Something Someone Else Said II

"It is hard in this age of endless memorialization to even express this view without sounding callous: but Londoners did not turn their entire city into a "hallowed ground" or a shrine for the dead or a monument to British victimhood. They rebuilt, they went on, they rightly saw that the truest memorial to the dead was to show the Nazis that their city would rise again as if the Nazis had never existed on the face of the earth. I have always felt a deep discomfort similarly with the entire holocaust-memorial and holocaust-study industry. As a Jew, I hate the idea that the defining fact of my people's entire history should be what the fucking Nazis did to us.

There is a great Spanish proverb: olvidar la injuria es la mejor venganza: to forget an insult is the greatest revenge," -Stephen Budiansky, Stephen Budiansky's Liberal Curmudgeon Blog.

Meanwhile, nine years after the attacks on 9/11 we argue and bicker over whether it's respectful to the victims of those attacks to build a religious community center near the big ugly hole in the ground where they were killed. Our priorities are fucked up.

(via)

American Power And Rhetorical Cowardice

Regular readers may remember my recent post lamenting my conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power's failure, both intellectual and testicular, to even minimally address my arguments in favor of the decriminalization of illicit narcotics, cannabis in particular. I think "loser" and "pile of shit" adequately sum up his entire rebuttal on that count, so I suppose it should come as no surprise that he has once again avoided making any type of intellectual argument in favor of his position in lieu of rhetorical avoidance and tired hyperbole in his post, "Legalizing Cocaine?":

JBW's jonesin' for some kind of debate --- any debate, I guess --- but frankly it seems useless trying to respond to some effete leftist "libertarian" who at most can string together "NANNY STATE", "NANNY STATE", NANNY STATE" until you've had just about enough of that faux intellectualism to last a lifetime. Not only that, JBW's calling for the decriminalization of cocaine, which I can't see how that's going to improve society much. But hey, JBW thinks he knows everything, and apparently that includes all the things I've seen and experienced in my few decades on this Great Green Earth.

That said, just read Sandy Banks' essay at LAT, "The crack epidemic's toxic legacy." Perhaps reducing some of the harsher criminal sentencing guidelines will ease historical racial disparities (putting aside the causes), but Banks isn't going in for full-blown decriminalization, not by a long shot:

[I've decided not to include the rather long LA Times article Don pastes into his post. It mostly consists of anecdotal stories of drug abuse and addiction and the crime and violence that follow from such behaviour and our government's current drug policy. You can read the whole article at this link.]

Be sure to check the Times' skid row series as well.

No doubt Mr. "Libertarian" JBW's down with that kind extreme pain, dislocation, and hopelessness as well.

First of all, when have I advocated for the specific legalization of cocaine during our current back and forth about drug legalization? Not in the post Don links to above in which I call him an intellectual coward, nor in the post before that in which I respond to his whining about factory farming of medical cannabis in Oakland, nor even in the year old post in which I refute Don's specific and personal assertion that cannabis is inherently evil and thus destroys every life it touches. Now it is true that I do advocate for a policy of blanket (or nearly so, obviously depending on certain outside societal factors and conditions) drug legalization in the United States but to bring that particular point up now in the face of several posts specifically advocating for the legalization of cannabis smacks of desperation and avoidance.

Also, (and I don't think I need to explain this point to most people reading this but Don might be as well so here it is) calling assertions about an encroaching nanny state philosophy of government "faux intellectualism" without supporting that supposition with any kind of cogent argumentation is the height of literal irony. True, if one were to view the world through the narrow lens of black or white thinking (such as a five-year-old does, for instance) then I can see how Don might think that legalizing cocaine would be bad for society but one would also have to completely ignore all of the negative consequences of our federal government's current war on drugs and the net effect this has on society as well, which Don is of course all too happy to do.

But my favorite part of this post is Don's continued insistence, albeit indirectly this time, that I should somehow embrace him as some type of mentor based on his 13-14 years seniority of me. I hate to disappoint the guy but I've tried this particular song and dance in the patriarchal sense twice in my life and the results were less than stellar both times: my father ignored me until he was on his death bed and my step-father was a serial dick throughout my childhood, so I'm sure I can be excused for not embracing the intellectual arguments of someone who consistently calls me a loser or worse. Plus, when it comes to the topic at hand I usually adhere to the sage advice of comedian and admitted drug user Doug Stanhope:

There's only two types of people who are against drugs: the people who have never done drugs and the people who really sucked at doing drugs.

