I think I'll tune out of all news media until after the 2012 primaries, at least.
Although Newt Gingrich says he won't make an announcement until March, he's met with all the Republican officials in Georgia and indicated to them that he plans to run for the nomination . . .
AND
. . . that he plans to make Atlanta his headquarters.
What a terrible idea. I just don't think I can tolerate that much bloviating and grandiosity right here at home. Molly Ivins, where are you when we need you?
Ralph
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Homophobic murder in Uganda #2
The Human Rights Campaign is getting a petition signed to send to the three anti-gay, American evangelists who have been involved in spreading anti-gay hatred in African churches and trying to influence the Ugandan Parliament.
Scott Lively of Massachusetts participated in an anti-gay conference in Uganda attended by members of Parliament shortly before that infamous legislation including the death penalty was introduced. It is still pending.
Lou Engle of Missouri held a rally in Uganda to pray for the passage of the bill.
Carl Jenkins of Georgia has helped found 50 new churches in Uganda to "help clean up bad morals, including homosexuality," according to his staff. The HRC web site says this:
They have been stirring up hostility in a country where homosexuality is already illegal, violent attacks are common, rape is used to 'cure' people of their sexual orientation – and a shocking law has been proposed that would make homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment or even death.
And they're in lockstep with some of the largest and wealthiest right-wing groups in the U.S. When the U.S. Congress considered a resolution denouncing the grotesque Ugandan death-penalty-for-gays bill, the extreme-right Family Research Council – now classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center – spent $25,000 lobbying to stop the resolution from passing.
I thought these evangelicals were supposed to consider: "What would Jesus do?"
I'm pretty sure he would not say "kill the queers."
Ralph
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Violent speech and consequences
Perhaps enough time has now elapsed since the gun rampage in Tucson that we can begin to talk about the very real link between violent speech and violent consequences.
Let me repeat: there is nothing to link the apparently non-political, non-ideological insanity of Jared Loughner with the prominent use of gun imagery by the conservative, political ideologues, including that map with cross-hair targets on it. Jared seemed simply psychotic and paranoid enough all by himself.
Yet, the parallel is striking: he thought the government was trying to control his mind (a typical psychotic delusion), while the far right message is that the government is trying to control our lives. Let's stipulate that there is no direct blame being suggested in this particular case.
But there are plenty of examples where violent political speech -- even laws -- do seem to lead directly to violent action. Witness all the attacks on abortion clinics and the murders of abortion doctors.
And now another tragic example, this time the brutal murder of a gay activist in Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal and where a bill still is pending in their parliament that would make certain homosexual acts punishable by death. And that is already true in some nations.
David Kato was a prominent gay rights activist in Uganda. His picture had been published, along with other gay men, on the front page of an anti-gay tabloid under the headline: "Hang Them."
There is bitter irony in the fact that Kato and two other activists had sued the paper for violation of their constitutional rights to privacy -- and they won the case, including the judge's granting an injunction that banned publication of the identities of homosexuals.
Officials are saying that there is no evidence that Kato's murder was connected with anti-gay motives, citing the frequency of crimes involving robbery in the area. Those in the gay activist community believe otherwise.
I do too.
Ralph
Let me repeat: there is nothing to link the apparently non-political, non-ideological insanity of Jared Loughner with the prominent use of gun imagery by the conservative, political ideologues, including that map with cross-hair targets on it. Jared seemed simply psychotic and paranoid enough all by himself.
Yet, the parallel is striking: he thought the government was trying to control his mind (a typical psychotic delusion), while the far right message is that the government is trying to control our lives. Let's stipulate that there is no direct blame being suggested in this particular case.
But there are plenty of examples where violent political speech -- even laws -- do seem to lead directly to violent action. Witness all the attacks on abortion clinics and the murders of abortion doctors.
And now another tragic example, this time the brutal murder of a gay activist in Uganda, where homosexuality is illegal and where a bill still is pending in their parliament that would make certain homosexual acts punishable by death. And that is already true in some nations.
David Kato was a prominent gay rights activist in Uganda. His picture had been published, along with other gay men, on the front page of an anti-gay tabloid under the headline: "Hang Them."
There is bitter irony in the fact that Kato and two other activists had sued the paper for violation of their constitutional rights to privacy -- and they won the case, including the judge's granting an injunction that banned publication of the identities of homosexuals.
