The Daily Hurricane

Goldberg suffers from convenient amnesia

2012-05-16T13:02:25Z

I tried to get through a Jonah Goldberg column this morning. It's a semi-regular exercise in futility I try when his columns appear in the Chronicle. For those that want to try the same game I will give you a leg up here. Since most of you likely don't have the stomach for it, I'll provide the reader's digest version.

The source of frustration began with the whole story that Mitt Romney supposedly hazed a fellow teenager when he was 17. That topic alone I have no problem with. Focusing on that story represents the very worst in politics. All of us have probably had the nightmare where we are running for office and suddenly the press (or our opponent) focuses on the one stupid thing we did when we were kids. If I were running for president I would sign an agreement with my opponents that anything happening before the age of 18 would be off-limits.

However, in making this argument, Goldberg jumps the proverbial shark into making the argument that the press gives liberals a pass. This is a trademark of conservatism. Every time the press gets a conservative in their crosshairs, the double standard argument follows. Of course, if they only remembered the half of it. Let's look at Goldberg's list on Obama and John Kerry and see where we can get.

First, we have the "fact" that the press did not press Obama on his relationship with Jeremiah Wright. Hmmmm, I remember that happening differently. I remember Wright staying in the news for several weeks and Obama had to address it not only with a statement, but also a landmark speech on race in America. Does anyone remember John Hagee? Most of you may not remember that name because the press hardly covered it. Hagee endorsed McCain and made a hefty contribution to his campaign. McCain tacitly endorsed his views if we follow the same rules as Obama sitting in the audience with Jeremiah Wright. The so-called liberal media dropped the ball on that one.

As for John Kerry, Goldberg linked him to a group that talked about assassinating U.S. Senators. The swift boat captains really drove home the fact that Kerry "didn't speak for them." Yet, the so-called liberal media hardly covered the fact that George W. Bush was a former alcoholic, cocaine user, and someone that virtually ducked military duty during the same time frame.

Of course, I shouldn't expect anything less from the "journalist" that knew and supported Andrew Breitbart. As someone that is paid to be a journalist I'm surprised he doesn't understand how the press works. It comes down to profit motive. The narratives we see in the press are not liberal or conservative per se, but commercial. Since gay marriage has become a real issue, it is timely and attractive to come up with a story of Mitt Romney hazing a gay kid. Whether he hazed the kid or not is immaterial. Heck, whether the kid was gay or not is also immaterial. That's the way the game is played.

The same thing happened when Obama was seeking to become the first black president. Suddenly, the ramblings of his crazy minister became news. To their credit, both Romney and Obama handled these stories about as well as they could. Most intelligent voters wouldn't base their vote on the ramblings of a crazy minister or a prank done 50 years ago. The irony is that John McCain had his own crazy minister that wasn't covered in the media and I'm sure Obama did some crazy things when he was 17.

The gist of Goldberg's point was that Romney should call the press on being in the bag for Obama. Yup, that would work right. It wouldn't make him sound paranoid or anything. Is the press Obama's 12th man as Goldberg asserts? The problem Goldberg has is that he himself has a very slanted view. There's nothing wrong with that as we have one here at the Hurricane. The problem comes when you argue that there is a slant in the mainstream media. If everything that comes through you has a particular slant (left or right) then your ability to spot bias from the center is skewed. In parlance, when you are extremely conservative or liberal, everything that appears in the middle can appear to be biased. Then, it becomes easy to focus on the stories that align with that line of thinking. Amnesia takes care of the rest.

The More Things Change, The More They Stay the Same

2012-05-14T11:48:35Z

Following President Obama's announcement that he supports same-sex marriage, the typical response from those who see themselves as defenders of so-called "traditional" marriage, but who are in fact defenders of discrimination, is that same-sex marriage has been put on the ballot in some 30+ states and has been defeated in every one. (Not surprisingly our old friend at the Chronicle has parroted this right-wing talking point. Also not surprisingly, she refuses to post my response.)

Let's take a look at the same issue, marriage discrimination, from another point in our history. Here's a map of states which at one time had laws prohibiting interracial marriage:

As you can see, there are only nine states and the District of Columbia which never has an anti-miscegenation statute.This is why we have a judicial branch, to see to it that the rights of the minority are protected against the tyranny of the majority. It's an essential part of our system of checks and balances.
.

Another defense is that same-sex marriage will lead to the destruction of the institution of marriage itself. Here's a quote from Rep. Sean Roddenberry of Georgia from 1912 when he proposed a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit interracial marriage:

"Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately...will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy."

Sounds familiar, huh?

