Friday, October 23, 2009
Poor Dede Scozzafava
Republicans are busy torpedoing their chance to hang on to New York's 23rd congressional district. In November there will be a special election to fill the seat of former representative John McHugh, a moderate Republican who Barack Obama picked to be Secretary of the Army. Naturally, the Republican establishment nominated a moderate candidate, Dede Scozzafava, to replace McHugh, but she is loosing a lot of support to Conservative Party candidate and teabagger Doug Hoffman. Hoffman has the endorsement of such great Americans as former Alaska governor/current Facebook poster Sarah Palin and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. With a split center-right electorate it's no surpise that Democrat Bill Owens has taken the lead in the race. I feel a little bad for Scozzafava. She seems like a decent, non-crazy Republican, but the teabaggers are dragging her down.
It's Friday!
Watch AFI-MTV Hard Rock Live in Music Videos | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com
Thursday, October 22, 2009
In Defense Of Hate Crime Statutes
Today the Senate approved a measure to extend federal protections to those who are victims of crimes motivated by their gender or sexual orientation. The measure passed 68-29 in the Senate, and already passed in the House by a vote of 281 to 146. President Obama has indicated his support of the measure. Hate crime laws have traditionally been a favorite punching bag of not just conservatives, but even some moderates and liberals in an effort to show they are "independent minded." I don't think these laws represent some sort of great leap forward in civil rights, but I do believe they are good laws and most of the ire directed at them doesn't make much sense.
The most common argument I hear from those who oppose these laws is also the weakest argument: these laws are "criminalizing thought." To make this argument you would have to be under the impression that our criminal codes do not take thought into account. If you're not sure about this...I'll just let you know now that they do...quite frequently. We already distinguish levels of homicide by thought, or more specifically, intent. Our criminal justice system takes into account whether you kill someone intentionally or accidentally, and your punishment will be less if you did it by accident. Basically the government is "criminalizing" your desire to kill your wife. Damn fascist thought police! Hate crime statutes do indeed take thought into account, but so does the rest of the criminal law.
Another common argument is that the crimes addressed by hate crimes statutes are already illegal. That is true, but what these statutes do is allow the federal government to conduct an investigation if local authorities are falling short. This is necessary because crimes committed against unpopular minorities have a way of being taken less seriously by local authorities in some communities. In fact, sometimes the local authorities are the ones committing the crimes. I would like to believe in most cases law enforcement officials are mature men and women who put their particular beliefs aside to pursue justice, but I would like some other recourse just in case.
The third argument I've heard often is that this constitutes "special rights" for minorities. I can understand why some would have that impression since groups like the NAACP and HRC have fought so hard for hate crimes laws, but I don't really see it that way. To me, these laws constitute more of a sad acknowledgement of reality than a great civil rights victory. Sure, the feds may get involved, but I'll be dead or in the hospital. I'd rather live in a country where this sort of thing didn't happen much.
Although most of the arguments against these laws don't pass muster with me, I cannot agree with one rationale often cited in their favor. I can't imagine that these laws do much to discourage hate crimes. If someone has made up their mind to pistol whip a man because he came onto him, I don't think state vs. federal crime is going to enter into his mind. I don't believe the death penalty is a deterrent, and I certainly don't think this statute will be. When someone has crossed that line, he isn't thinking about the consequences.
There are other arguments for and against, but ultimately I think the Senate did a good thing today.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
More Stimulus Talk
I'll be up front - if I thought the stimulus was working I would support it. But the fact is, from the beginning, I didn't like the idea of it. I understand the concept of spending money to make money and encouraging growth and whatnot, as we saw with the Great Depression, and truncating the economy enough to prevent utter collapse. The problem here, in my view, is that creating the TARP money literally from scratch seemed, and still seems, too precarious a risk.
Now, I will admit, for all the bloviating that is going on about the stimulus working or not working on the part of its supporters and detractors, it may be too soon to actually say one way or the other.
But, as I said in previous posts, the facts do not seem to support the argument that the stimulus is really working.
Take this report, which shows that 49 of 50 states have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted. Yes, it's from the republican side of the Ways and Means Committee, but I could not navigate my way through the obtuse .gov website to find the raw data. But, that's beyond the point, because despite the blatantly bias opening paragraph, the numbers in the table are the numbers in the table regardless. 2.7 million jobs have been lost, which is no where near the projected 3.5 million jobs gained - that's 2.7 million in the wrong direction. Granted, we've got a little over a year to go for the projections to pan out, but it's gone from creating 3.5 million jobs to over 6 million by December 2010 to reach the projected goal.
Also, being the conservative that I am, I obviously don't trust the government. Which, again, caused concern when they decided to go ahead and ram the stimulus through guaranteeing it would all be paid back. My distrust was only more galvanized when bigwigs were hand over hefty bonuses for their greed. And now, the reports are saying the people in charge aren't sure the bailout money will actually be paid back in full. Now, given the economic climate, it's to be expected there would be some defaults, but the uncertainty of how great it my be is quite unsettling.
