Beating The Dead Horse Of Right-Wing Racism

I’m sure by this point that most people who are political types have already formed an opinion of the matter of tea party racism and to the larger issue: if the Republican political strategy includes pandering to racist Americans.

I repeat again and again, too little avail, that not all tea party members are de facto racists.

I found it very unfortunate that so many on progressive side of politics were so quick to call Rand Paul a “racist” for expressing a standard libertarian point of view in regards to the Civil Rights Bill and the ADA. (Private enterprise craps rainbows is the short version of this pure libertarianism ideology.) Those perspectives are not racism, though they do tend to excite the racists out there. This alone, it is vital to point out, is not enough to place a person on the wrong side of the core issue of racial sensitivity or a lack thereof.

It is very easy to throw out a label, like “socialist” or “commie pinko,” but it’s harder to back it up. That was frustrating to see the left-wing doing the same unintelligent labeling based on ignorance that the right-wing has honed to a daily art.

I hear the sentiment more and more that people want to do away with labeling, but I only want to do away with all the negative labeling. I don’t see how we can escape the principal of using labels on groups of people as we so often do in politics. Something must have a name to become a movement, without a name to describe whatever ideological bent we are talking about it would be impossible to even discern accurately between them all.

The labels we choose to recognize ourselves by, and attribute to ourselves, are obviously the labels by which we wish to use and have function for us. I feel that we ever get beyond labels it will because all people stopped using them, and not before.

Then we come to issue of the dreaded label: racist. I’ve never been one to take away any fine glory from calling another person racist, but I also cannot simply remain silent as I witness specific cases over and over again.

There are many fine conservatives and even honest tea party-types out there, but they are the most hushed and pushed into the corner minority of the right-wing I’ve ever seen. Wherever these people be, I hear very little from them or of them.

***

My first experiences with the tea party were seeing a small protest with one sign reading:

It‘s the White House, not the Black House

No n-words, no overt racist slurs, no neo-Nazi symbols … just this kind of rhetoric. I found it to be racist in nature, in my personal opinion at the time.

Now Janeane Garofalo was downright mean on Keith Olbermann’s show, but I won’t link that video or repeat any of that here. But did she speak intelligently about the tea party with Rosie O’Donnell so I find it likely she was playing to the YouTube crowd with that one.

My complaints are more to the inclusion of fringe groups known for racism like the John Birch Society in CPAC as to the conservative side and the acceptance of “Birthers” (for lack of a better term) into the tea party side. These actions, and the glorifying of characters like Beck and Limbaugh who incite racial hatred for profit, amount to a very “toxic stew” to borrow a bit of their language.

I never said everyone right-wing was a racist, what a wild claim that would be! I’ve said people who did specific things, like write a sign about the “Black House” or suddenly find a love for the term “commie-socialist” (which makes zero sense by the way), are looking like they are motivated by white racism.

Am I supposed to say “in my opinion” like every other sentence or something?

We just has this opinion about comparing Obama to Hitler passed around and discussed like it was rational by Sara Palin and other far right extremists. Helen Thomas expressed an opinion in a manner I found distasteful and crass, but everyone seemed to forget she is was an opinion journalist.

Though how we state our opinions is important, I realize this well.

So I avoid the term ’teabaggers’ as much as possible (recently) and make a strong effort to declare what I present in the manner of an opinion be understood as an opinion.

But without getting too twisted into a pretzel here:

We all have to remember that you don’t get to control what other person’s opinion of your opinion is.

I personally believe the problems here are tied exactly to that, like the days of Bush Derangement Syndrome. Making statements in a vacuum, from any side of politics, is just getting really annoying.

I’ll back it up, we can have a Constitution quote-off over SB1070 or a Wiki-battle over Southern Strategy Republican racism. I do it all the time, it’s not a new thing it just happens in lightning speed transactions these days instead of “let me go home and grab a few books and we’ll pick this up later.”

I find myself desiring an Edward R. Murrow like figure to appear in our times … we desperately lack that kind of brutal and much needed honesty today. Perhaps more than ever.