Last, but by no means least, is what has been the defense put forth by bigots throughout not only American history but world history--'God is on our side.' The Georgia Supreme Court in 1869:

"...moral or social equality between the different races...does not in fact exist, and never can. The God of nature made it otherwise, and no human law can produce it, and no human tribunal can enforce it. There are gradations and classes throughout the universe. From the tallest archangel in Heaven, down to the meanest reptile on earth, moral and social inequalities exist, and must continue to exist throughout all eternity."

From 1965, the Virginia judge who upheld that state's anti-miscegenation law in the Loving case:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay, and red, and placed them on separate continents, and but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend the races to mix."

The fate of laws prohibiting same-sex marriage, such as the one passed in North Carolina last week, will inevitably meet the same fate as the laws against interracial marriage. The Loving decision by the Supreme Court striking down anti-miscegenation laws was in 1967, 45 years ago. Although I most likely won't be around 45 years from now, I suspect Americans at that time will look back at the current uproar over same-sex marriage and ask the same question we ask when we look back at the uproar over allowing interracial marriage 45 years ago. 'What was the big deal?'

Juanita Jean Giving Lessons On How It's Done. (Politics, That Is)

2012-05-09T05:03:15Z

Good friend and fellow founder of the OFBS (Old Farts Bloggers Society), Juanita Jean, has squared off with a lightweight politico who wants to be a judge, or something like that, in the local primary. For those of us who know JJ well, we've all witnessed that it's triple DDD STUPIDDD to do that, especially when you've said, emailed, printed, or broadcast anything that's false; multiply that by eleventy seven if you're trying to get elected to an office. Judicial candidate Elaine Palmer is learning (the hard way) that it's not smart to advertise endorsements that you don't have or, even worse, attack JJ's character. It's not smart, but it is pretty damned entertaining.

Head on over and feel free to chime in. The entertainment value is huge.

Oh, and tell her I said Hi!.

Petroleum Safety Authority Flags Transocean Citing "Serious Breaches" | gCaptain - Maritime & Offshore

2012-05-06T13:32:37Z

http://gcaptain.com/petroleum-safety-authority-flags/?45641

The Price of a Cell Phone Battery

2012-05-05T04:28:37Z

My soldier had confirmation last week that he would indeed be deploying to Afghanistan next year. Bear in mind that we are supposedly going through a 'drawdown' in Afghanistan through 2014. But then again, we've now signed an agreement with Afghanistan to help them 'police' things for ten years (at least) after that.

When will we figure it out?

Did you know that one of the largest deposits of lithium in the world is supposedly in Afghanistan? From Wiki:

In June 2010, the New York Times reported that American geologists were conducting ground surveys on dry salt lakes in western Afghanistan believing that large deposits of lithium are located there. "Pentagon officials said that their initial analysis at one location in Ghazni Province showed the potential for lithium deposits as large of those of Bolivia, which now has the world's largest known lithium reserves." These estimates are "based principally on old data, which was gathered mainly by the Soviets during their occupation of Afghanistan from 1979-1989" and "Stephen Peters, the head of the USGS's Afghanistan Minerals Project, said that he was unaware of USGS involvement in any new surveying for minerals in Afghanistan in the past two years. 'We are not aware of any discoveries of lithium,' he said." Nice attempt at a cover, but I'm not buying it any more.

Why would we confirm this as the truth? It would present -- dare I say it -- economic justification for being in Afghanistan, because nothing else makes sense. The Afghans honestly could give a rat's ass about our spreading 'democracy' through their geography. They appreciate money, or at least their politicians do because it's highly unlikely that the regular folks there will ever see a dime from whatever large corporation moves in under cover and security of the US military to mine the stuff that powers every electronic device we are becoming dependent upon in the US, but the Afghan politicians will become rich because one thing we are exceptionally good at as a nation is spreading conspicuous consumption and love of money.

Lithium ion batteries. Is that a justification for risking the lives of our children and loved ones?

Here's something else to warm your heart so you can sleep at night:

"The US department of defence estimated earlier this year that Afghanistan's mineral resources could top $1 trillion, but experts say the fragile security situation could delay seeing the benefits of this wealth for years. The untapped mineral resources include iron ore, copper, lithium, oil, gas and gems, which Afghanistan hopes to develop in the near future despite rising insecurity in recent years - the bloodiest period since US-led troops ousted the Taliban in 2001." link here

I'm having a really hard time feeling all warm and fuzzy about any of this these days. Excuse me if I don't swallow the pablum we're being spoon fed by any group, manipulated and polarized news media, organized body politic, etc.

If it were their children's lives on the line, would the game be the same? What is the cost of a human life compared to a cell phone battery?