Based on what I've seen of Don he himself falls squarely within the former category while his arguments against legalization seem to fall squarely within the latter, which means that to my mind all the things he's supposedly seen and experienced in his few decades on this Great Green Earth amount to exactly jack shit when it comes to this particular issue. I'm sorry but merely stating that "drugs are bad" is hardly an intellectual argument, no matter how many idiots you've known who've abused said drugs and ruined their lives in the process and further saying that I'm "down with that kind extreme pain, dislocation, and hopelessness" is just another straw man argument that ignores the mountain of evidence of extreme pain, dislocation and hopelessness that similarly results from our country's continued failed war on drugs.

One of these policy positions on drug legalization advocates for personal freedom and individual responsibility for one's own actions; the other advocates for an oppressive nanny state government that would deny those same freedoms and responsibilities in favor of laws that intrude upon people's personal lives and punish adults for indulging in sometimes personally destructive behaviour in the guise of protecting them and the rest of society from themselves. Guess which type of world view Don endorses. I'll say it again: intellectual coward, and much more, conservative: my white ass.

American Power And Intellectual Impotence

My conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power recently flexed some serious grey matter rebutting my post decrying the criminalization of cannabis and his need to have the government protect him from it in his post "One Big Pile":

That would be Brain Rage's argument for drug decriminalization, although Charles Johnson comes to mind as well:

Yeah, that's it. This guy is a teacher and my taxes pay his salary. The debates in his classroom must be scintillating displays of wordplay, what with calling someone "loser" and saying that their assertions are full of shit being acceptable lines of argument. I'll say it again: intellectual coward.

Rand Paul Isn't A Racist, He's Just A Dumbass

How can someone be this clueless about politics whilst running for the Senate?

Tea Party hero Rand Paul scrambled Thursday to tamp down the growing firestorm over his criticism of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The new Republican Senate nominee from Kentucky released a rambling statement amid calls to explain comments that he would have opposed a central tenet of the landmark law: forcing private businesses to integrate.

"I support the Civil Rights Act because I overwhelmingly agree with the intent of the legislation, which was to stop discrimination," Paul said Thursday.

In interviews Wednesday, Paul said that while he opposed discrimination, he thought "a lot of things could be handled locally."

The remark was at odds with history: Before the 1960s civil rights laws, white segregationists had an iron grip on local and state governments throughout the South.

It seems to me that Paul is trying to have an intellectual and philosophical argument as he's running for office in the real world and that intellectual honesty, while surprisingly refreshing, is biting him in the ass as a result. His main point is that the 1964 Civil Rights Act was obviously a good thing and ensured equal rights for all Americans but that it also impinged on the individual rights of business owners and others by forcing them to accommodate black people and other minorities as well as whites. And this is all true. His problem is that he's arguing historically unpopular points and he's being extraordinarily tone deaf about the impact of those points at the same time.

Yes, the Civil Rights Act did limit personal freedom in certain ways but those limits were made necessary by a national history of slavery and a time of extreme racial tensions. It's all well and good to argue that Libertarian principles and personal freedom should be the goal of a truly equal society and if this were a purely academic argument set outside of history and culture it might sound pretty convincing but we've already tried that philosophy out in the crucible of the real world and it failed miserably. The freedom to discriminate against anyone as it applies to one's place of business led not to more equality but rather to more racism and more oppression of minorities and as time went on it became obvious that only the federal government had the ability to adequately right these historical inequities.

We see the same denial of historic evidence as it pertains to the war on illegal drugs: even though we have a perfect historical corollary in the failure of Prohibition to show that this attempt at social engineering categorically does not work there are still millions of short-sighted individuals who simply refuse to examine history and make this logical deduction. The difference here is that while supporting the failed drug war is still a popular political stance to take in many circles speaking out against the Civil Rights Act, even if just in theory, is an extremely unpopular thing to do in practically every venue and it's almost unthinkable if one wishes to be elected to national office. Regardless of the intellectual point that Paul is trying to illustrate (and I understand and agree with that point, if only on principle), to try and make it during a national Senate bid is naive at best and politically suicidal at worst. In the end I doubt that Paul will lose this race because people perceive him as a racist as a result of this controversy; whether he loses it because he's proven himself a clueless dumbass remains yet to be seen.

