. That the same media swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, every baited lie that they were to9ld by the previous administration for year after year makes me wonder what happened to the honest, idealistic, truth-seeking journalists I recall being lionised when I was growing up in the 1960s and 1970s. There seem to be precious few of them around these days, as far as I can tell.
winterbadger: (judaism)
Something, I've now forgotten what, tipped me off to Gentleman's Agreement, a 1947 film directed by Elia Kazan and starring Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire. It's a movie about a journalist writing an article about antisemitism for a major news magazine who decides that he can get "a new angle" by living as a Jew and experiencing prejudice firsthand.

In one of the early scenes, the commissioning editor says that he doesn't want just another story full of "facts and figures" or a piece about "the crackpot factor", but a story about the wider effects of antisemitism, focusing on people without overt prejudice, "people who would never give a dime to Gerald L. K. Smith."

Now, obviously that reference was supposed to be instantly recognizable to a 1947 audience, but it meant nothing to me. Obscure asides like that are, for me, like waving a feathery toy in front of an energetic cat, so it was off to Wikipedia for info.

Gerald L. K. Smith, it turns out, was a nasty piece of work. A Wisconsin minister, he moved to Louisiana for his wife's health and became involved with Huey Long's Share Our Wealth movement (SOW). After Long's death, he continued running SOW and moved ever rightward, allying first with the odious Father Charles Coughlin and later with the American Nazi William Dudley Pelley. Smith spent time in prison during Word War Two for an espionage conviction. He ran for president three times in the 1940s and 1950s, receiving about 1,800 votes (1944), 80 votes, (1948), and 8 votes (1956).

He retired to Arkansas in the 1960s, where he planned to build a life-size recreation of ancient Jerusalem as part of a religious theme park. Though the park was never built, its centerpiece, a giant statue of Christ, was completed, as well as an amphitheatre when Smith produced a passion play modeled on those of medieval Germany (first staged in 1968, the play still runs every year from May to October).

All this from an aside in the tenth minute...

ETA: And here's another forgotten racist that gets mentioned: John E. Rankin.

And another: Theodore G. Bilbo.
winterbadger: (glass_standrew)

My own Thatcher remembrance, with thanks to Ronnie Brown and the late Roy Williamson.

Annotated lyrics :-) )

winterbadger: (python)
More commentary on the Tories' proposed "balance the budget on the backs of the poor" legislation. In case anyone has missed the "bedroom tax" madness, what it boils down to is this:

people in social housing with one spare bedroom will have their housing benefit cut by 14%, while those with two or more unoccupied rooms will see it slashed by 25%.

the one small detail being that

while [surveys suggest that] there are currently 180,000 households that are "underoccupying two-bedroom homes", there are far fewer smaller properties in the social housing sector available to move into. Last year only 85,000 one-bedroom homes became available.

So, in a modern version of Morton's Fork, those single people who are already so poor that they need help paying for a place to live must either move to a smaller space (which fewer than half of them will be able to do) or see their assistance cut.

Because, as we all know, it's the benefits received by the needy that government always overspends on, not tax breaks to corporations, salaries to senior leaders, sweetheart no-bid deals with contractors, or big-ticket defense items.

As a sidelight, confirmation of what I've always suspected: that far fewer Brits rent than do Americans. One of the sites mentioned in the article says that, in the UK, "over nine million people now [rent] their home from a private landlord". That means that roughly 15% of UK residents live in rented accommodation. According to the National Multi Housing Council, 32% of Americans live in rented housing. Not only are more Britons going to be looking for smaller places to live because of this ridiculous law, but there is a much smaller market in the UK to begin with for rental housing.
winterbadger: (Default)

In a thread in The Other Place on a topic I'll get to in a moment, one of the usual Tea Party shower said, "if you want to get money out of politics, get government out of our lives."

I replied:

"Yes, get the government out of our lives! I hate having police, firefighters, teachers, sanitation workers, roads, bridges, street lights, libraries, science research, armed forces, crossing guards at schools, low-cost student loans, traffic lights and road signs, safe and discrimination-free workplaces, food that is safe to eat and drugs that do what they say on the label, clean air and clean water, safe skies and airports.

Let's get government out of our lives.

Not."

Posted via LiveJournal app for iPad.

winterbadger: (badgerwarning)

from the BBC

At a press conference, [House of Representatives Speaker] Boehner conceded the House's failure to take up the tax bill was "not the outcome that I wanted".