To replace the battery in my phone right now would cost about $20 through Amazon.

Is that really all my son's life is worth?

What will happen to the Republicans?

2012-05-01T21:35:24Z

My mother in law proved a point that I had learned back in my political science days. Back in 2004, she said the Democratic party was dead. I'm not quite sure what led her to that conclusion. John Kerry wasn't exactly an exciting candidate and he still narrowly lost the election to George W. Bush. Congress was in the hands of the Republicans, but things had been worse. I suppose it was wishful thinking.

My in laws tend to be on the libertarian side of things. They weren't fans of George W. Bush and they aren't tea party people. They come from a wing of conservatism I respect. They tend to be live and let live type of people in terms of social policy. They believe we are overtaxed and that government is not equipped to solve our problems. Fine. I don't necessarily agree, but it is a legitimate viewpoint.

Funny, but the midterm elections in 2006 turned that death prediction on its ear. So, as I write this I am quite aware of the irony. There will always be a divide between ideology and party. Some liberals are angry with President Obama because he has not been as liberal as many thought he would be. George W. Bush had the same issues in office. Conservatives found him to be too centrist while those on the left thought he was too extremist.

We are all big boys and girls, so we understand the differences between ideology and real life. So, when I question the long-term viability of the Republican party it is not the same thing as questioning the long-term viability of conservatism. All political parties must reconcile the various wings of its tent. Republicans are loosely held together by a hatred of all things taxation. From there we have a sharp divide. There are your supply-siders that think low taxes stimulate the economy. They believe in large defense budgets and cuts in the safety net. Then, you have your minimalists like Ron Paul. Give them credit, at least they are consistent across the board. Then, you have your social conservatives. They want to return the world to 1952 when everyone knew their place and we didn't have Trojan commercials on television.

This happens from time to time. You have too many groups underneath the tent and the tent walls begin to fray. The solution is usually to purge some of the groups from your tent. It's not that you want them voting for the other side, but you cannot actively pander to them anymore. The Democrats have had to do it from time to time. The Republicans are purging, but the groups they are purging are alarming. Essentially, they are ridding themselves of the rank and file members that were their bread and butter. In their wake, they are creating a membership test that rivals those of great secret societies. It might be nice to have strict rules if you are the Knights of Columbus or the local lodge, but when you are one of the two national parties it spells doom.

In the short term, this is good news for Democrats. President Obama would normally be very vulnerable with a sluggish economy. Yet, the opposition party seems to be imploding before our very eyes. So, barring something unforeseen, it looks like Obama should get four more years and the Democrats should gain seats in both chambers. Yet, the long-term ramifications are yet to be determined.

Will the Republican party fold altogether and become something new? Will they finally wake up and expel the extremists that seem to running the ship into the cliff? Will they simply ride out this wave and hold on for dear life? Whatever the future, the most interesting part of this equation is the distant past. The Republicans came into being because they took a strong stand on an issue that neither establishment party was willing to address or share. That issue happened to be the most important issue of its day.

Slavery was front and center on everyone's minds back in 1860. What current issue rivals that today and what stand could today's conservatives take to reestablish themselves? 2012 is a unique time in American politics. A majority of voting Americans are center to right. Yet, the Republican party in its current state seems unable to take advantage of that. When a party is so dysfunctional it creates across the spectrum. Do Democrats tack to the right to claim those disenfranchised or do they stay the course and govern as if everything were normal? Of course, they also have to keep their eye out for populist movements because that movement could become the new Republican party.

Washington Post | Let's just say it: The Republicans are the problem.

2012-04-29T12:51:35Z

Updated for WP link:

Thomas E. Mann is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Norman J. Ornstein is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. This essay is adapted from their book "It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism," which will be available Tuesday.

How to Spend a Friday Night, or a Weekend Morning

2012-04-28T17:01:32Z

Sometimes, the politics are just too much.

I know who to hang with from the 13-y-o crowd!:

Just for fun:

And then there was another one:

Peace out, and have a great weekend!

A Noun, a Verb, and POW

2012-04-28T11:52:16Z

President Obama's re-election campaign released this ad highlighting Obama's decision to get Osama bin Laden:

John McCain blew a gasket:

"Shame on Barack Obama for diminishing the memory of September 11th and the killing of Osama bin Laden by turning it into a cheap political attack ad...This is the same President who said, after bin Laden was dead, that we shouldn't 'spike the ball' after the touchdown. And now Barack Obama is not only trying to score political points by invoking Osama bin Laden, he is doing a shameless end-zone dance to help himself get reelected.

