This is sekaijin's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following sekaijin's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
sekaijin
Recent Activity
Come on Marty, even you know much better than this. You're reaching for an apples-and-oranges comparison that doesn't cut mustard, let alone fruit. Grand Canyon warning signs apply to all, whereas recission only applies to some; and falling off the cliff doesn't kill the poor bastard who runs Humana any less than the guy who just lost his insurance because said Humana bastard decided it was a cost-effective move to do so. Cliffs don't discriminate. The problem is, insurance companies do. But I wholeheartedly agree that labeling the GOP as wholly homophobic and racist is a considerable stretch; the thing is, they haven't done much to dispel the notion, especially when the extremist base they kowtow to demands homophobia and racism. They have the same relational position to their beliefs that the insurance industry has to their profits: they don't give a toss whether it offends/screws over a whole lot of other people, so long as it maintains the position it wants. The thing also is, in the case of the GOP, I do care about charges of racism and homophobia, because they don't realize that these are going to be colossal millstones around their necks the more their extremist base demamds them, and it's only going to get worse for them. And since this base is comfortable with deliberate misinformation and know-nothing exhortations, well, I can't lose sleep over whether the GOP is being labelled "unfairly" or "extremely" since they pander to a kind of politics that has people sleeping like babies over unfairness and extremism. But since at present, we don't expect the right to care all that much that their primitive and mean-spirited politics alienates a big chunk of the country, anyone who isn't on the right has to do so. And if such politics informs their stance on health care reform, well, that gives me just all the more to care about, because they don't.
Toggle Commented Sep 28, 2009 on Mothers For Kyl at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
People might change over time, and some might not. John's assertion on the importance of people changing over time, and the relevance of whether or not one's positions in the current day tend to mirror what one wrote back in the day, though, contradicts itself a bit; when what have been reported as some pretty extremist views back then seem consistent with one's voting record now, then one cannot just disregard what was written at one time; it is relevant, because it was at least in part a blueprint for the legislative imprint he's wanted to leave in the present. When you consider that this thesis was submitted in 1989 at a fairly Christian conservative school, he was on pretty ideologically safe ground at a time when the cultural and political climate was right for it; the right were basking in the Reagan legacy and the first chips in the Wall, so it must have been pretty natural to have expected a comprehensive conservative agenda within the scope of his thesis. What is missing then, from the alarm over him is the fact that he was only one of many who held such beliefs. I came of age in the 80s, and the number of people whom I knew who were absolutely convinced that Reagan was the greatest president in living memory and that America was a divinely-inspired, Christian country spawned immacuately between God and the Founding Fathers was pretty widespread. It never surprised me that the road to stilted roles for women, the "corroding" effects of government, and a yearning for institutionalized homophobia were pretty straight and short, with a lot of people going down that road eagerly. McDonnell was just one of many, so being upset over what was his fairly predictable thesis now seems fairly predictable to me, and it seems Deeds is reaching for something fairly predictable to attack him with this now.
Toggle Commented Sep 28, 2009 on The Benefits of McDonnell's Thesis at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I can only conclude that "the growing libertarian trend" that's supposedly been polled assumes that anyone who is pro-market/anti-government is a libertarian, and that libertarianism is a catch-all for a smorgasbord of contradictory ideas and principles that somehow is held together by people who like this idea and that, and dislike this other idea and that, and can hold it all together in one mind at the same time. It's odd that libertarianism is silent on all this, because if there were ever a moment for something from outside either the Democrats or Republicans to take its place at the trough, and that wouldn't be fromt he liberal end, I would think it'd be the Libs given their longevity. But intolerance and bigotry as a government-sponsored antagonism? For this Missouri Libertarian party person to say as such...it's no wonder ideological libertarianism has no standing - not for people not coming to grasp its core ideals and beliefs, but because it fails to correct what people perceive to be its contradictions. It's no wonder that a whole host of people who otherwise had core values that the Libs have espoused over the decades, from Ayn Rand to Frank Zappa, rejected the party when they came calling. I'm not a libertarian, but I think, in all fairness, that they need to aim for better than this if they want credibility, and I'd be willing to at least give them a hearing if they were to do so. But I can only assume that they don't, and until they do so, they're going to sound like Republicans who are even more screwy and soured than Republicans themselves.
Toggle Commented Sep 27, 2009 on Did Palin Make Posner A Keynesian? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Fantastic!! I have often felt the same way about my wife. Absolutely the smartest move I ever made was in marrying her. The both of you - stay gold!!