[Update: Ezra Klein has a few questions concerning Paul's strict Libertarian views:

...unfortunately for Paul, this isn't over. Not by a long shot. There is a category of scandal that I call "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." A candidate who thinks he was abducted by UFOs would fit here. It's weird, but it doesn't have many implications for public policy. What's gotten Paul in trouble, however, is that he's so skeptical of government power that he's not even comfortable with the public sector telling private businesses that they can't discriminate based on race. That, I fear, does have public policy implications.

For instance: Can the federal government set the private sector's minimum wage? Can it tell private businesses not to hire illegal immigrants? Can it tell oil companies what safety systems to build into an offshore drilling platform? Can it tell toy companies to test for lead? Can it tell liquor stores not to sell to minors? These are the sort of questions that Paul needs to be asked now, because the issue is not "area politician believes kooky but harmless thing." It's "area politician espouses extremist philosophy on issue he will be voting on constantly."

This is the problem with pure Libertarianism and it's the reason Libertarians never get more than a few percentage points in elections: their principles are largely untenable in the real world. Personal freedom is a great thing and I'm all for having hypothetical intellectual arguments but allowing institutional racial discrimination or going back to the gold standard are absurd ideas in a modern society. Plus, Paul isn't even as ideologically rigid as he comes off: he has lately said that he would not leave abortion to the states, he doesn't believe in legalizing drugs like marijuana and cocaine, he'd support federal drug laws and he's ignored the regulatory and safety corner cutting that allowed the BP disaster to occur in the Gulf by stating that "sometimes accidents happen". The only thing worse than a strict unbending Libertarian is someone who arbitrarily believes in personal freedoms only when they suit him personally. And we've all seen what that looks like, haven't we?]

[Update II: One of Andrew Sullivan's readers sums up the position of intellectual theory versus real world practice better than I:

There are no purely intellectual positions for people who wish to be elected to government office. The consequences of their philosophies must be their responsibility. Balancing intellectual ideals with the reality of human action is what we expect from our leaders.

People tell me all the time that I should run for some type of political office, and I echo Sullivan in replying that this is one reason why I haven't. Yet.]

I Don't Think Donald Douglas Likes Me...

My corpulent conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power finally stopped moderating his comment sections the other day so I promised myself that I'd leave something witty and brilliant on his doorstep as soon as he said something hateful and/or ignorant. I didn't have to wait very long for his post "BUSH = HITLER: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same...":

When it comes to the Democrats, I'm ashamed for my country. But I'm not resigned. The tea parties are the salvation of democracy.

And since I know lefties will say "both sides do it." .... No, sorry, there's nothing -- absolutely nothing -- comparable to the secular demonization and violent rhetoric against the GOP during the Bush years, and it contiues today.

Yes, it appears rather innocuous despite its hyper-partisanship but since it continues Don's "Conservatives are always super cool and civilized while liberals are always a bunch of evil meanies" blogging meme I took exception to his argument that his side of the aisle is somehow exceptional:

...both sides do it Don, no matter how many times you tell yourself and others how much better your side is for doing so. Ah, hypocrisy...

To which he replied with his usual cries of persecution and victim hood:

The difference is the leftist-progressive media never report the left's extremism. All you hear about is the "racist teabaggers" ... blah, blah.

Of course, the Democrats embrace their extremists, while genuine tea partiers repudiate those you focus on.

So, sorry, and I repeat, nothing, nothing is comparable to the left's demonization and double standards. You guys win, hands down.

As refreshing as it was to see him finally admitting that he was a loser I always have a problem letting dumbassery go unchallenged:

"Blah, blah" is right, Don. "The leftist liberal commie pinko media is so totally against us and there's a conspiracy to smear teabaggers and Sarah Palin must be destroyed because they're so scared of her and you guys are so incredibly evil while we're just patriotic Americans who bring guns to presidential appearances and compare him to Hitler, for Christ's sake".