***

And here is a chart for all those tea party deficit hawks:
(No horses were harmed in the course of this posting.)

Senate Reconciliation Now!

The Republican obstructionism on the health care reform agenda is not “principled objections” as Senate minority leader Eric Cantor suggests. It is non-principled, pure nihilistic policy of poisoning the well and deception on behalf of conservatives.

The liberal majority that elected Democrats to office in 2008 has spoken.

The Public Option must survive in a final health care bill, and the process of reconciliation between House and Senate bills is the only avenue by which Democratic representatives can claim to have made any “meaningful reform” come reelection time.

Make it clear that this will not go away, and we the liberal progressives will not be silent.

This push did not come from the White House, or the Progressive Caucus, or from the desk of Sen. Harry Reid. This push for a strong public option through reconciliation came from the people who understand that health care is a moral issue, not merely a budgetary issue.

Both President Obama and Senator Reid remain open to the pursuit of Senate reconciliation, but I believe it important to state that this in itself is the “failure to sell health care reform to the American people” I spoke of before.

Instead, we will have to make perfectly clear that the public option must go forward and does not continue to be the “public optional.”

Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced on Friday afternoon that he would work with other Democrats and the White House to pass a public option through reconciliation if that’s the legislative path the party chooses.

The party has spoken. The ball is their court now in congress, but we must not allow this to fade into the night.

Just as Paul Krugman recently closed an op-ed with, “Health Care Reform Now!” I would say the as he except in different words given the changing of the situation but holding the same meaning:

Senate Reconciliation Now!

Cut It All Right In Two

Right in Two” from 10,000 Days by Tool

Angels on the sidelines,
Puzzled and amused,
Why did Father give these humans free will?
Now they’re all confused,

Don’t these talking moneys know that,
Eden has enough to go around?
Plenty in this holy garden, silly monkeys,
When there’s one you are bound to divide it,
Right in two,

Angels on the sidelines,
Baffled and confused,
Father blessed them all with reason,
And this what they choose,

Monkey killing monkey, killing monkey,
Over pieces of the ground,
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They forge a blade,
And when there’s one,
They’re bound to divide it,
Right in two,

Monkey killing monkey, killing monkey,
Over pieces of the ground,
Silly monkeys give them thumbs,
They make a club,
And beat their brother down,
How they survive so misguided is a mystery,

Repugnant is a creature who would squander the ability to life an eye to heaven conscious of his fleeting time here,

Cut it right all,
Right in two,

Fight over the clouds, over wind, over sky,
Fight over life, over blood, over prayer,
Over head and light,
Fight over love, over sun,
Over another, Fight…

Angels on the sideline again,
Benched along with patience and reason,
Angels on the sideline again,
Wondering when this tug of war will end,

Cut it right all,
Right in two,

Right in two…

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

I cast the Judgment of Solomon upon my fellow Americans.

This swaddled child of fragile democracy passed down to us from generations of proud Americans shall be for neither the leftwing nor the rightwing — we shall divide it in half. For we cannot come to terms and no aggrieved party shall ever be satisfied henceforth.

Just as the internet already has become complete in its utter division and quartering-off into tightly bound untouching spheres; as shall the the Union be broken forever and the United States shattered to nothing but individual states so that if any union is to be formed it may be formed anew. The same sword that the slew the free web should also slay the entire United States for the electronic landscape is but a mere reflection of what we are as a modern people and as a modern society.

We as a people, as a political and deliberating body, do not communicate any longer and as such it is time to crush the false former preconception that there is such a structure in this world called “The United States of America” as such an entity does not currently exist.

There is but one fair solution: we part our ways from the notion of unity altogether.

People need not tolerate one another any longer, we shall cast our entire social structure into rigid fixtures that do not touch one another. People need not be confused by differing views any longer, we shall keep our intellectuals isolated unto themselves in tight-knit groups that do interact with each other let alone the outside world.

Freedom and liberty can be redefined, just as morality and justice have been in the present day.

We will survive, but first we have to lay down and die.

We will thrive, but first we must lay our head in the guillotine.