He admitted that "God only knows" how the cliff would be avoided but Republicans would keep working on a plan to protect families and small businesses.

He added: "We only run the House. Democrats continue to run Washington."

Bwuh? Mr Speaker, *your* party controls the body that sets spending legislation. *You* run Washington, at least as far as budgeting goes. Don't try to lay this off on anyone else.

winterbadger: (badgerwarning)
Sen. John McCain actually said something that I not only agree with but applaud him for saying.

According to BBC reporting, Sen. McCain, along with Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Carl Levin, criticized the new film Zero Dark Thirty for suggesting that torture was an effective tool in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The three published a letter in which

The senators said the "use of torture in the fight against terrorism did severe damage to America's values and standing that cannot be
justified or expunged".

The makers of Zero Dark Thirty, they went on, had "a social and moral obligation to get the facts right".

Good on them.

(As an aside, I have worked with the US military on many occasions over the years, and many of my friends and acquaintances are serving or retired military. I have NEVER heard anyone say "zero dark thirty"; this expression (which usually means "really, really early" rather than referring to a specific time), is pronounced "oh dark thirty".)

winterbadger: (black)
I've been watching the wave of horror and anger and outrage from the shootings in Newtown, CT, wash over the various communities I belong to online. As always, the Internet is a huge sounding chamber, amplifying the noise, dampening the signal, providing immense amounts of heat, but very little light. So many people want to express fury and assign blame, and so few people--seemingly--want to take this opportunity to work together to do something practical.

Let me suggest one thing, at least. Let this incident, and all the ones that have gone before it, provide a final halt to calls for one single, simple solution, It is the heroin of the American psyche, the thing that everyone seems to crave, to demand, usually while knowing full well that it's unachievable and won't provide the surcease from fear and sorrow we seek.

Why won't it? Because, in the real world, there are no simple problems, and attempting to solve complex problems with simple remedies, will, if we are fortunate, not actually make the problem go away. That's the best outcome. The worst, which we far too often get, is the our "simple solutions" make the problem much, much worse than it was to begin with, in ways we can't anticipate.

As the latter half of the 19th century drew to a close, America was struggling with alcoholism. It had reached epidemic proportions, and to many people, there was a clear, simple solution. Ban alcoholic beverages entirely. Originally it was proposed to ban the sale of them, but this quickly transmuted into a ban on their manufacture and consumption as well. The result? Prohibition took the small, disparate, evil but fragmented criminal elements in America's big cities and built from them the organized crime syndicates that spread through America's economy and society like a fast-moving cancer. Even today, after nearly a century of fighting organized crime, we are further from eradicating it than we were during Prohibition.

Shootings like the one in Newtown take place all over the world, even in places with strict gun control laws, but they are more common in the United States than anywhere else. Ready access to firearms is a part of them, but so is mental illness. All the incidents like this that I know of have been committed by people who were mentally disturbed. We need to do something about guns, yes, but we also need to do something about mental illness. Think that's easy? Read this heart-rending essay. Then think about all the people like Michael who don't have someone who loves them and cares for them looking out for them (and for the rest of us).

Shootings like the one in Newtown are horrific, but they represent a tiny fraction of the over 10,000 annual homicides committed in the United States using firearms every year. We need to do something about guns, yes, and mental illness, but we also need to do something about the poverty that drives people to crime, especially to work in the narcotics trade (which, of course, is a violent industry created almost entirely by another "simple solution").

I keep adding to the list of horrendously complex problems that we need to address, and I'm insisting we give up on our national security blanket of "let's find the one thing we can do to fix this". And I'm going to suggest another deprivation: we also have to discard the mental pacifier of "it's all THEIR fault".

Whenever a gut-wrenching murder scene like this is played out, the first thing that happens is that some people, in their grief and anger, insist that the blame lies on those who own guns and demand that their rights be curtailed or eliminated entirely, as a solution, yes, but also as a collective punishment for the sins of whoever committed the crime. The instantaneous reaction is for those who own guns (all of them also horrified and angry) to deny that any sort of curb on their rights is called for and to insist that something or someone else is at fault, or that there's no way to achieve a complete elimination of this kind of tragedy, so let's not even try.

