By Hanlon, on March 12th, 2010 at 12:26 AM
On some level, I don’t really care what someone believes as long as it’s an informed opinion. Earlier today I got berated for a while buy a guy who made the following assertions in roughly five minutes:
- Welfare is socialism.
- Obama’s health care plan will result in homeless doctors.
- FOX News’s ratings mean they’re the most accurate.
- Democrats actively hate America and capitalism.
- Michael Moore is a liar and literally everything in Sicko was fabricated.
- I’m a communist.
Honestly, I don’t even have the energy to deal with people who believe this nonsense. It’s such hyperbolic idiocy that makes debating impossible. If he’d argued that, for example, welfare is an inefficient means of dealing with poverty, well then we could talk about that. Or that the health care plan will result in more people covered but less quality care and had some basis for the claim, sure. But how do you deal with stuff like “this isn’t America any more”?
And people wonder why, if I love politics so much, I don’t want to talk about it in public.
By Hanlon, on March 12th, 2010 at 12:18 AM
By Hanlon, on March 11th, 2010 at 10:23 AM
This is neither surprising nor illogical, but it is a bit annoying. In the year that’s passed since Bush left the White House, the public has (in entirely non-quantifiable terms) softened on their look back on ol’ Dubya. The man that was once vilified as the harbinger of the American apocalypse and the end of pax americana is shaping up to be looked upon more favorably than he was on his way out.
I thought the public would soften on Bush for another reason: the capacity of people to revise history with their own nuances, remaking it to suit their leanings. Anyone who has encountered a conservative insisting Nixon was a great president, for the sake of contrarianism and point-proving, should know what I’m talking about.
So my prediction is a bit different from Fish’s. Mine is that one day, in the not terribly distant future, it will become vogue for neocons to go around claiming Bush was the best president in the history of the United States, despite the fact that, by the end of his tenure, some in the neocon movement had basically accepted that he was pure political baggage and should be disowned for his government spending, at least (though they still liked his tax cuts).
It’s true, and Good misses the most obvious example: Reagan. Ronnie was not a popular president for much of his actual presidency (usually hovering in the familiar 50% area), the policies he enacted were downright disastrous, he was plagued by some of the worst scandals in presidential history (a blowjob has nothing on Iran-Contra), and he left Bush senior a horrible mess that was so difficult to clean up it tanked Bush the Elder’s potential second term.
Yet TIME called the cowboy president Man of the Century, largely because his more nuanced and technical failings were washed over in a sea of “tear down this wall!” and personality traits. Ronald Reagan went from Reaganomics and soaring debts to defeating communism and being a tough old bastard. Bush is likely to follow suit, especially if the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan turn out successful. He’ll go from the bumbling economy crusher to the forward thinking anti-terrorism champion.
Plus, let’s face it, we as a people tend to want to think the best of others. That’s why guys like Tom DeLay can show up on Dance with the Stars and get applause. We like people to be good people at heart, and as the scars of their actions fade we have a tendency to forgive them and focus on the positive aspects. If you want to call Bush a good guy, well that’s fine. I think he’s likely a grand person, seems amiable and friendly and I have no doubts he’s a devoted father. But let’s not mince words: he was a shitty, shitty president.
By Hanlon, on March 10th, 2010 at 11:09 PM
…wow I’m glad I was too busy to catch this debacle, but it’s just plain too funny to ignore.
By Hanlon, on March 8th, 2010 at 10:11 AM
If so, old Razor collaborator Will has opened up his own corner of the web: AGGROgate. It’s a lot more than just some dude pulling other people’s stories from the internet and then commenting on them. Because, really, those writers are just lazy.
…ahem.
By Hanlon, on March 8th, 2010 at 09:48 AM
Anyone else find it weird that the Paul-style libertarians, who actually did start the Tea Party, are getting ousted from it by Palin-worshipping lunatics?
By Hanlon, on March 8th, 2010 at 09:43 AM
The Republican that Republicans don’t like and the ex-Democrat that Democrats don’t like are teaming up to propose a bill that I’m pretty sure God himself wouldn’t like. It also has one of the most ridiculous names I’ve heard in a while.
The Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and Prosecution Act of 2010, introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), would also create an entirely new system of interrogation by requiring intelligence officials to be consulted about how to handle terrorism suspects after their capture. The bill was precipitated by misguided objections to the Obama administration’s correct decision to charge accused Christmas Day attacker Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in the criminal court system. The legislation would have a “high value detainee” team, made up of members of different intelligence agencies, interrogate and determine whether alleged terrorist suspects are “unprivileged enemy belligerents.” If so, and if the suspect is then charged, the legislation would mandate the use of the discredited and unconstitutional military commissions.
The… Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act. I mean, kudos for not pulling a PATRIOT Act and having it make an idiotic acronym, but… “Enemy Belligerent”? Really? Wow.
What’s most disturbing is that this whole debate and discussion on what to do with terrorism suspects forgets the word “suspects”. The presumptions and arguments are rooted in the notion that these guys are guilty and the trial is simply a procedural hurdle to get over before we can lock ‘em up or (oh please please please) execute them. Even the prospect that they aren’t guilty doesn’t factor in. Bring it up just in casual conversation, they’ll tell you that “we know they’re guilty!” Justice? Where?
In watching all this, I’m doing what I often do: questioning motives. In the spirit of that, I have a question for you guys. Which would be worse: if these guys are doing it because they’re genuinely terrified of what would happen should terrorist suspects be tried in courts, or because they just want to seem “tough on terrorism”? Normal cowards or political cowards?
By Hanlon, on March 8th, 2010 at 09:30 AM
It’s like watching a smoker say “okay THIS is my last cigarette” over and over. Either do it or don’t. Shit or get off the pot.
By Hanlon, on March 5th, 2010 at 09:50 PM
And yet, no one is willing to consider the correlation between this insanity and violent right-wing rhetoric.
By Hanlon, on March 4th, 2010 at 07:14 PM
Not feelin’ fantastic, can’t do much writing, plus a long work day tomorrow. Might not hear from me save late night and early morning over the weekend.
What did I miss in the nut-o-sphere?
|
|
|