Yeah, you're so evolved. If what you say is so then answer the question I asked on my site last week: Why don't I see other tea partiers trying to eject the racist and violence advocating assholes from your little rallies? Yeah, you claim to repudiate these idiots and their ideas but I don't see anyone amongst you actively doing anything to distance your movement from them or them from your movement.

...If I were at an anti Iraq war march in 2003 and some idiot was standing next to me with a "BUSH = HITLER" sign I'd give the guy shit and tell that he should get lost because he's hurting the movement, yet I see tea partiers blithely standing next to someone holding a picture of Obama dressed as an African witch doctor with a bone through his nose not saying shit to them.

Even here, your post decries "leftists" holding signs comparing Bush to Hitler and one of your frequent commenters calls Obama worse than said Hitler and you also don't say shit, because he agrees with you and hates the same "leftists" you hate. As I commented on another of your threads, you and your side put up with extreme haters because they help your cause.

And before you retort: yes, the left does this too but I don't inanely spout off phrases like "nothing, nothing is comparable to the [side I don't agree with]'s demonization and double standards" because I'm not a myopic hack with no sense of self-awareness. Again, both sides do it and if you weren't a hypocrite of the first order you'd be able to see that.

Per his usual M.O., rather than answering my question and refuting my points he countered using the brilliant rhetorical tactic of simply calling me an "idiot slob" at the end of a couple of posts as if calling someone names actually substitutes for intelligent debate. When I tried to politely remind him that he was still wrong...:

Both sides do do it, Don. You're no more of a saint than I am. And "slob" was a nice touch but please come up with something a little more varied than "idiot" every time you mention me. I'm sure your readers would appreciate some variety in your ad hominem insults and name calling. Tubby.

...It appeared that I might have upset the old boy. I'm pretty sure it was the "Tubby" remark (Don's been a little sensitive about his weight ever since his genitals permanently slipped below the horizon of his expansive waistline). First he responded with this timeless classic:

That's fail, JBW. YOU. ARE. FAIL.

But apparently Don thought that a wholly monosyllabic response just wasn't persuasive enough so 45 minutes later he decided to type the word "fail" several more times in order to expound upon his argument. Enjoy "April Fools: Fail Blogger James B. Webb on Fail President Barack Obama":

From fail blogger James B. Webb, last November ...

... I plan to hold our new president's feet to the fire for the next four years; having defended him on many different levels and issues over the past few years I now fully expect him to follow through on his promise of trying to build a better tomorrow for the citizens of this country ...

Okay. Right.

...JBW fail and Barack Obama fail. Separated at birth?

From April Fool's Day approval ratings at Rasmussen:

Overall, 47% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove ...

Fail.

And last week at CNN: "Majority Disapprove of Obama for First Time."

EPIC. JBW. FAIL.

If you go there to read it don't bother trying to leave a comment because Don disabled them for that post alone, presumably because he obviously "welcomes comments and debate". A few things: my post he took the above quote from isn't from last November. Not only is it clearly dated as November 5, 2008 but it's also featured in the sidebar to the right with the words "Read My Post-Election Essay". I don't blame Don for the mistake though; I've been told that when older folks reach a certain age it becomes rather confusing trying to keep track of which year it is. At least he can take heart in knowing that Reagan had the same problem at one point.

He also quotes two polls concerning Obama's approval ratings that seem to definitively prove that the president is also subject to this bout of "epic fail", except of course that they don't. The most recent RealClearPolitics accumulation of polling data shows the Rasmussen poll to be a statistical outlier (there is a consistent right-leaning bias in Rasmussen's methodology; pay attention to how often the right points solely to this organization's polling data to back up their talking points) while every other major polling firm shows Obama's approval rating to be either positive or within the margin of error (he's +2 overall). And the CNN poll Don cites from last week?:

The new poll was conducted before the House on Sunday narrowly approved the Obama administration's signature domestic policy proposal: health care reform.

Their most recent numbers put Obama up by +3. DON. TUBBY. DOUGLAS. EPIC. FAIL. WRITING. IN. ALL. CAPS. MAKES. ONE'S. ARGUMENTS. MORE. CONVINCING. ISN'T. THIS. ANNOYING? HE'S. ACTUALLY. A. COLLEGE. PROFESSOR. YOUR. TAX. DOLLARS. PAY. HIS. SALARY. PERHAPS. I. SHOULD. PROTEST. THIS. BY. SPITTING. ON. MY. CONGRESSMAN. LIKE. A. GOOD. AMERICAN.