Get this, people: both of you are wrong. We are none of us directly to blame for shooting 26 people in Connecticut. The person who did that is dead; like most murderers in this sort of situation, he killed himself. And all of us are to blame, indirectly, because we allowed a situation to develop to which this miserable event was the outcome. We can't make this about blame; that's the solution we find every time, and it has never served to make anything better. We have to work together, coming from very different points of view, with very different concerns, and find a way of making this sort of thing much, much harder to happen. That's going to take cooperating with each other, instead of demonizing each other. It's going to take finding common ground, instead of focusing on our differences. It's going to take mutual concessions, instead of standing on our rights and demanding an absolute surrender of everyone else to our personal concerns.

We need to make gun laws consistent. I've had one real conversation about this tragedy, a conversation face to face--the sort of conversation that almost always ends up with people agreeing because they have to listen to and look at each other, instead of shouting into the Internet at people you can pretend you don't know and maybe aren't even real. In that discussion, the I spoke to person expressed views about how easy it was to purchase and hold guns that told me he either doesn't live in the state I live in or doesn't know anything about its laws. There are significant restrictions in my state, but almost none in some neighboring ones (perhaps the one he lives in). States to which I can drive in an hour, or two at most. These distinctions need to go away, and national rules need to be put in place that cover any type of sale, anywhere. Gun owners need to make some concessions to the sensibility of the rest of the population.

And those who don't understand the desire, the need for others to own guns also have to accept that just because they can't understand that sentiment doesn't make it any less real or any less Constitutionally protected. I can't foresee a future in which most of the Americans that I now who own firearms will agree to give them up. It's a simple fact that we are a nation of gun owners, and there is a fundamental belief at the root of the American experience that Americans have a right to bear arms. We need to make them more difficult to purchase than they are in some places, and safer to own and protect than they are in a good many homes, but guns are not going to disappear.

Many today want to limit or do away with public support for healthcare. Guess what? We can't restrict it further if we want to address some of these problems. On the contrary, we need to expand it. Thirty years or more ago, we began a grand experiment. We saw that many mental institutions had simply become like prisons--places for storing members of society we didn't know how to deal with in conditions that verged on the barbaric. So we began trying to eliminate as many asylums as possible, opting instead to try and socialise people, house them in the community, find ways to keep them with families or in local half-way houses. A wave of new pharmaceuticals promised that we could pill people into becoming functioning, effective members of society. And pills, of course, were a much cheaper solution than personal care--the personal care that was so expensive in institutions that it quickly devolved into simple warding, or even mistreatment and neglect, leading to the awful conditions that we reacted against.

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the simple solution of just giving people the right pills has not worked. For some, the abolition of institutions has been a godsend, bringing them back to smaller, more friendly programs that can help them participate, at least a little, in their own care and make them feel like real people, not zombies. But for others it tore away the only safe place they had, throwing them into a world that they weren't equipped to deal with in the midst, as it turned out, of a recession that saw local, state, and national governments cut back on the aid they had promised would be there. And the wonder drugs? Worked for some people, some times, but not for everyone, and not always consistently. Many psychoactive pharmaceuticals are developed and sold without knowing exactly how they work, just that they do work...for most people, most of the time. And the more dispersed and divided our society becomes (and from the point of view of someone who's lived in it for nearly 50 years, it's doing so more and more every day), more and more people aren't even being identified as needing mental health treatment until it's too late. There's no point in any sort of gun-based solution whose cornerstone is keeping firearms away from mentally ill people if we don't even know who is mentally ill.

That's a dozen paragraphs or more on the simplest and smallest of the issues involved in gun violence. We haven't even gotten to the tough problems, like drugs and poverty. Which brings up my main point:

There are no simple solutions. If someone tells you that "all we have to do is..." begin distrusting them immediately and question all their premises. We have serious problems in our country. They cannot be solved by ten-word answers. We have to find solutions that work, though, and we cannot do that by reverting to black and white, red and blue. We have to come together. We have to look into the grey.. We must solve these problems together, by making concessions. And we have to accept that, at the end of the day, when we have given more than we wished to and done all that we feel we can, someone will still find a way to kill a dozen innocent people.

We cannot stop every tragedy from happening. But we have to try our best to prevent as many of them as we can, and to reduce their impact as much as possible. We owe that our nation today and to the nation we hope we will become.

ye gods...

Dec. 3rd, 2012 11:39 am
winterbadger: (duck!)

Here's just one interesting historical nugget from the testimony of Binder, the aforementioned political scientist: The filibuster was an accident.

It resulted from dubious advice Vice President Aaron Burr gave senators in 1805. He wrongly singled out as redundant a Senate rule that would have made filibusters impossible. The next year, senators jettisoned the rule. Still, it took decades before lawmakers realized there was little to stop them from using lengthy debates to stall the Senate.