Officials are saying that there is no evidence that Kato's murder was connected with anti-gay motives, citing the frequency of crimes involving robbery in the area. Those in the gay activist community believe otherwise.
I do too.
Ralph
Unfair is unfair -- on both sides
Huffington Post is my home page when I go on the web: it always has the latest headline news as well as the liberal sensibility that I like. But I do think that they over-sensationalize in their headlines -- and sometimes in their criticisms, or in how they make a mountain out of a molehill from the other side. Two current cases in point:
1. They seem to delight in finding yet one more important person who mocked Michele Bachmann, in her self-appointed SOTUS response role, for "not even looking into the camera." Clips are shown with Michele reading her speech, while obviously looking into a different camera than the one being broadcast.
This was not an error on her part. Her video response was sponsored by the Tea Party Express, which had supplied the camera, and it was to that camera she was speaking. CNN chose to also air it live (with their own camera), so what we saw was the CNN video of her speaking to the other camera.
Drop it. It's a non-issue, much as I like to ridicule Michele. I'm trying to be fair here.
The important issue is what she said, not to which camera she said it. But that's another whole story and not worth the time to detail.
2. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is trying to make a political issue out of the fact that Nancy Pelosi declined his invitation to sit together at the SOTUS. Huffington Post headlined the article with "Nancy Pelosi Declines Eric Cantor's State of the Union Proposal." Well, she did decline -- because Eric asked Nancy for the date at the last minute, and she already had a date with another Republican colleague whom she had invited.
But, again, Eric is now painting himself as trying to reach out to her in a cooperative spirit, and she is spurning his efforts. Get over it, children.
Ralph
1. They seem to delight in finding yet one more important person who mocked Michele Bachmann, in her self-appointed SOTUS response role, for "not even looking into the camera." Clips are shown with Michele reading her speech, while obviously looking into a different camera than the one being broadcast.
This was not an error on her part. Her video response was sponsored by the Tea Party Express, which had supplied the camera, and it was to that camera she was speaking. CNN chose to also air it live (with their own camera), so what we saw was the CNN video of her speaking to the other camera.
Drop it. It's a non-issue, much as I like to ridicule Michele. I'm trying to be fair here.
The important issue is what she said, not to which camera she said it. But that's another whole story and not worth the time to detail.
2. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) is trying to make a political issue out of the fact that Nancy Pelosi declined his invitation to sit together at the SOTUS. Huffington Post headlined the article with "Nancy Pelosi Declines Eric Cantor's State of the Union Proposal." Well, she did decline -- because Eric asked Nancy for the date at the last minute, and she already had a date with another Republican colleague whom she had invited.
But, again, Eric is now painting himself as trying to reach out to her in a cooperative spirit, and she is spurning his efforts. Get over it, children.
Ralph
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
How'd he do?
There was no way Obama could hit a grand slam that would excite and please even half of the people, no matter which side he took. Progressives will be unhappy because of what he didn't address (climate, gun control, etc.); conservatives will be unhappy because he depends on "investments" rather than spending cuts, though he did propose those too.
But what Obama needed to do -- at this particular moment -- was to: (1) create some semblance of unity (the Congress members helped by their seating plans; and, no, that was not just meaningless symbolism. It did make a difference in the tone and added to my second point; (2) he needed to show that there really are adults in charge, himself being the first and maybe congress too; and (3) he needed to project a sense of bold purpose going forward, instead of playing defense.
I think he did all three of those things splendidly.
Most of our Georgia delegation got into the bipartisan spirit of pairing up with members of the opposite party. However, one notably played the willful, oppositional child, Rep. Paul Braun. As he has done in the past, he did not attend the speech in person but watched from his congressional office and sent out running twitter messages critical of what Obama was saying. Braun, who in the past has called Obama a "Nazi-like Marxist dictator," wrote during the SOTUS, "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism."
And then there was also child Michele Bachman, who decided to give her own SOTUS rebuttal, and did. Her remarks included her clueless rewriting of history with the ludicrous claim, which sent Chris Matthews into a fit of apoplexy, that our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly until slavery had been eliminated. Ask Mr. Lincoln about that, Michele.
I guess it's progress. At least there seemed to be a higher percentage of adults in the House chamber last night, even though a few children still ran loose.