Furthermore, when I hear about a few thousand jobs being "created," or more likely, "saved," here and there, I find it hard to believe that that is an indicator that the stimulus is working, especially when compared to the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost at the same time. It's still a net loss.
I realize that I may sound like an alarmist about all this, but the numbers are what the numbers are. I hope I'm wrong and I hope that in a stroke of economic luck the economy turns around and I have to eat all my words and stimulus works and all it's detractors get embarrassed. Because, in the end, I'd rather be humbled than keep feeling like I might not have a job tomorrow, and if indeed I don't, that I won't be able to find one shortly thereafter.
Now, I will admit, for all the bloviating that is going on about the stimulus working or not working on the part of its supporters and detractors, it may be too soon to actually say one way or the other.
But, as I said in previous posts, the facts do not seem to support the argument that the stimulus is really working.
Take this report, which shows that 49 of 50 states have lost jobs since the stimulus was enacted. Yes, it's from the republican side of the Ways and Means Committee, but I could not navigate my way through the obtuse .gov website to find the raw data. But, that's beyond the point, because despite the blatantly bias opening paragraph, the numbers in the table are the numbers in the table regardless. 2.7 million jobs have been lost, which is no where near the projected 3.5 million jobs gained - that's 2.7 million in the wrong direction. Granted, we've got a little over a year to go for the projections to pan out, but it's gone from creating 3.5 million jobs to over 6 million by December 2010 to reach the projected goal.
Also, being the conservative that I am, I obviously don't trust the government. Which, again, caused concern when they decided to go ahead and ram the stimulus through guaranteeing it would all be paid back. My distrust was only more galvanized when bigwigs were hand over hefty bonuses for their greed. And now, the reports are saying the people in charge aren't sure the bailout money will actually be paid back in full. Now, given the economic climate, it's to be expected there would be some defaults, but the uncertainty of how great it my be is quite unsettling.
Furthermore, when I hear about a few thousand jobs being "created," or more likely, "saved," here and there, I find it hard to believe that that is an indicator that the stimulus is working, especially when compared to the hundreds of thousands of jobs lost at the same time. It's still a net loss.
I realize that I may sound like an alarmist about all this, but the numbers are what the numbers are. I hope I'm wrong and I hope that in a stroke of economic luck the economy turns around and I have to eat all my words and stimulus works and all it's detractors get embarrassed. Because, in the end, I'd rather be humbled than keep feeling like I might not have a job tomorrow, and if indeed I don't, that I won't be able to find one shortly thereafter.
No, Creed and Limp Bizkit Still Suck
Jonah Weiner of Slate.com thinks it's time we reassess alt-rockers Creed and give them their due (Weiner is a repeat offender and has made the same claim about Limp Bizkit). I would argue that it's too soon. I will confess that I enjoyed the song "My Own Prison" at the time. It was a dark, grungy ditty that paired well with the woes of high school. However, after that they lost me with the rest of that album and all their followups. In fact, rock and roll doesn't get much more ridiculous than "Higher." Weiner is correct in saying that:
Along with Limp Bizkit (who made fun of Creed, too), Stapp and Co. are remembered today as poster boys for a turn-of-the-century musical nightmare we're happily past.
We should leave that nightmare in the past. The late 90's was a terrible period in popular music. The charts were ruled by boy bands and über-macho neanderthal rap-metal. I know some day Creed and all the other shitty bands of that era will come back into vogue, but lets at least hope that it's in the same form the hair-metal bands of the late 80's (Creed and Limp Bizkit's developmentally challenged forefathers) did, and that is that they are only allowed in the name of irony or at strip clubs.
EDIT: Matt Yglesias had the best line about this story today:
I bet al-Qaeda plays [Creed] to recruits in order to whip them into an anti-Christian fervor.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
03/07/10 - Clear your calendars
And He smiled on the earth and gave us The Jonas Brothers. They will be performing at the upcoming rodeo again. March 7, 2010. I've already gotten a tent and a cot from craig's list and plan to begin camping outside the arena starting this coming Saturday. BAAAABBBBAAAYYYY!!!!
Lee Harvey Oswald
If living through the age of the "troofers" and the "birfers" has taught me anything, it's that people who believe in conspiracy theories are usually idiots. This realization, along with much research, has led me to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John F. Kennedy all by himself. There was no plot by the CIA or the Cuban government or the mafia. Lee Harvey Oswald was a lonely person who wanted to get attention. He became a communist and went to the Soviet Union because it was just about the most unpopular thing you could do at the time in the U.S. If he were alive now he would go join al-Qaeda to get attention. Believe me, I've met these kinds of people.
Rather than make you read more links like always, just watch this video featuring Oswald's own brother:
Furthermore, what the video leaves out is that months before the Kennedy assassination Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to assassinate General Walker, a famous right-wing douchebag at the time. I have a hard time believing someone would make the leap into political assassinations, and then just give it up.
I understand why people gravitate toward conspiracy theories. When something catastrophic happens, one assumes that there must have been an elaborate web of causes to match the effects, but that's just not the case. One nut can get a clear shot at the president's head, and 19 nobodies can hijack airplanes with box-cutters.