Toggle Commented Sep 26, 2009 on My Wandering Days Are Over... at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
It should come as no surprise that the intellectual bankruptcy of the Republican Party is so painfully obvious as to not be subsumable to any amount of posturing. If anything, the kind of posturing it's indulging now in reinforces this bankruptcy. The odd thing is that not so long ago, the Democrats were the ones being taken to task for not being interested in policy, because they were either too afraid to broach it or too stuck up to care. It was the GOP that took care of business in that regard, giving us the spectacle of tax breaks for people who didn't need them, meaningless contracts with America, and so on. But at least they appeared to pull a few all-nighters, at least on occasion. So if the criticism of Obama is over an interest in policy, well, it might be for two reasons: first, the GOP isn't doing it so it's been left up to him anyway, and second...gosh, I just might be on to something here...but I had the kooky notion that the President of the United States was elected to, well, do stuff like policy. And as I think about it, jeez, it occurred to me that this is what all presidents are supposed to do. That we hired them because they're nice guys we'd want to have a beer with now and then would be nice to imagine as a general requirement for any kind of job I'd like to go for; hell, if I were lowballed like that in every job interview I'd ever had, I would been hired every time out. Why bother with expertise when what should get you hired is how many Budweisers can you go on and still put the tips of two fingers together for the traffic cop? I guess after eight years of non-policy, or dysfunctional policy at best, for Obama to appear to care about it enough to risk looking like he's too preoccupied with it must be pretty novel.
Toggle Commented Sep 25, 2009 on Did Palin Make Posner A Keynesian? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
I'm not well-versed in economics, and my knee-jerk reaction, especially lately, is that economics is a suspect area occupied by academic hacks that never should have been theorized into existence - but since I'm some 300 years or so late in the day on that score, well, my reaction is just that - knee-jerk, which is to say, pointless. The notion of economic movement as based on rational action is an interesting one to me though. Is it entirely possible that Keynes, in what I understand of him in terms of his descriptive sense of economic action (as per some of the comments above), was leaving room for the fact that such action might ideally be rooted in rationalism, but is often done more out of the right to choose? By describing what people "did" in terms of their economic choices, he was taking the view that freedom, rather than rationality, was where the seat of deliberation was in the choices people made in any economic nexus. As Russell pointed out: "There are certainly mathematics involved in economic analysis, but ultimately the thing you're analyzing is social human behavior. Buying, selling, and making decisions about how to use capital are subject to the same range of bizarre motivations and impulses as any other social behavior." Since Keynes' time, though, the expansion of choice, and what it means to act from it, surely outstripped what he imagined would have been possible in a market. Is it just as much that with the freedom made possible from the expansion of choice, irrationality could outstrip rationality? Yet I'm getting the impression that so much of what seems to pass for conventional wisdom in market economic theory, at least in the U.S., doesn't consider that irrationality also follows a curve, and that the freedom to choose could mean just as much the freedom to be as irresponsible as one likes. Again, my knowledge of economics is scant - but I fail to see anything "rational" in the deliberate accumulation of the kind of gratuitous debt we've seen culminate in the credit crunch, or for that matter, anything "rational" about a government deliberately running a deficit year-after-year. It would seem to me that Keynes has been vindicated, though not for what I'm certain he would have preferred to have been.
