Right now there is a war going on in the opinion sections and comment boards of every major and not-so-major paper in the country. The two positions are the IRS, Benghazi and AP snooping scandals are bad and will damage both Obama and Hillary Clinton, politically, while the other side says this all much ado about nothing. But the complete disconnect on the comment boards is just astounding. I am reminded of a story that Barry Farber, one of my favorite radio hosts told. He was on a tour of Moscow during the height of the cold war. Their official state Russian tour guide was showing them a new modern train station. He was going on and on about all the features and amenities the trains would have. Then Barry Farber raised his hand and asked, "Where are the trains?" The guide was visibly irritated but ignored the question and continued on with his canned presentation. So Farber asked again, "Where are the trains?" Now getting red in the face and sputtering the guide finally spewed, "Well what about blacks in the souithern United States!!?"
That's a little bit of how those "debates" are going.
Thursday, May 16, 2013
Monday, May 13, 2013
All The News That's Fit To Print
During the past week, I've been reading some articles and columns out of The New York Times. I used to read all the Times columnists back when they still had Bill Safire on staff as a token conservative. But then they switched to Times Select, which was a failed attempt at a pemium on line subscription. And then they replaced Safire with faux conservative David Brooks, who I consider a cancer on the conservative movement. So reading Dowd and Rich et al, was interesting. Actually it was the comments that I found so interesting. that's because the columns and articles that I am reading there are about either Benghazi or thew targeted IRS audits of Tea Party type organizations. See, the Dems are dead wrong on both issues, and have been caught red handed.So what's interesting is both the take of the columnist, making sure he or she doesn't appear to be glossing over wrong doing by Democrats, while also insuring that no lasting damage ( defined as a shelf life that extends into 2016 ) befalls one Hillary Clinton.
So far the pattern seems the one where the columnist takes on the wrong doing in a way that either minimizes the bad aspect, or declares that it is nothing more than Republicans conducing a witch hunt. So for instance Maureen Dowd chooses to write about Benghazi, but she write strictly about the aspect of not sending a rescue team and being unprepared for a terrorist attack that should have been anticipated. This is a little like writing about the burglary aspect of Watergate. The fact is, Richard Nixon didn't plan or even know about the attempt to place a listening device in Democrat headquarters. Had he not jumped in knee deep to try and save the burglars he would probably not have ended up resigning from office. Everybody knows it was the cover up that did him in. And the story on Benghazi is all about the cover-up. Or rather, the disinformation campaign Obama and Clinton ran. It's somewhat ironic that Frank Rich declared that Benghazi was no Watergate. He was taking the tack that this is much ado about nothing. But nobody died at Watergate.
But the real treat has been in the comments section, coming from the true believers amongst readers of the NYT. There are two and only two, types of comments on these columns. The first type is from your little brother, it's called "He started it!" This guy will post facts that "counter" the wrong doing with a Republican deed of equal or worse skulduggery. They will not, under any circumstances, even address the mealy mouthed criticism the writer directs at a Democrat. The other path is to faintly criticize the logistics but not even mention the cover up. So they will criticize Obama for not beefing up security, but then unload on Republicans blaming them and the sequester cuts for the lack of security. There is a complete lack of ability to see Democrats in any kind of negative way.
Then Obama put the cherry on it when, after sonewalling on the matter for eight months, refusing to answer any questions about it because they were busy "gathering facts" so that they would know "exactly" what went on, he complained that Republicans were dredging up Benghaazi "again," as if it was a settled issue.
So far the pattern seems the one where the columnist takes on the wrong doing in a way that either minimizes the bad aspect, or declares that it is nothing more than Republicans conducing a witch hunt. So for instance Maureen Dowd chooses to write about Benghazi, but she write strictly about the aspect of not sending a rescue team and being unprepared for a terrorist attack that should have been anticipated. This is a little like writing about the burglary aspect of Watergate. The fact is, Richard Nixon didn't plan or even know about the attempt to place a listening device in Democrat headquarters. Had he not jumped in knee deep to try and save the burglars he would probably not have ended up resigning from office. Everybody knows it was the cover up that did him in. And the story on Benghazi is all about the cover-up. Or rather, the disinformation campaign Obama and Clinton ran. It's somewhat ironic that Frank Rich declared that Benghazi was no Watergate. He was taking the tack that this is much ado about nothing. But nobody died at Watergate.
But the real treat has been in the comments section, coming from the true believers amongst readers of the NYT. There are two and only two, types of comments on these columns. The first type is from your little brother, it's called "He started it!" This guy will post facts that "counter" the wrong doing with a Republican deed of equal or worse skulduggery. They will not, under any circumstances, even address the mealy mouthed criticism the writer directs at a Democrat. The other path is to faintly criticize the logistics but not even mention the cover up. So they will criticize Obama for not beefing up security, but then unload on Republicans blaming them and the sequester cuts for the lack of security. There is a complete lack of ability to see Democrats in any kind of negative way.
Then Obama put the cherry on it when, after sonewalling on the matter for eight months, refusing to answer any questions about it because they were busy "gathering facts" so that they would know "exactly" what went on, he complained that Republicans were dredging up Benghaazi "again," as if it was a settled issue.