If however Don is so certain about Obama's dismal approval ratings translating into epic failure then I'll offer him this meager yet serious wager: $100 says that the Republicans fail to gain a majority in either house of congress this November. I'm making the offer publicly so that every one reading this will be privy to it. I think Obama's a chess master of the highest caliber Don, and he's moved his pieces into position to retain his party's majorities through the remainder of his first term. Care to put your money where your mouth is, Fat Boy Slim?

Of course the larger point I've been trying to make to Don over all the noise of constant capitalization and funny fat guy nicknames is that in American politics there are people from both sides of the aisle who say and do things that are morally and ethically reprehensible. Sure, one side's arguments may be more cogent, better articulated and better for the country (hint: I'm not talking about Don's side) but it has become exceedingly clear that the current atmosphere of partisan antipathy seems to bring out the worst in people from both political parties. Neither side has a sole claim to the practice of civilized discourse, and conversely neither side is free from uncivilized behaviour.

Ask yourself this question: knowing what you do of humanity, do you trust a man who constantly insists that he's morally superior to anyone who disagrees with him to be intellectually honest with you about anything? Don seems to believe that he's on the side of the angels, and in order to prove it he must frame everyone he hates as devils. It's a belief system that's as delusional as it is myopic and no amount of persuasion or logic can sway people like him from their illusions. Should I write "fail" here one more time for emphasis?

How To Say The New Year

There's a right way and a wrong way. Spread the word.

(via)

Picture Of The Day

Protest sign punkings are some of my favorite things in the world.

(via)

Should The Ends Justify The Means?

Per my post yesterday about the lies of Sarah Palin and others concerning so-called "death panels" essentially killing the end-of-life provision in President Obama's health care reform legislation regular reader Truth101 left the following comment:

I've been a low level hack since I was 13 JBW. One recurring theme to winning elections in my view is that lies and distortion win more than they lose.

I can't go into it here but the ones I worked on that lost, most of them we ran positive campaigns.

I wouldn't lose any sleep if the DNC or Move On or something else decided to make the scumbags that lie about health care pay. Fighting the good fight isn't doing any good against these assholes. Losing this with dignity is not going to insure 47 million people without and the millions more that will be added as business decides it can't afford the expense.

I don't know how much experience you or your readers have with politicing and working elections. But this my friend is "nut cutting time."

I regret if I your opinion of me has been diminished.

First and foremost, let me say that I've known Truth101 online for some time now and despite his occasional lapses of decorum (you know of which I speak, amigo) I can say unequivocally that he's a real stand up guy. And I recognize the compulsion to fight dirty when dirty is the only way the other side will fight. Regardless, I have to say that this line of reasoning takes me down a road that I am somewhat loath to travel upon.

To address T101's query about my own political experience, I only made phone calls to voters in other states from my home on behalf of Barack Obama last year (in Northern California it seemed like it would do more good than walking precincts) but two years before that I was a paid staffer on a federal congressional campaign. The reason I bring it up now is because at one point the campaign manager (also a stand up guy, as far as I knew him personally) wanted to engage in some rather nefarious tactics against the Republican incumbent and trust me: This guy deserved it and much more. But my boss (we referred to him as a "boy scout" because he was so straight-laced) wouldn't have it. He felt that we should be able to win the fight based on the issues and their merits, and we ultimately did. I'm very proud to say that he's now my congressman, having been reelected last year and I couldn't wish for a better or more honest human being to be working within the House of Representatives on my behalf.

So I understand T101's compulsion to fight fire with fire, or dirt with dirt if you will. And I'm not so naive to think that the ends do not justify the means in certain cases. My real concerns arise when that philosophy becomes the working strategy for the majority of situations. Now, do I think that Obama and his Democratic cohorts should take the figurative gloves off and start ramming health care reform legislation through the House and Senate, regardless of Republican obstructionism? Absogoddamnlutely. This man was elected with what can only be described as a real mandate for change and if the opposition party can't accept that then I say steamroll over them and count the flattened corpses at your leisure. That's fucking democracy. We put up with it for eight long and agonizing years. It's time for the righteous side to chalk a few up in the win column.