"No one disputes that the President deserves credit for ordering the raid, but to politicize it in this way is the height of hypocrisy...[I]t is no wonder why President Obama is shamelessly turning the one decision he got right into a pathetic political act of self-congratulation."

Of course Senator McCain would never do such a thing. Something like...oh, let's say shamelessly and repeatedly exploit his time spent as a POW in Vietnam to try and gain political advantage. Never:

Never.

Damn that Google machine.

Populism vs. Establishment

2012-04-26T17:54:46Z

There's an old expression that talks about finding out how the sausage is made. The general idea is that people are usually fine with the outcome, but when they take a look at the process that goes into creating the outcome, they suddenly lose their appetite. Sausage seems to be number one on that lists of products that people don't want to watch being made. Government might soon replace sausage on that lists.

A political history of the United States would demonstrate a rise and fall of what we would call populism. Populism takes on many forms. On the left you would have something we would call progressive-ism. Progressive-ism is different than liberalism. The difference clearly is how it stands outside of the establishment. Theodore Roosevelt was the embodiment of that movement. We saw more consumer protections and saw more economic protections in that era than any other in history.

Modern progressive-ism is the continuation of that philosophy. Naturally, that movement is going to gain steam as we see the fall out from the Supreme Court's Citizen Bank United decision. Comedian Robin Williams joked recently that Congresspeople should be forced to wear NASCAR jackets with all of their corporate sponsors/donors on their jackets so we could all see who has bought and sold their vote. Right or wrong, I think of Bernie Sanders when I think of this movement. He isn't a Democrat as much as he might be a Socialist. That label would scare too many away from a national run, but listen to him speak and a lot of it makes sense.

The other movement would be the Libertarian movement. Libertarians seem to fluctuate in popularity and now they are on the upswing. The Tea Party movement began here, but it became bastardized when establishment Republicans got control of it. Ron Paul is the natural head of this movement. Like Sanders, he is unelectable nationally, but his ideas seem to resonate with a lot of people. Of course, the idea here is simply minimal government. Minimal government means minimal taxes (a huge Republican stronghold), but it also means minimal regulation of things like drugs and heavy handed social law (a huge Democratic stronghold).

The irony is that both groups overlap on several issues. The primary issue where they overlap is on the issue of campaign finance. The way they get to their views on that issue may differ slightly, but the solution might be a common one. The issue of course is that populists don't compromise. Once you compromise you cease to be a populist. That's what happens for guys like Sanders and Paul. They remain immensely popular with the folks that follow them because they remain true to their principals. Remaining true to their principals has the effect of marginalizing their impact on the Senate and House of Representatives respectively.

This of course brings us to the establishment itself. When one finds out how the sausage is made, they have a few choices at their disposal. First, they can continue to eat the sausage even though they have been disgusted by the process. Secondly, they could completely eschew the sausage in favor of a substitute good. Finally, you can become more active and seek a better way to make the sausage.

Whether it be inherent racism, institutional racism, or the hype of right-wing propaganda, the election of Barack Obama woke up a lot of people to how the sausage is made. They have become disgusted and want to find a new way. Some have the wisdom to realize that this a constant process while others attribute it to Obama himself. Either way, a little bit of knowledge is often a dangerous thing. Blissful ignorance is easy for all concerned, but peal a little off the top and suddenly it's like stomping on a fire ant bed in the yard.

The history of populism is a depressing one for those within those movements. Simply put, they don't last. The best you can hope for is to get the establishment to co-op certain facets of your platform for their own. The other depressing part is that some people buy into central figures like Barack Obama and John Boehner as representative of those movements only to find out that they are establishment politicians. They get things done, but no one seems to like it. Their staunch supporters feel like they have been sold out while their opponents remember the rhetoric and don't actually pay attention to the output. It's a tough road to travel on, but the end result is likely more productive than remaining true to whatever principals were espoused in the rhetoric.

If Air Travel Worked Like Health Care

2012-04-26T12:05:19Z

It would be funny if it weren't true. Via Newshoggers:

The Death of Civility: No Respect for Those Who Disagree

2012-04-26T03:40:21Z

Tonight, I went to a nice bar/restaurant to get out for a decent meal, a glass of wine, and some great people watching. Little did I know that the whole evening would be cut short by an over-bearing neanderthal who watches waaaay to much Fox News. It's happened to me before. The weird thing is, it always comes out of the blue, and I'm always shocked. I'm not sure why I'm shocked; I guess I never learn.