1 reply
My correction: Australia and NZ are to the southeast of the Indian subcontinent, not the southwest. 21-cream pie salute at the ready for me.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2009 on La Chute at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
The historical references are all good and fine, but in the case of the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878-80) there are all kinds of inconvenient facts that make it particularly compromised and problematic for anyone looking for a success story to cling to. In that conflict, the British had the Indian subcontinent, which at that time stretched more or less from most of the current Pak-Afghan border to the Thai border (as Burma was fully integrated into it), northwards to the Nepalese side of the Himalayas, southward to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) and to the southeast, a separate but strategically integrated colony in Malaya, with Mr. Raffles having built up Singapore for good measure. So the Brits had overland supply lines directly from India, with regiments mustered with locals but fully integrated into the British army plus redoubts in Kashmir and Waziristan (thanks to the fact that that part of the Af-Pak border hadn't been settled), and RN control of the Indian Ocean, with auxiliary supply lines by sea from British East Africa, plus Australia and New Zealand to the southwest for additional support, including volunteer troops eagerly mustered at colonial expense because the Aussies in particular were hedging for full commonwealth status by 1900 (which of course they got, postponed by a year). We have none of these things. We have, at best, the grudging support of the two nations in the Middle East whom we have gone out of our way to play footsy with even though they were the two states most implicated in 9/11 - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, plus a third - Israel - who at least, until last year, had succeeded in getting our foreign policy to resemble theirs, and who have made it clear that they will not answer to the U.S. on anything. We may nominally control the Indian Ocean, but it is at the pleasure of the states in the region, especially India, and Diego Garcia is a supply station, not a seat of a supply line. Japan is seriously debating ending its refueling mission for U.S. ships in the IO because it has never had public support nor serious debate in the Diet, nor even the consent of the LDP inner circle when it was in power; it was Koizumi simply going along with whatever Bush wanted because Japan hasn't truly had its own foreign policy until possibly now; and the days of "all the way with LBJ" are an embarrassing memory for most Australians now because it got them into Vietnam. So looking back to the glories of Alexander, or Tamerlane, or Victoria as exemplars of success in Afghanistan aren't going to cut the mustard, because we aren't being ruled by people like these; we have the reality of a polity back home who want to be governed as a conglomeration of local holdings and semi-independent concerns, but with a seat of government who wants an imperial outreach in the rest of the world. Whoever points to these examples is going to have to do much better than this.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2009 on La Chute at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Well, trust me to come in at the end of a rumpus rather than at the beginning, but blame it on my schedule (and the time diff between Japan and the U.S., though that's not an excuse given LJ's yeoman-like posts). The overheated character of the commentary that Mike laments goes to show what the stakes are in Afghanistan, but I would disagree with him that it's all bluster. There's some considered opinion-making there that is far better than what I can muster in a nutshell. But while I have great respect for LJ in particular, and agree that the Afghan people deserve far better than what they've gotten, I have to lean towards Jes on this one. Her take that policy review (and if you like, re-review) crafted to detail and to death won't overcome the antagonisms that we either fueled or created is spot-on because we lack, in my view, the nuance and insight to navigate our way through the lose-lose scenarios that are inevitable when we try to position ourselves and our interests by using these antagonisms to our tactical positioning and strategic outlook. The only relevant lesson the Afghan people can learn by our doing all this is that these antagonisms can and will be manipulated to our(purported) advantage; our best intentions and bromides to civic stability count for nothing when their conflict is obviously our plaything. Who was it who said that one does not teach by what one says, but what one does? "Plaything" might be a harsh assessment, but when the call for increased troop levels and commitment are so obviously compromised by our domestic ideology, voiced by people whose commitment is to ideology rather than policy, what is it all but a playground? Is it any wonder that Marc Lynch is baffled by all this? McChrystal might indeed be able to tell the difference between regular Afghans and insurgent Afghans, but the troops on the ground there are not likely to be able to do the same when entering any one of a number of villages and towns, and they are not likely to performs such feats of nuance when confronted with a crisis situation that calls for them to act. And the worst part of it all is that it is unrealistic to expect them to do so when so many of them are on their second or third tour of the place.
Toggle Commented Sep 24, 2009 on La Chute at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
What is often missing from the whole conservative-versus-liberal debate is that so much of what is being labeled as conservatism in America is really reactionary in character. The kernel of conservatism, at least in the classical sense most recognizable in a thread from Locke and Hume through Burke and beyond, has been sharred beyond repair in the GOP, and isn't being re-threaded by the right as a whole. This isn't new, either - the Republicans have been a reactionary rather than a truly conservative party in the ideological sense for some time, beginning with Nixon's Southern strategy which first bore fruit with Reagan, ripened with the Contract With America and metastasized with post-9/11 Bush. At every step, the Republicans gave the right everything it wanted, to the point where the right took it all for granted. What I would like to see is this dichotomy being called more for what it really is a polarization of - between conservative and reactionary, because if there were a true liberal party in the U.S., we would not have blundered our way into Afghanistan with a current commander whose complicity in Abu Ghirab is still an open question, nor would we still be handwringing over health care reform, because it would already have been done, and done so better than what it's been. The GOP's greatest contribution to the American political landscape over the last 30-odd years has been to poison the civic sense of most Americans, and to position the Democrats as the true conservative party of America by fiat. So does it surprise me that the far right will scream for war at every turn? Of course not, because it has nothing else to scream for and nothing of value for America. It can only coddle or threaten, and right now it is threatening with everything it can muster, consequences be damned. The GOP has damned itself with this ideological affair with extremism to the point where it cannot extricate itself from its grip, and under Bush compromised its sense of governence to pander to this remit, which is why the damage it has done doesn't give me much sense of optimism about Afghanistan at all.