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Not that There's Anything Wrong With It
On Monday of this week, NBA center Jason Collins came out as gay and became the first openly gay player in a major professional sport. And instantly, the conservative community recoiled in horror and lamented about where we are as a society. Lots of Bible waving and talk about morality's role in society. More than few people feel the need to declare that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, only. They are absolutely brimming with confidence that they are on solid ground when it comes to who is right about this matter. That should be your first indication that they are in fact dead wrong. And I believe that this issue, and not immigration, is the thing that will help or hurt Republicans the most in the near future. Being opposed to gay marriage and open homosexuality, is a losing position that will only get worse as more and more people "evolve" on the issue, as our President has. Of course, I don't really believe he "evolved" as much as he simply saw a political opportunity. But regardless, he beat us to the issue and is on the right side. Now, the GOP is locked into opposing him and consequently his stance on gay marriage. God, I wish they wouldn't. Where are the Liberterians when you need them?
The real problem as I see it is that marriage was a cultural invention that provided a framework for the orderly function of our society. And that's perfectly fine. In fact it served that purpose very well and got along with politics just fine, right up untill we put it in the tax code. We should have never done that. Now we have two aspects of marriage, the cultural and the economic/political.
When they designated married people to get special treatment on taxes, it was seen as promoting a good thing. But they failed to recognize that they were picking winners and losers based on something that people had no control over. Now, there are those who don't believe that. They contend that it's a lifestyle choice. And I think that's one of the key points where I diverge, and leave the conservatives. I don't think it's a choice any more than having blue eyes is a choice. As a gay man I know once asked me, "Who would choose this? Considering what one has to deal with being gay, why would you choose to be so? So that I could be harrassed, assaulted and reviled by people who don't even know me?"
With very few exceptions, most gays I've heard from, will tell you they knew they were gay from childhood, and that choice had nothing to do with it. It was a bit ironic though when TV star Cynthia Nixon declared that she did chose to be gay. All the other gays denounced her. I think it's probably like Masters & Johnson theorized, that everybody is on something of a sliding scale between being 1% gay and 99% straight, and being 1% straight and 99% gay. If you were in that 50-50 range it would probably seem like a choice.
But this is not about my theories on sexuality. It's about real people.Take a look at how people's attitudes change when a friend, or better, a relative, comes out to them. Dick Cheney now supports gay marriage. Of course his daughtetr is a lesbian. But I notice how people like Rush Limbaugh won't go after him about it, nor will they voice support for him. They just kind of ignore it while criticizing Democrats for "pushing the gay agenda," whatever that is.
But guys like Rush have this thing about homosexuality being, well, wrong. And I really get irritated when Rush, who I don't believe to be religious at all, will simply state that it's a sin, or that it is specifically condemned in the Bible. It never fails that some clown will remind us that "The Bible says it's an abomination!" Yes, and the Bible also says that you can buy your slaves from neighboring countries only, and that if a master kills a slave by striking him with a rod, the slave shall be avenged. That is unless the slave lingers for a day or two before he dies, in which case, vengence is off the table. So am I dissing the Bible now? Well let me just say that while I believe the word of God is in there, I'm not so sure every word in there came directly from him. I think that translations and compilations that took place thousands of years ago were not neccessarily under the complete control of a divine being. Otherwise, I'm going to have problems with a lot of things that are in there.
The real problem as I see it is that marriage was a cultural invention that provided a framework for the orderly function of our society. And that's perfectly fine. In fact it served that purpose very well and got along with politics just fine, right up untill we put it in the tax code. We should have never done that. Now we have two aspects of marriage, the cultural and the economic/political.
When they designated married people to get special treatment on taxes, it was seen as promoting a good thing. But they failed to recognize that they were picking winners and losers based on something that people had no control over. Now, there are those who don't believe that. They contend that it's a lifestyle choice. And I think that's one of the key points where I diverge, and leave the conservatives. I don't think it's a choice any more than having blue eyes is a choice. As a gay man I know once asked me, "Who would choose this? Considering what one has to deal with being gay, why would you choose to be so? So that I could be harrassed, assaulted and reviled by people who don't even know me?"
With very few exceptions, most gays I've heard from, will tell you they knew they were gay from childhood, and that choice had nothing to do with it. It was a bit ironic though when TV star Cynthia Nixon declared that she did chose to be gay. All the other gays denounced her. I think it's probably like Masters & Johnson theorized, that everybody is on something of a sliding scale between being 1% gay and 99% straight, and being 1% straight and 99% gay. If you were in that 50-50 range it would probably seem like a choice.
But this is not about my theories on sexuality. It's about real people.Take a look at how people's attitudes change when a friend, or better, a relative, comes out to them. Dick Cheney now supports gay marriage. Of course his daughtetr is a lesbian. But I notice how people like Rush Limbaugh won't go after him about it, nor will they voice support for him. They just kind of ignore it while criticizing Democrats for "pushing the gay agenda," whatever that is.
But guys like Rush have this thing about homosexuality being, well, wrong. And I really get irritated when Rush, who I don't believe to be religious at all, will simply state that it's a sin, or that it is specifically condemned in the Bible. It never fails that some clown will remind us that "The Bible says it's an abomination!" Yes, and the Bible also says that you can buy your slaves from neighboring countries only, and that if a master kills a slave by striking him with a rod, the slave shall be avenged. That is unless the slave lingers for a day or two before he dies, in which case, vengence is off the table. So am I dissing the Bible now? Well let me just say that while I believe the word of God is in there, I'm not so sure every word in there came directly from him. I think that translations and compilations that took place thousands of years ago were not neccessarily under the complete control of a divine being. Otherwise, I'm going to have problems with a lot of things that are in there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)