But having said all that, do I think that we should use lies and deception to insure our side wins the debate, in essence scaring the American public into endorsing our vision? No, we don't need to and we should not. We've won two consecutive national elections, both rather decisively. We don't need to lie or obfuscate the truth to ram our legislation home, we just need to flex the legislative muscle we've built up over the last four years while also disregarding the whining and dithering of the political pussies we've picked up along the way. And yes, I said pussies. Every hemming and hawing Democrat, every Johnny-come-lately fiscally conservative Blue Dog, every spineless poll-following career politician on our side of the aisle needs to either throw down with the good of the American people or decide that they want to go it alone because there shouldn't be a third political option for these weasels.

Now I don't know if President Obama will follow the strategy I've just laid out. Aside from the fact that he rarely calls me for my advice, he seems like he genuinely cares about this whole "bipartisan" thing although I hope the last couple of months of rabid Republican obstructionism has at least somewhat cured him of that apparent weakness. It has also become glaringly obvious at this point that the political right in this country is not at all interested in any type of compromise whatsoever, and I am now of the opinion that we should no longer even give them the time of day as far as that's concerned. They've had ample chance to work things out in a civilized manner and the time for engaging in that course of action has long since passed.

I only hope that at the end of these proceedings we can still in some way come together as a unified and civil society. I've been on the losing end of the political policy debate before and I can say unequivocally that it definitely sucks mucho ass on a personal level, but that's the system we have and I still think that in the end it's a pretty damn good one. If the other side continues to fail to recognize this then I honestly don't know how we should proceed from this point but if selling our souls for a victory is the only way to ever win I have to say that I'm not sure how much longer I can continue to play this game. I'm all for the good of the American people but if this is how we're going to win the fight from now on I fear that the majority of good men will henceforth opt out of the political process altogether. It's sad but it's also unfortunately the truth.

Palin Uses Trig As A Political Prop...Again

Why is the liberal media always making Sarah Palin's family an issue when discussing politics? Oh wait, they're not the ones doing it. Again:

Sarah Palin is accusing President Obama’s health care plan of looking to create a “death panel” that would weigh whether her parents or son Trig were “worthy of health care.”

"Americans delve into the disturbing details of the nationalized health care plan that the current administration is rushing through Congress, our collective jaw is dropping, and we’re saying not just no, but hell no!" the former Alaska governor said in a post on her Facebook page late Friday.

In one of her first public policy statements since leaving office late last month, Palin discounted the administration’s view that the president’s plan would cut health care costs. The only path to lower costs, she said, was less treatment.

"And who will suffer the most when they ration care?" she wrote. "The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil."

Man, that kid just can't catch a break, can he? But she's absolutely correct: A system that forces the elderly and the handicapped to stand before a "death panel" and prove their worth to society in order to prevent their own demise at the hands of the state would indeed be downright evil, fascist even. So it's a good thing that Obama is not proposing anything even remotely similar to this dubious Logan's Run fantasy, and the fact that Palin and so many others on the right are claiming that he is indicates their level of respect for the intelligence of the average American (read: seemingly nonexistent). Of course there are organizations in this country that have such panels and their singular purpose is to decide who is deserving of health care coverage and who is not: They're called insurance companies.

Now many on the right have been complaining that their objections and cries of dissent against Obama's health care plan have been marginalized and even dismissed outright as illegitimate and they do have a point. There are several aspects of the plan which are rather vague and even some which are ill conceived and each of these aspects should be openly debated and discussed in order to arrive at the best solution for all Americans. But it has been their near unanimous tactic of also closely aligning themselves with the purveyors of this type of over the top hyperbole along with the increasingly erratic town hall shouters that has caused them to be portrayed in this manner. I don't mind listening to a rational argument that I disagree with but when the extremists are the ones driving your side of the debate you will inevitably lose respect and legitimacy:


Now before anyone says anything, no: I 'm not trying to equate health care opponents with the KKK or saying that they're all racists (although it's a fairly good bet that a small proportion of them probably are, because of age, geography, political affiliation or all three). My point is that all of this seemingly exaggerated and misplaced rage on the part of several real crazies is only hurting their cause with mainstream America.