Toggle Commented Sep 23, 2009 on Afghanistan As Therapy at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
With the passage of time, it's becoming more and more clear that whatever goals and objectives we come up with in Afghanistan are increasingly dependent on stability in Pakistan, a country with what, eight times or so the population of Afghanistan, with nukes...and I don't have to go on so much longer on that... What it's coming down to is not only the rebuilding of a country and an infrastructure that would allow a functioning government to stand on its own, but doing so with the consent of a neighboring country whose own infrastructure is increasingly in question. I don't know of any consortium of countries, let alone us as we are, that can wade into this without losing its sanity. So what is there to do? We can come up with as many plans as we like, and we have no end of analysts, experts, bloggers, PowerPointers, good intentionalists and other assorted desideratum-ers who can comment on, suggest amendments to, advise, harangue, and stab, shoot and spit on this endlessly, but I'm beginning to feel that we're not going to succeed from a fundamental socio-cultural issue we have with ourselves: that is, we're proposing to create the conditions for a stable government and a civil infrastructure, complete with public health care and mass education, to a degree that we don't do within our own country and that we have a long history of not doing, complete with an auxiliary history of all kinds of excuses and justifications for not doing, with the weight of Congress and the Supreme Court in there to legislate and rule on away as the cherry on top of the icing. So if any of the humanitarian ends to our efforts in Afghanistan can avoid the political machinations that threaten to chew it up, I would suggest, as outrageous as it sounds, to start secretly identifying all who aren't caught up in the fight and airlift them out to refugee status in various countries. Given the costs on all fronts for what we're proposing to do now, I don't frankly see that the costs of such a suggestion would be marginally more than what we're tasking ourselves to do, and for all we know, might be much less. It's a sinkhole that might just be best left to fanatics, warlords, and other disparate actors. Let them sort out for themselves what governance must be, and let them deal with it. If they get swallowed by Pakistan...well, god, I don't know what to add to that... We might see ourselves to be the only ones who could remotely bring to bear what Afghanistan needs to be a functioning nation, but right now we're failing to do many of the same kind of things within our own country that the draft of the objectives either call for, or at least imply. I'm not an isolationist, because I still believe that Afghanistan deserves a fighting chance. The problem is that we're not the ones who can do it no matter how much it looks like we are. In short, we're not fit to do it, because I fear that we'll end up betraying these objectives, if not now then later, and anyone in Afghanistan who isn't in the Taliban, or al-Qaeda, or Karzai's government, or is one of his disparate flunkeys, deserves better.
Toggle Commented Sep 17, 2009 on Well, One Out of Three Ain't Bad at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
There's a long history of local politics being writ large on a national level in the U.S., where bad instincts were permitted to be legislated under cover of law and policy (segregation is the star example here) and Constitutional levers were used to justify such legislation, as though local politics were good enough for a larger polity and that democracy was all about catering to such bad instincts. Unfortunately, the bitterness of such politics is hard to wash away when certain types of people were at the receiving end of it, still feel at least the backwash of it, and on occasion a tidal wave (like right now). So, while space permits, I'll try as best I can for as nuanced a stance as possible: I agree that Brett has probably, as the Australian side of my family would say (my dad was American and my mum was Australian, yes), copped more than his fair share of stick with residual sands of unjustified blame and accusation for carrying a racist heritage simply by virtue of being white. Like Liberal Japonicus, I too feel that it is ridiculous to impute a sense of a racist heritage entirely 'in the skin', and on that tack, I can understand why Brett feels put upon. What Rush has done is an outrage because here is a man who has never felt, even once, the weight of having to live under laws crafted from someone else's bad instincts about race, ethnicity or heritage, yet claims the same sense of hurt from such a weight, and what is worse - is manufacturing it for a vendetta against a political opposition that, on top of all of that, he personifies in one man. In other words, the sting of prejudice is just another match to play with, a flame that with a flick of the hand you can wave off when the fire goes too low on the wick right next to your thumb. It's one thing to have a backwash with race in it come lapping up to your shore around your feet, as unpleasant as it is. It's another to have to live with the weight having been, if not directly on you, on people you knew, people in your family, and not all that long ago, and with the distinct sense that there are still those out there who would turn the clock back if they could. The history of the U.S. is steeped in this, and it's naive to think that just because some people have moved on from it, the rest will follow. This is the price of a history of racism - it makes everybody pay. It's just that it invariably makes some pay more than others. The thing to ask yourself is how much have you really had to pay, and has the law ever placed the weight of that debt on your shoulders?