Whether Burr changed American history more by killing Alexander Hamilton in a duel or unwittingly laying the groundwork for the Senate filibuster is an open question.

from this article on possible changes to Senate rules

winterbadger: (badgerwarning)
Washington Post facts-checks Senator John McCain's Libya-related hysteria.

Sen. McCain, please STFU before you embarrass yourself, your constituents, and your party even further.
winterbadger: (badgerwarning)
A good (IMO) commentary on one of the tenets of Republican strategy for the past 30 years, which I think comes closest to actual treason: demonize government for political purposes. The author looks at the historical roots of the divide between federalists and anti-federalists. The only thing that the article lacks, I think, is a bit more effort at the end to make clear the difference between the AFs and post-Reagan GOPers: the former truly believed that smaller government, exerted at the lowest possible level, was best. While woefully misguided, it was at least honest. The current crop clearly don't believe what they preach, as they expand government whenever they are in control (in the same way that they don't believe in balancing budgets, just defunding the programs that benefit those who don't support them while creating record deficits through spending and tax cuts for their allies).
winterbadger: (obama)
I'm as happy as anyone, I think, that the president got elected for another term. But I worry about the expectations I see being voiced in the press and repeated by a lot of my liberal friends.

Not just expectations of the president, but expectations for the entire country. Expectations (or assumptions) like those voiced in this piece by Maureen Dowd.

Take a deep breath everyone. Step back and look at the picture again. Really look.

The president didn't win in a landslide. He has no overwhelming mandate. Yes, his Electoral College total is more than half again as large as his opponents, but the Electoral College, as we all know (I hope) exaggerates for effect. President Obama beat Governor Romney by only 3% of the vote. If two million people had voted the other way, Romney would be sworn in in January. Two million sounds like a lot, but over 120 million people voted. In 2008, Obama won by nearly TEN million votes. If the GOP had run a candidate who did not have Romney's vulnerabilities (a tone-deaf plutocrat, with a terminal inability to stick to any political principle, with an anti-immigration platform and hailing from an offshoot sect), I am not sure that we would have been able to defeat them.

This is a victory that wouldn't have been possible without a strong turnout of female and minority voters, but I don't think that the Democratic Party has the lock on those groups that it thinks it does, not nearly the lock that the GOP has on white male voters.

I am tremendously happy about many of the results of this election: another term for one of the better presidents we've had in my lifetime, more women in Congress, more states recognizing the right of gay couples to marry. But the Democrats didn't win the House. The Senate is still split 53-47. This isn't a sea change. It isn't the end of an era. This isn't a crashing victory for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, it's a "the skin of the teeth" win for a candidate who only had to convince the voters that the person who steered America out of its worst economic crisis since the Great Depression should keep on steering.

And he almost lost. Against a man so out of touch with ordinary people that he boasted of the number of cars and homes he owned and repeatedly said that the auto companies, icons of American industry, should have been allowed to go bust.

If the next few years see a sharp left turn in policy, the next election will see a Republican Senate majority leader, and the election after that will see the GOP back in the White House.

Thankfully, I think the president is a little less irrationally exuberant than some of his supporters.
winterbadger: (t v)
I've always loved Connie Britton, and FNL was an excellent show. They both deserve better than to be used as a punchline by a empty suit like Romney. Good for Britton and Aubrey for taking their own work back.
winterbadger: (british brigade)
MORE HORSES!
Click for horses! )

MORE BAYONETS!
Charge your, BAYONETS! )
That is all.

boo!

Oct. 3rd, 2012 06:29 pm
winterbadger: (USA)
I just discovered that I've been redistricted. My street used to be part of Maryland's 4th Congressional District, which is represented in Congress by Donna Edwards. Now, it would appear, it's going to be part of the 8th, which is represented by Chris Van Hollen.

Now I don't have anything against Rep. Van Hollen. He was born in Pakistan, which is kind of cool, and comes from a Foreign Service family. He's only four years older than I am. He's served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as a staffer. He has a good record on policies that are important to me, like clean energy, gun safety, the environment, campaign finance reform, and (sensible) animal rights. He's stood up to the Israel lobby.

But I liked being represented by Donna Edwards. :-(

Profile

winterbadger: (Default)
winterbadger

March 2024

S M T W T F S
     12
34567 89
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Apr. 5th, 2026 05:04 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios