More Teaparties (aka "Not Again")

First, the good news: Healthcare passed the House, and Glenn Beck wrote a book called "Arguing With Idiots."

I think that if you're going to protest something, please have the common decency to know what you're protesting about.

Now, the bad news. Paul Krugman (I know, I cite him a lot) claims in a NYTimes editorial today that the Teabaggers are taking over the GOP.

I can hear some of you cheering: Because of their strong-arm tactics, the GOP will be reduced to nearly nothing! But consider this: What's left of the GOP will do everything it can to immobilize our government in the middle of a recession. Let's not forget that this tiny minority would also be extremely rabid and dangerous, and the leaders that would rise up within this faction (the national GOP would also, naturally, jump on this doomtrain to get elected should it reach that point) would be unlike anything the United States has seen on its own soil. We've seen the disruptions, the angry signs, and heard the ridiculous remarks, but I remind you that up to now, no one is really *representing* the Teabaggers, they are a media creation subservient to only conservative media moguls, the names of which are familiar enough that I dont have to repeat them, who are *not* seeking elected office. This is an important point: No one holding the leash has any interest in actual policy or the procedures of government. This means that should this faction be elected to any power at all, it would act unpredictably, and probably with brutal force, should the opportunity arise.

On a higher level, however, the incapacitation of the GOP would of course lead to third-party candidates seeking election. This country needs a multi-party system, and the dissolution of one conglomerate party would lead to probably many parties. On the other hand, these parties might end up being too small to get elected to anything but regional offices, and the Democratic Party would probably maintain a very large majority of seats in Congress.

"But you support Obama! Why would a Democratic monopoly be bad!?" We can't have a single party in government. We need ideas, and if one of us gets too comfortable, who will challenge them? Would people with views different from the ruling party but not dangerous be heard?

So how would the GOP be dissolved? It's quite simple, really, as the national GOP has always been too proud of its "base." It has built its house on the ugliest and most unstable lot. For quite a while it's been holding a competition in which whoever holds the most extreme and repugnant views is the winner. This is effectively demonstrated by the 23rd district race in NY, in which Beck & Co endorsed the "more conservative" candidate, who was not chosen by the regional party chairman. The chosen candidate (the moderate) then dropped from the race and endorsed the Democratic candidate, who then proceeded to win.

You might then be asking yourself, "But if they chose the moderate candidate, then that competition for the most abhorrent views is not actually going on." Hold on a minute. The conservative candidate was endorsed by the national bigwigs. The national GOP as dominated by Fox News personalities immediately goes for the "most conservative" candidate on impulse.

It is a bizarre circus, but this proves that Fox News does have a limit on its power, as much as we think otherwise. Top-down politics can only do so much, and this actually works in our favor: The more repugnant politicians are peddled by Fox News, the more people will be disgusted, and the faster their tent will shrink. The rest of them, however, can continue to eat it up. They may win a lot of Southern municipalities, and a few states down there, but we can't be that stupid on a national level...

Can we?



















1) Paranoia Strikes Deep by Paul Krugman

"Passing Unread Laws" - Washington Times

The first two paragraphs of the article state:

"This weekend's Fourth of July festivities celebrated the birth of representative government in America. As the Declaration of Independence set forth 233 years ago, our government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Such consent does not exist when legislation is purposely rammed through Congress so quickly that congressmen -- let alone citizens -- do not have time even to read it. Welcome to Speaker Nancy Pelosi's House of Representatives."1

The problem with this article is the last sentence. The truth of the matter is that the problem of voting on laws that legislators haven't even read extends far longer than Pelosi's election. I agree that most Senate assemblies are an exercise in time-killing. But please acknowledge that this has been a severe, long-running problem. Putting Pelosi's name on it not only does no favors, and is actually incorrect. Painting blame on a Democratic Congress ignores the fact that there are still Republican senators, and before 2006, most of Congress was Republican, and the problem existed then, too. The PATRIOT Act is a prime example.

As impotent as Congress generally is, it is still necessary. The problem is getting it to work correctly. It is correct to say that bills are generally fairly long, and reading them is still absolutely necessary. Do senators and representatives actually have a working knowledge of reading legal documents? Even if they do (most are lawyers, after all), if they did sit and read the entire document, it would take forever and nothing would get done, and yet we cannot have a legislature ignorant of what they are legislating (local Intelligent Design decisions, stem cell legislation, abortion legislation, etc).

I thus propose the following: Once a bill is drafted, teams of translators (writers) condense and translate the documents into normal language that is universally understandable and easy to read. This may take more time than simply not reading it, but intelligent decisions are of utmost importance. An informed yet slower Congress is better than a swift and ignorant one.

Also taking up Congress' time are frivolous ceremonies and wasteful legislation on hot-button "smoke screen" issues, like flagburning (which cannot actually be illegal under the Constitution) and the Terri Schaivo disaster, though they haven't pulled that nonsense since.

Sometimes it seems that Congress cannot control itself, and acts independently of the other two branches of government and against public interest (i.e. wasting time). I would advocate some limitations on Congress to better integrate it into the actual governing process and make it more productive, such as an imposed salary (they actually vote on what they earn), and especially term limits.

1) http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/06/passing-unread-laws/

NJ Republicans? Uh oh...

Taxes are becoming an increasingly significant problem in NJ. Do we jump ship and go for the other side? A recent editorial in The Bergen Record by gubernatorial candidate Steve Lonegan set off some alarms when I read it1.

The general problem with the Republican tax model is that the businesses are supposed to contribute to the tax pool, and there seems to be a kind of either/or that is detrimental either way to the citizens of the state: The Republicans present two alternatives: If taxed, the businesses will flee the state, but if they don't, they will stay. Obviously the state gets no money out of that deal, and then the taxes continue to rise for the citizens no matter what the businesses decide to do. Yes, we need jobs in the state, but it is still a lose-lose situation for the people if the businesses get a free pass.

How much should we as a state sacrifice for the businesses to stay, as taxes will surely rise no matter if they flee or we dont tax them. This is where free-market economics (read: Deregulation, aka New Economic Theory, aka Lassez-Faire Capitalism) fails. It favors businesses (entities, organizations) over the people and public good. There is a limit to acceptable greed, but there is always the question of whether or not businesses would accept that ethic. What got us into this nationwide recession is sufficient evidence of that fact. To be too terrified of businesses leaving the state, doing everything we can for them to stay (even if they do not contribute) seems misguided. How much do we stand to gain if we dont tax them, and how much do we stand to lose if we do?

If the businesses aren't taxed, the people must pick up the slack, and they will get up and leave. If the businesses are taxed, they will do the same. How should we find the balance to help this state prosper? We need both, and we need both to contribute.

1) http://www.northjersey.com/opinion/lonegan_062309.html

It's Been a While

And things are good, and have been good: Gay rights are expanding across the country, Creationism has been defeated for the time being in Texass, and most importantly, Obama was elected.

So why am I writing?

Well, as things are getting good for us, there is usually a virulent strain of revolutionary conservatism that is terrified of what we're doing. It was around since the beginning of the aftermath of the election, and while most people were cheering, there were more people buying guns and stocking up on survivalist supplies. It started with Rush Limbaugh's "I want Obama to fail" shenanigans, but now things are getting more serious in church. The NOM (as in "Om nom nom" ( '< . . ." or National Organization of/for Marriage, produced a Two-Minutes Hate against gay marriage "Oh NO! I have to sit here while my children learn in school that gay marriage is OK!", and Glenn Beck plays with Jenga to illustrate how people should be terrified of Os- I'm sorry, Obama. We used to be afraid of Osama, but we let him go. It's Obama they're afraid of, because he presents a huge threat to their ideology. Don't be fooled: Conservatism is not minimal government. The only deregulation they practice is economic; dont think for a second that they are at all concerned with individualism or the Constitution.

Aren't conservatives doing what we were doing during the Bush years? At first glance, there are similarities. But if one looks more closely, the problems during the Bush years were very real and very close to the lives of individual human beings, from the PATRIOT Acts and stem cell bans, and Bush's reckless cowboyism that completely disconnected us with the rest of the world. What could the conservatives possibly be afraid of? Their economic stability. Do you think Glenn Beck or Bill O'Really really cares about the middle or lower classes? Not at all. Faux Populi. If they did, they would be kicked off Fox News faster than Ted Haggard out of New Life Church. They aren't really afraid for this country, they are simply terrified of losing their (enormous, possibly illegal (earned through nefarious business practices), and possibly unearned) wealth.

The conservative doctrine treats corporations as human beings: That [corporations] are granted life and liberty, at the expense of real people. Libertarianism poses an equal and similar issue. This country learned in the 19th century up to the1950s that economic deregulation was contradictory to individual success and satisfaction, from the dystopias of Upton Sinclair and Andrew Carnegie's factory conditions, to munitions factories during WW1 and WW2, workers rights need to be balanced with the needs of corporate executives. Economic deregulation does not guarantee the rights of workers, it eliminates them and allows the corporations to do whatever they please to the people who work for them.

Paul Krugman wrote today that the "[Insani]"Tea Parties (as the brilliantly snarky Rachel Maddow took them) were conceived by the "usual suspects" (conservative "think" tanks), and tore out all of the authenticity that these Tea Parties (tea, crumpets, 6-year-old girls, and teddy bears!) seemed to hold as "grassroots" movements. No, Krugman calls them Astro-Turf movements, movements that have formed not from the bottom up, but from the top down: Fox News has been "aggressively" promoting these Tea Parties, and the rich hold tea parties that cost $500 a seat. Is that grassroots? I dont think so.

What were we doing during the Bush years? Well, I was reading dystopian novels, and watching as James Dobson excercised his insidious influence over public policy, as we preemptively attacked Iraq, as New Orleans became New Atlantis, as Creationists, armed with the overconfidence that their man was the President, steamrolled across the country, putting false warnings on science textbooks; I watched as John McCain chose Manchurian candidate Sarah Palin as his runningmate, who was everything conservatives like in a woman.

We watched as gas prices rose to between $4 and $5/gallon, as scientists and politicians proposed plans to cease global warming that went ignored by the President, who often tampered with scientific reports that contradicted his beliefs. We watched our moral credentials burn to ash after Abu Ghraib, as a White House official disclosed the identity of an undercover agent for retribution for contradicting doctored Bush intelligence on Iraq.

Obama approved a no-nonsense Navy SEALS operation to save the captain of that cargo ship. Could Bush dare to say the same?