I Believe Glenn Beck is Dangerous for America

MediaMatters.orgBeck, O’Reilly respond to Misinformer of the Year

This all bounces around in circles, just as Glenn Beck had hoped it would. He is supporting unconstitutional rhetoric and calling the people calling him out on it as doing the same. He is hiding behind a shroud of lies and then claiming that the scorn that befalls him is an attempt to silence truth. It seems the new right-wing meme to just accuse the other guy of exactly what you are doing so they have trouble calling you out on the ugly that you just spread all over the table.
Liars of this magnitude are not just merely irritating, as some have suggested to me, they are dangerous when given a platform of supposed credibility. Beck spends much of his time smearing progressives and Obama; but by the same tools he uses to falsely blame progressives / liberals are all of societies woes I could turn about and say that conservatives are the core of what is diseased and sick with the country. The same vile venom could be reversed to make the “enemy” the other side. There is no discourse to be had and that is exactly the goal from the beginning for this latest vein of populist-conservative banter. Glenn Beck will lie at any cost and continue to destroy democracy with his fear-mongering theories until people like you and me stand up and will say we have had enough of this vile anti-American propaganda. Partisan bullies like Bill O’Reilly and the rest of the corporate tools will always jump to defend the likes of these mindless hateful notions touted by Glenn Beck. The disgusting angle on both of these men is they claim to be “bipartisan” but they constantly attempt to demean and fabricate facts about liberals but never use the same dirty tactics against conservatives. Glenn Beck is the most unpatriotic broadcaster in U.S. History, and the fact that he remains on the air proves that racism and hate-speech sells better than Americanism and education. Perhaps Rodger Ailes made a simple business decision: that selling fear-mongering and race baiting was more important than representing American values.
After watching this video one could conclude, as Bill O’Reilly wants everyone to, that all voices against Glenn Beck have been those of the political left. But this is in fact not true. The Anti Defamation League is not a political-left group and they have gone out of their way to illustrate how dangerous and hateful this man’s chosen rhetoric is. What these people engage in just simply a labeling-game of a highly partisan nature of any ideological group that disagrees with their positions. Their own policy positions and tactile logic being so lacking they resort to defining the opposition instead of sharing their own perspective weighed against another extreme position. That is the definition of “fair & balanced” or “bipartisanship” … both sides of the political spectrum; not just one side amplified to an unrealistic height.
Everyone has to be a “far left radical” or a red baiting term like “socialist” or “Marxist” because if they are not then people might realize that being a patriotic American means respecting the difference of opinion rather than allowing yourself to be so broken and dishonest a person to believe or spread unsubstantiated slurs about liberals / progressives / Democrats instead of your own differing policy ideas and world view. It is Glenn Beck leading the charge, with the other pundits of Fox and the Tea Party riding behind him, to destroy the political debate and corrupt the political dialect in this country as much as possible. This man toys with racism, McCarthyism, political bigotry and fear-mongering about the government like they were all harmless tools when they deadly weapons that will destroy our democracy if left to spread like a virus throughout the country. To put it another way: Beck seeks to destroy the middle and push everyone into hateful opposing camps instead of negotiating parties. I have for many weeks been mulling over exactly what could be said that is truly “bipartisan” about Glenn Beck and all his noise. That is what I come up with, just that alone. He seeks to destroy the middle and aggravate existing social tensions for profiteering motives at the expense of our very system of democracy were his notions and supposedly genuine “fears” followed through to their logical conclusion. Glenn Beck paints an America that is dark and filled with myths that become reasons to hate the world.
However, all is not lost. I suggested we “Hit Glenn Beck Where It Hurts,” in the advertisers. And to some extent we were successful: a reported total of 20 sponsors dropped Glenn Beck after his racialist statement about a U.S. President was not apologized for nor retracted formally by the network at the reported request via multiple letters to Rodger Ailes.
Many people saw the truth: that this was not about political opinions anymore and that Beck had purposefully been race baiting when he called Obama a “racist.” The case that defines Glenn Beck is a case that they will never air or likely ever speak out on any version of Fox News. That being the most “extremist” internet-attack against Beck, that in fact illustrates quite well what his common tactic is when creating his fantastic tales of fiction. Minus the shock-value, the point is more on a legal aspect as to where his true allegiances lie. Beck went outside the United States, and sought European-brands of justice to serve him when he became aware of this “rumor” about him and wanted them squashed. He could have sought to U.S. Constitution that he claims to love so dearly to help defend him in what he saw as a violation of his rights, but instead he opted to try and simply destroy the opposing voice with a foreign court. It did not stop there, from there Beck has used his big-money influences to try and push this website promoting this “rumor” as “satirical comedy” off the bandwidth with dirty corporate tactics; the very same tactics he claims to despise so much. The website remains, and freedom of speech is protected despite Beck’s attempt to destroy it. I re-posted that website content onto my blog in the spirit of “rodeo clowning” that Glenn Beck is so found of himself. I refuse to take it down even if I don’t completely enjoying having it up.
Glenn Beck is smarter than he wants his audience to know. A trend popular with women working at Fox, but Beck has taken it up for himself and it seems to work rather well for him. He saw out over the horizon the same unwarranted fears and same old social tensions coming to rise in this country that I did nearly two years ago now. I mused that the time that I could go out into the lands as the healing suave, to bring some truth to matter and some real policy differences that people could see rather than hollow boiler-plate talking points. But what he decided to do was to pour gasoline on the fears and start putting Hitler-mustaches on anyone not giving to these ever-present right-wing propagandists that he frequently has as guests on his television and radio programs. He and I are not so different, in that that he is an embodiment of someone like myself in my “extremes of opinions” except minus all morality, patriotism and ethical standards. It’s all very clever word-plays and out-of-context quotes and rewriting of U.S. History; but it’s not impressive because I could have done it too. Lying is easy, but the question is: Is it worth it? In the end his soul will have to answer for the racism and many, many lies he has told. The money he makes while treating his audience like they are severely lacking intelligence (many unfortunately are) will buy him his ticket to the country club with Limbaugh and O’Reilly and the rest, but the currency of his character is forever darkened by the path he has chosen for himself.