1 reply
It's so hard to see what the best options are in a mess of worse, and more worse, options, all of which collapse into one colossally-disasterous scenario. We have a long history of making promises we either cannot or do not keep, and while on one hand my feeling is that Afghanistan deserves a chance to succeed, the prospects are pretty dim. We have a country that at best has a tenuous government that functions at most by cutting deals to permit it to function with actors who have no loyalty to it and have little to no interest in seeing a strong central government that lasts. This is where containment, under the terms we often think of it, really has its limitations: Pakistan has a far greater stake in the stability of the country but itself is divided between one half of its government keeping the Taliban at bay within its own borders while the other half is aiding and abetting it, while India is riding this out (I disagree with Omega Centauri on this point - India is not freeloading - they're playing this out smartly because they know we're going to do the heavy lifting - quite adroit of them tactically to do so, methinks). My take? For what it's worth, which isn't much - we'll hang on in there to say we're committed, and while casualties mount and the stakes rise (along with the costs), we'll eventually pull out after much hand-wringing, saying well, we ur...tried and all. So we'll stay the course because there's no better option, and since we don't want to be seen as just bugging out right away, we'll just postpone it to the point where we can't stand it anymore. In other words - I don't know that any goal we come up with will work, so we'll hem and haw our way out and let it fail, convinced that well, we ur...tried and all...
Toggle Commented Sep 16, 2009 on Premature Evacuation? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Okay, I'll eat my slice of humble pie while readying my own cream pie to throw in my own face - I meant "(b)ut what sort of empty-headed freedom is that?" Talk about incoherence...
1 reply
Well, what exactly is the nature of their complaint, Brent? Their protest is entirely confounded and confused by some nefarious, hydra-headed boogyman - first, it's a black man in the White House, then it's the loss of some putative sense of privilege, then it's health care reform, then after that it's illegal immigrants...in other words, there's no coherence to any of it because it's over everything they don't like and nothing they grasp, all at once. What I suspect is at the heart of the whole government-versus-market jag is the notion that the former is the master with the keys to the cage, while the latter is the thing run wild, living on the run. It reminds me of the Bush years, when democracy was something you had to get through in order to get to freedom. But what sort of empty-headed freedom? The logical end of that would be existentialism, which would also require the exorcising of all institutions, systems, religions, and money, and no-one, conspicuosly the right, can face living this way. I have no doubt that government can be at its worst - viz the election of a couple of weeks ago in Japan, where a monolithic, entitled, self-satisfied and -serving government finally got its just desserts after almost 50 years of uninterrupted power. (A sidebar - I'm not holding my breath for the new guv, but I am breathing)But given the reactionary climate in the States, there are those who don't seem all that troubled by an eternity of a monolithic, entitled, self-satisfied and-serving market. The difference is that one, at some point, is accountable and can be voted out, whereas the other, at any point, has no accountability and gives no franchise. What the protestors feel threatened by is the former, whereas what actually threatens them is the latter. That is what I see at the heart of the protests, and if there's any coherence to it, it's of a kind I sadly lack the insight to grasp.
1 reply
Yet again...get the cream pies ready...I should have credited JimJ and Lurker on my last one. No slights intended, and my apologies.
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2009 on Are Universities Doomed? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
While I am all for access to higher education for those who have the "nous" for it regardless of means, I wonder, as per Hartmut and Wonkie, if it will become another segmented commodity, such as what has happened with the mass media (or perhaps, what you might call the micro-media - the whole proliferation of ideologically-charged blogs and political sites and such). It will give access to more people - but I'm wondering what would be better: the present nexus that really isn't accessible to all because of the question of means but has the effect of an (albeit imperfect) intellectual and social melting-pot, or a future nexus that would be more socially scattered, academically fragmented, but individated to one's interests and curiosity at best (and one's passions and prejudices at worst), one that would ironically be more...democratic. Gulp and hmmm...
Toggle Commented Sep 15, 2009 on Are Universities Doomed? at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Yet one more correction - I meant "dependent on." My apologies.