The evening started out pleasant enough; sitting down at the bar, I ordered a nice pinot noir and some sliders. I exchanged pleasantries with an older gentleman a couple seats over, and we were watching the local NBA game. He was an attorney, I'm in the energy business, etc., etc, so on and so forth. All was well. Then, HE walked in. You can almost always recognize them on site (Lord knows I've had plenty of unwelcome encounters with them): late sixties, early seventies, white, (of course), retired and accustomed to being noticed and respected. He sat down between us, greeted the attorney, obviously familiar with him, barely noticed me, which was fine. He then ordered TWO Diet Cokes and a double vodka on the rocks. To each his own, I guess. He started slurping the first DIet Coke, immediately filling it back to the top with vodka and ice. In about 5 minutes, both Diet Cokes were gone, along with the mixed-in vodka, and he was ordering another setup. The bartender dutifully complied, lining the glasses up as directed. Slurping and mixing recommenced.

During the odd vodka/diet drink ablutions, he continuously berated the attorney about being a liberal Democrat, while at the same time inviting him to the fundraiser of a hometown Senate candidate, who happened to be a Democrat, but who was also a personal friend. I was staying out of the conversation, pretending to be watching basketball. Finally, he turned to me and asked if I wanted in on the fundraiser, I politely declined, mentioning that I, too, was a liberal Democrat, and that I had plenty to do with other races, including President Obama's. Like flipping a switch, he went to DEFCON 4 and started into launch mode, fueled by vodka. First, he said he was tolerant of other views, blah, blah, but predictably, the conversation rapidly deteriorated. What was not surprising was that the more of the vodka/diet coke concoction he drank, the more stupid I apparently became.

He launched into all the normal rants, from Obama's lack of qualifications, to weird conspiracy theories about how he's trying to take over the courts, and other idiotic assertions. I replied that I found these assertions to be far fetched and lacking a basis in fact, to which he responded with furious stirring of his drink, dumping ice cubes all over the bar and his lap, and telling me that I simply didn't understand how terrible things are under Obama. He ranted about how Obama is stacking the Justice Department with "his" kind of people. I let that one go, with its obvious implications, but did ask if he criticized President Bush when he stacked the Justice Department with ultra-conservatives, firing attorneys who refused to prosecute political enemies. Ice cubes and Diet Coke went everywhere out of displeasure with me. He began roaring at me and the attorney about how stupid we were and he knew what Obama was up to, unable to articulate exactly what that meant. Bartenders and other patrons began to notice. Not willing to surrender what was left of my evening, I quietly paid my bill, slipped off my bar stool, and left him ranting and raving. Jesus.

As I drove home, recounting the whole scene privately, I wondered how it has now become so common for a perfect stranger can be a perfect asshole to another perfect stranger, in public. I knew the answer, of course; after years of absolutist rhetoric from the right, fortified by 24/7 propaganda from Fox News and hate radio, civility has been murdered, especially when you add alcohol. You can see this most obviously in Congress, where Republicans are perfectly happy to gridlock the entire US government in a blatant attempt to make the other side look bad so they can again grasp for power 4 years later. You can hear it from party leaders and talking heads when they actually say that the President and those who disagree with their particular view of the world are simply stupid, asserting that those views are illegitimate. The fallout, of course, is emotional outrage simmering just below the surface; it boils over at least provocation, usually over some non-existent slight. Like tonight, affluent white guys, living on a steady diet of Fox News, roar their outrage over fake issues.

The damage is obvious: the government is dysfunctional, and conservatives feel perfectly free to attack everyone with whom they disagree politically because that perceive a siege against their way of life. Such is the state of our society today. The gap widens as the right moves even farther to the right, using fake outrage as the motivation for this continuous migration. The victim is civility, but also years of progress in civil and personal rights, privacy, and economic progress. That's how issues of women's health and choice come to the forefront decades after they had become settled law. I know of no solution to this phenomenon, especially when the vast majority of Americans simply spending their lives surviving in an ever-shrinking world of opportunity, uneducated about why their opportunities are shrinking. The GOP, effectively using the media, have opened this Pandora's Box. How it gets closed is in the hands of the People when they begin not accepting this kind of absolutism. We have a long way to go.

President Obama Slow Jams the News with Jimmy Fallon

2012-04-25T19:04:25Z

MUST WATCH: Last night, President Obama was on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon and slow jammed the news about student loan interest rates:

Bob on Rachel Maddow, April 20, 2012

2012-04-25T03:29:02Z

Here's a video of the interview I did with Rachel on the second anniversary of the blowout of BP's Macondo Well:

Government Files First Criminal Charges In BP Oil Spill : The Two-Way : NPR

2012-04-24T19:03:44Z

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/04/24/151284311/first-criminals-charges-in-bp-oil-spill-filed-against-a-bp-engineer