Ayn Rand is Running the TEA Party

(Boston Globe)

Coldhearted novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand is Running the both the TEA Party and the GOP, her self-serving ideology the real backdrop of the modern political right-wing.

Alan Greenspan was one of many Randites who have come to see the failing in their former logic.

Greenspan, to his credit, came forward in the height of the global economic meltdown to speak out against the exact same kind of “free-capitalistic” business practices that caused the crash. He clearly stated that he found: “[a] flaw in the model that I perceived as the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works.

Conservatives and libertarians greatly ignored and widely dismissed Greenspan and his unsubtle rejection of these “Ayn Rand Economics” or “Free-Market Capitalism” styled politics that he had once been a strong advocate of. I contend that these people do not care to explore flaws in their ideological stances and instead (in greater and greater numbers it seems) only seek to create an atmosphere of me-versus-you if any person is in anything but outright agreement if not an atmosphere of outright violence.

Dishonesty and willful ignorance dominates the TEA Party, right along with the radical GOP, leaving me to assume that no less than Ayn Rand coming from beyond the grave is the one is truly running the party.

(will re-post with full essay when finished transcribing)

A Leggy Sara Palin Newsweek Cover

Politically-speaking I could not disagree with Sara Palin any more.

However, I would like to say that this woman has taken an amazing amount of hard-blows from the left. It would be more impressive in her own personal character if she refused to play the victim over the matter, but there is no doubt these things occur.

I am for focusing on the facts, as I see them at this time.

The fact is it makes no sense what Sara Palin said to Oprah about her reasons for leaving the governor’s office in Alaska.

This notion that her political advocacy would be hampered by resigning from office due to fact that ethical violations would have been filed is absurd.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her statement is that her political advocacy would promoting something widely recognized as unethical due to fact that if your cause is just and more motives only non-violent advocacy of ideals you have nothing to fear in defending your case should you be called to question for your actions.