Dubious Double Standards
I have no idea if this story is making any waves whatsoever, because I don't have cable , but I'm not seeing much on the internet about it. To which, I'm not surprised.
Usually, when I come across this type of article I just shake my head at the blatant double standard applied to individuals who happen to be white - and God-forbid they're conservative, too (to which, some read, automatic racist).
Which leads me to my main point. Rush Limbaugh
After coming off a week of Rush Limbaugh being touted as a terrible racist for things he never actually said, the story from Baltimore got my ire up enough that I felt compelled to address it.
To those who know me personally, you already know I'm not the biggest Limbaugh fan. This is a fact, supported by reality. Unlike the "fact" that Limbaugh made racists statements regarding the usefulness of slavery and streets being safe at night.
The inconvenient truth, however, is the now tirelessly proven fact: Rush did not, in fact, say what was attributed him. But, this real fact was not enough to stop reporters from going ahead with the story anyway - as if it were fact, though actually not, that Limbaugh said the racist statements. Why? Because he's Rush Limbaugh, so we all know he's racist anyway, so what's the harm if this particular thing is actually false. The fact is, Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Right? He said that thing about black quarterbacks - that sounded pretty racist...pssst, make sure not to include the part where other black commentators agreed with him. Gotcha, no problem.
Now, on to my second point.
When a person who is black, like Elbridge James the gentleman in the story who is a chairman for the NAACP, says that he's worried that a white person may take the place of the current black Mayor of Baltimore once she is prosecuted for theft and purjury, the issue is not given the Limbaugh treatment, but rather is reported on as just another regular, rational statement.
It's no big deal he thinks race should be a, if not the, deciding factor in who should be appointed to fill the mayoral vacancy. To his credit, Mr. James is also concerned that the current Republican governor may instill a Republican mayor, as opposed to a Democratic mayor. But, this is a thin veil to hold up as a defense in claiming Mr. James' concerns are not seated in race, but rather in proper representation. Why? Because Mr. James is also worried that someone who is Irish may be appointed mayor. And what are the Irish predominantly? Catholic.
So, how can a person go around disparaging not just white folks, but the Irish heritage and Catholicism, like back in the day? Probably because no one really cares. It's only a story if the hate is going the other direction.
Which leads me to my main point. Rush Limbaugh
After coming off a week of Rush Limbaugh being touted as a terrible racist for things he never actually said, the story from Baltimore got my ire up enough that I felt compelled to address it.
To those who know me personally, you already know I'm not the biggest Limbaugh fan. This is a fact, supported by reality. Unlike the "fact" that Limbaugh made racists statements regarding the usefulness of slavery and streets being safe at night.
The inconvenient truth, however, is the now tirelessly proven fact: Rush did not, in fact, say what was attributed him. But, this real fact was not enough to stop reporters from going ahead with the story anyway - as if it were fact, though actually not, that Limbaugh said the racist statements. Why? Because he's Rush Limbaugh, so we all know he's racist anyway, so what's the harm if this particular thing is actually false. The fact is, Rush Limbaugh is a racist. Right? He said that thing about black quarterbacks - that sounded pretty racist...pssst, make sure not to include the part where other black commentators agreed with him. Gotcha, no problem.
Now, on to my second point.
When a person who is black, like Elbridge James the gentleman in the story who is a chairman for the NAACP, says that he's worried that a white person may take the place of the current black Mayor of Baltimore once she is prosecuted for theft and purjury, the issue is not given the Limbaugh treatment, but rather is reported on as just another regular, rational statement.
It's no big deal he thinks race should be a, if not the, deciding factor in who should be appointed to fill the mayoral vacancy. To his credit, Mr. James is also concerned that the current Republican governor may instill a Republican mayor, as opposed to a Democratic mayor. But, this is a thin veil to hold up as a defense in claiming Mr. James' concerns are not seated in race, but rather in proper representation. Why? Because Mr. James is also worried that someone who is Irish may be appointed mayor. And what are the Irish predominantly? Catholic.
So, how can a person go around disparaging not just white folks, but the Irish heritage and Catholicism, like back in the day? Probably because no one really cares. It's only a story if the hate is going the other direction.
Now, is it true that a person who is black may better represent and work with a predominately black city? Possibly. I personally think that the person in charge should be the best person for the job, black, white, mexican, or irish - especially given Balitmore's renowned problems. We've all seen The Wire.
Do I think that Mr. James hates white people, Irish, people, and Catholics (I'll admit I'm the one throwing Catholics in the mix, but come on? What else could he have meant?)? I don't know. I've never met the guy. But, what I do know is that he doesn't want someone being the mayor if they are (1) White, (2) Irish, or (3) Conservative. These are facts.
How do people know Rush Limbaugh is a durrty racist? "Because he just has to be. That's why. He's a hate monger." Do you listen to his show? "...that's not the point. He's a racist." Do you have any proof? "Look, I just know he's a racist."
In the end, the Baltimore issue is really a nonissue, because the Governor doesn't appoint the Mayor in the first place when there is a vacancy like this. Despite being told this, Mr. James is demanding the matter looked into fully to make sure a cracker mick isn't made mayor.
I can say those things, they're my words, what being a cracker mick and all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)