1 reply
I can understand what you mean, Woody, in terms of the internal logic of the protest itself, and the machinations that work it. But to add more - what the protestors are missing out on is that the ideology they've bought into secretly calibrates them in terms not unlike "shiftless, pregnant, drug-abusing nee-groes, messikans, and immigrants." In other words, the joke's on them and they don't know it. So on that tack, the protests are still incoherent because the people who came to the Mall were there to reinforce an illusory sense of power. But the tenor of the protest was for a sense of justice that their ideology has denied them, while the ideology that could give it to them in at least some measure is one they don't recognize. Perhaps in their own minds, then, what they're protesting is coherent - but only in theirs. While some might think I'm out on a limb, the character of "9/12" strikes me more and more as not entirely unlike the working-class, populist fascism of people like Father Charles Coughlin or Oswald Mosely in the 30s, or the National Front in Britain in the late 70s-early 80s - putative stands for justice entirely depended on perpetual resentment and marginalization of certain kinds of people by those who were marginalized and resented themselves, but not for the reasons they believed. A scary thought indeed.
1 reply
[quote edited - publius. sorry. i want no trace of troll] Now I really feel like a hang-wringing idiot, in a moment of gaiety. Anybody can lob the 21-cream pie salute at me anytime.
Toggle Commented Sep 14, 2009 on Oh Kanye at Obsidian Wings
1 reply
Could do with a touch more salt, too.
1 reply
Norbizness, couldn't agree with you more - and I'm not wringing my hands over it, as much as it seems (and which I wouldn't blame anybody for accusing people like me of), but some things are too outrageous to keep one's mouth shut about.
1 reply
My apologies - that should be "victimhood"
1 reply
It seems fitting that this posting is titled what it is, because if you look at the rhetoric, there's no sense about what these protestors are for. A protest made up entirely of negative polemics does not amount to much of a protest at all. My feeling is that rather than liberate people, the extremist right has simply forced people into alienation and resignation who can't face facts about the forces that are actually arrayed against them. Facing facts is the last thing it wants; it wants them to retreat into pointless fantasies that economic forces have their best interests at heart, when these forces have created the state of affairs that threaten them while the extremists serve themselves from the economic stewpot. My guess is that a vast number of the people at these protests truly, if you cornered them privately, have no clue as to what they feel threatened by, and at least some don't even know what it is they're protesting save for what Glenn Beck tells them to. They're immersed in a situation they don't even know exists but is all around them, while they feel victimized by bugaboos the right feeds and manipulates them with. So as for the sense that we must feel "heartened" by these people willing to come on out to the Mall - sorry Pub, can't be with you on this one. I would feel as such if what they were coming out for was done out of a heartfelt sense of outrage, out of a struggle for justice with their self-respect at stake and a quest to reclaim that self-respect. But all I see is the opposite - a parody of civic duty expressed by a confederacy of dunces whose self-respect has been bought out from them, pathetically manipulated by people who claim to speak for their concerns but secretly piss firehoses on them. I see nothing ennobling in this protest - I only see childishness, ignorance, and cant. The worst part of it all is that as venomous as the rhetoric is and as uglified as many of these people have made themselves look, I can't despise them, as much as I am tempted to. They are real victims who don't know it, in a culture that celebrates victimhoom in people who usually don't deserve it. What went on at the Mall was equal parts farce and tragedy, and I'm not buying this as worthy protest.
1 reply
I have to jump in here too...Brett, if you're looking to take to task any particular body for illegal immigration, cast the fickle finger of blame on the GOP for not collaring large employers for hiring them in the first place. As does not need to be reiterated here, but which I will anyway, the right loves illegal immigration for exactly the reasons Nate posted. Yet it's Obama that's getting hammered for a state of affairs he didn't create, and that, given Liberal Japonicus' legwork in his 09:36 post, is, if not incidental to the health care reforms, marginal at most. So quit blaming this prez for this. The GOP had, in the not too-distance past, Congress and the White House, and did nothing about this because it was in their interest not to - in all fairness, aided and abetted by a supine Dem who was too afraid of its own shadow. But now some on the right want to feign outrage and build a despicable fence along the border to placate the know-nothings. Shame on them. The illegal immigrant-coverage meme is nothing more than another scare tactic now that the death-panels one is losing its 'street-cred.'
Toggle Commented Sep 12, 2009 on The Speech at Obsidian Wings
1 reply