The Governor of Alaska has many, many times the ability to effect social change and promote political advocacy of a private citizen relying on namesake leftover from the 2008 Campaign.

The facts of the matter are that the former-Governor of Alaska still refuses to give a cogent or logical reply to a simple question.

Sara Palin also retains that the simple question, “What do you read?” is somehow an insult on her.

This was a great opportunity for Sara Palin to promote her local newspaper and other press outlets that may go under-looked. She instead continues to only be vague about rather simple questions.

Now putting all that aside, I don’t think that taking an image from Runner’s World on the cover of Newsweek was a very wise move.

This just feeds into the false notion that Sara Palin doesn’t get a “fair shake” in the “liberal media.”

If anything the “liberal media,” which is a misnomer, doesn’t get enough objective critics who focus on facts where many are clear to raise.
In a previous post I said that people should pick up a copy of that Newsweek with the Anna Quindlen and disgraced Governor Mark Sanford to read, so you could get a grip on what the heck is going on right not in politics.

As for this issue of Newsweek, I suggest instead buying a National Inquirer instead.

MediaMatters.org has covered this issue quite well:

Making matters worse is the equally offensive headline Newsweek editors chose to run alongside the photo — “How Do You Solve a Problem like Sarah?” — presumably a reference to the Sound of Music song, “Maria,” in which nuns fret about “how” to “solve a problem like Maria,” a “girl” who “climbs trees” and whose “dress has a tear.”

Now, this photograph may have been completely appropriate for the cover of the magazine for which the picture was apparently intended, Runners World. But Newsweek is supposed to be a serious newsmagazine, and the magazine is certainly not reporting on Palin’s exercise habits.

I don’t believe Sara Palin is a viable candidate for any major political office.

Her disinterest in facts and honesty being the reason for this.

Call me strange, but I don’t think Sara Palin’s legs are “news worthy.”

I’m just saying that things like this Newsweek cover are fodder for all these false-news hounds out there painting on their wild canvas.

Policies Over Personalities in Partisan Politics

 
 

al_gore
Image: SustainAbility.com

 

Al Gore –

“Republicans are the best sellers of the worst products.”

Gore is right about the Republicans, but moreover he made this simple point without the venom we so often see in political right-wing critiques.

Conservative-Republican policy is an awful product, not fit for public consumption.

But they understand how to hard-sell better than they understand how to make good solution-oriented policy and I have long since believed that most Liberal-Democrats have almost none of the much needed ability to sell effective solutions and positive social change in a cogent manner to the public at-large.

I would like to be very clear about this: I am not advocating that the left-wing simply mimic the right-wing. I am advocating shameless theft of their selling-tactics on a both political and news-media levels.

It’s not what you say, it’s how you say it.

Negative political ads and partisan attacks are highly effective.

The key element being here is that any liberal or Democrat doing this must stick to the record and focus on the policies over the personalities. The use of public-misinformation should never be looked kindly upon but wherein the source of your reasoning and the portion that is purely opinion being clearly declared as such there is plenty of room.

Rep. Alan Grayson has provided exactly the kind of example this argument requires.

He confined himself to the policy issue at hand and presented his evidence for believing this.

Make no mistake, I am advocating for partisanship.

But if there is such a beast as “ethical partisanship” then this is what I would promote. Full-disclosure partisanship. (What makes you believe that, where did you hear / see this happening?)

Focus on the facts with the Neoconservative-Tea-Baggers. Focus on the facts with the Pro-Cheney Corporatists. Focus on the facts with the Fox News Loyalists.

To some degree there are elements of labeling that cannot be avoided in politics; the wagging of fingers a near must in some cases and nothing less than shameful to stand silent amidst bigoted sentiments toward minorities or faiths disguised as political commentary. It is possible, however, to attempt to stick to the point in the process rather than degenerating into vileness. Which is a far cry from the totalitarian-ideology of the neoconservatives.

We should all strive to make ourselves and our opinions known, but strive to keep our criticisms based on policy and provable facts as opposed to personalities and wild theories.