Ralph
But what Obama needed to do -- at this particular moment -- was to: (1) create some semblance of unity (the Congress members helped by their seating plans; and, no, that was not just meaningless symbolism. It did make a difference in the tone and added to my second point; (2) he needed to show that there really are adults in charge, himself being the first and maybe congress too; and (3) he needed to project a sense of bold purpose going forward, instead of playing defense.
I think he did all three of those things splendidly.
Most of our Georgia delegation got into the bipartisan spirit of pairing up with members of the opposite party. However, one notably played the willful, oppositional child, Rep. Paul Braun. As he has done in the past, he did not attend the speech in person but watched from his congressional office and sent out running twitter messages critical of what Obama was saying. Braun, who in the past has called Obama a "Nazi-like Marxist dictator," wrote during the SOTUS, "Mr. President, you don't believe in the Constitution. You believe in socialism."
And then there was also child Michele Bachman, who decided to give her own SOTUS rebuttal, and did. Her remarks included her clueless rewriting of history with the ludicrous claim, which sent Chris Matthews into a fit of apoplexy, that our Founding Fathers worked tirelessly until slavery had been eliminated. Ask Mr. Lincoln about that, Michele.
I guess it's progress. At least there seemed to be a higher percentage of adults in the House chamber last night, even though a few children still ran loose.
Ralph
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Ludicrous -- when you think about it
Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell said a few weeks ago that his agenda was to make sure that Obama has a one-term presidency.
So I guess this is progress. But when you stop and think about it as a sign of the times we're in, it is ludicrous.
McConnell reportedly has told his Republican colleagues, in anticipation of the State of the Union Speech outlining a new agenda for more jobs and competitiveness:
McConnell was forced to soften his obdurate oppositionalism. It's a clever finesse on Obama's part to propose something so unobjectionable to Republicans -- creating more jobs through incentives for businesses to be more competitive -- that they couldn't oppose it. Saying 'no' to make Obama look bad would make them look even worse.
But what a commentary on the parlous times we are in -- that the statement was needed, even to save McConnell's partisan hide.
Ralph
So I guess this is progress. But when you stop and think about it as a sign of the times we're in, it is ludicrous.
McConnell reportedly has told his Republican colleagues, in anticipation of the State of the Union Speech outlining a new agenda for more jobs and competitiveness:
"[M]y advice to my colleagues is if the president is willing to do what we would do anyway, then we should say yes."This is supposed to be something other than self-evident, ordinary common sense? Why would you not agree to something you "would do anyway" when the president proposes it? Only if your agenda was to oppose anything he proposed. And that's exactly the point.
McConnell was forced to soften his obdurate oppositionalism. It's a clever finesse on Obama's part to propose something so unobjectionable to Republicans -- creating more jobs through incentives for businesses to be more competitive -- that they couldn't oppose it. Saying 'no' to make Obama look bad would make them look even worse.
But what a commentary on the parlous times we are in -- that the statement was needed, even to save McConnell's partisan hide.
Ralph
"She Who" is fading, even in Tea Party crowd
The New Hampshire Republican Party elected a Tea Party leader as the head of their state party, signaling a take-over by the anti-government crowd. Jack Kemball defeated the more main stream Republican candidate, who was backed by out-going John H. Sununu, former chief of staff for Bush 41.
Even though the insurgent activists, many of them new members of the party, had the votes to choose the party leader, they chose more main stream presidential candidates in a straw poll, in this order:
Mitt Romney 33%.
Ron Paul 11%
Tim Pawlenty 8%
Sarah Palin 7%
Michele Bachmann 5%
Jim DeMint 5%
One way to read this is that they want the fervor and the ideals of the Tea Party, but they also want to win the White House -- so ultimately they will choose the most electable. And Romney has always had a following in this neighboring state.
Of course, it's only a very early straw poll, so it probably has no real significance. And other state voters are more likely to by swayed by their emotions than these practical New Englanders.
Ralph
Even though the insurgent activists, many of them new members of the party, had the votes to choose the party leader, they chose more main stream presidential candidates in a straw poll, in this order:
Mitt Romney 33%.
Ron Paul 11%
Tim Pawlenty 8%
Sarah Palin 7%
Michele Bachmann 5%
Jim DeMint 5%
One way to read this is that they want the fervor and the ideals of the Tea Party, but they also want to win the White House -- so ultimately they will choose the most electable. And Romney has always had a following in this neighboring state.
Of course, it's only a very early straw poll, so it probably has no real significance. And other state voters are more likely to by swayed by their emotions than these practical New Englanders.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