Here's some video from a Patients First bus tour event in Pueblo, CO. Patients First is a project of Americans for Prosperity, one of the key conservative interest groups helping to organize the recent town hall protests:


Of course end of life counseling isn't going to make you attend a counseling session with "some federal airhead" or make you draw up a living will, it will only give you the option of doing those things if you so choose and it will even pay the tab for that service. In fact, the smartest thing that guy said was not to believe anything he said (which I find is good advice even when you're not dealing with wingnuts). But the most telling thing he said was, "Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders--he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we're going to call ours." Godwin called, guy: You just lost the debate. As did these people:
One of the most predictable conservative responses to posting pictures like these is, "Well a bunch of liberals called Bush a Nazi all the time during most of the Iraq war..." They're right, and every one of those liberals was/is just as stupid and unworthy of respect as these people are today. That law applies to everyone equally. So continue to teabag each other and shout down your congressmen with obviously transparent fear mongering and lies, Republicans. You're only making our points for us and it gives me some free time to take my Grandma to the recycling cen...I mean, the retirement home. I'm sure gonna miss her.

Joe Legal vs Jose Illegal

Some of you might recognize this email with the same title as this post which attempts to address the problem of illegal immigration here in California. It was forwarded to me without comment yesterday by a friend and I subsequently wrote up a reply to its various declarations. First the email:

Joe Legal vs.. Jose Illegal


You have 2 families... "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have 2 parents, 2 children and live in California.

"Joe Legal" works in construction, has a Social Security Number, and makes $25.00 per hour with payroll taxes deducted.

"Jose Illegal" also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Joe Legal... $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week = $52,000 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax. Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal... $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week = $31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays for Medical and Dental Insurance with limited coverage ... $1000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $19,231.00.

Jose Illegal has full Medical and Dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money to be eligible for Food Stamps or Welfare so Joe Legal pays for food... $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for Food Stamps and Welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,000.00 per month = $12,000.00 per year. Joe Legal is now in the hole -<$4,769.00>.

Jose Illegal receives a $500 per month Federal rent subsidy, which entirely pays his rent of $500.00 per month = $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays and gets a part time job after work to make ends meet.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get free government sponsored lunches.

Joe Legal's children go home after school. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program which, again, is provided free of charge.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same Police and Fire Services, but Joe Legal paid for them and Jose Illegal did not pay.

And now my response:

It seems to me that the more substantial problem here is not so much illegal immigrants coming to this country so much as it is the companies who hire them in order to save money and boost their own profit margins. If there were no under the table jobs available I suspect that far fewer people would be coming here illegally looking for work. And while I won't dispute the actual numbers included in this comparison (rent, food costs, insurance, etc.) I would take some exceptions to the assumptions made about their application.

If the state and local clinics are comparable to Joe's own doctor and dentist then why doesn't Joe just use them instead? I'd posit that he doesn't do this because they are not nearly as competent and efficient as his own medical professionals, hence Jose gets the level of treatment he pays for but no one is stopping Joe from doing the same.

Jose is also most definitely not eligible for food stamps nor welfare because he is an illegal immigrant. If his children were born in this country (and were therefore citizens) he could apply for food stamps only for them, yet even so millions of illegals who qualify for such do not avail themselves of the program because they either don't know or understand that they qualify or they're too afraid of being caught and deported by the government. But since Jose's kids are taking ESL classes they obviously came here from another country so they would not be eligible either.

Of the 7.1 million people living in federally subsidized housing, an estimated 29,570, or 0.4%, are "ineligible noncitizens." Concurrently, that means that only 0.29% (barely one quarter of one percent) of the estimated 10 million illegals in this country do so.

Working on Saturdays and weekends sucks for Joe but if he had gone to college or some kind of technical school (and he still can, of course) he would most likely have been able to get a higher paying job than construction, and as a U.S. citizen he would be eligible for federally subsidized student loans and grants that Jose would not be. Also, do you know many illegal immigrants who only work during the day Mon.-Fri. and not also at night and on weekends? Because I sure don't.

Jose's children would indeed get subsidized school lunches whether they were illegal or not because that falls under the aegis of the human rights programs we enacted as a country as part of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And while Joe's kids may not qualify for free lunches there are also many reduced price lunch programs (like I used when I was a kid) that he can apply for.

Are Joe's children barred from studying foreign languages at their school, or from participating in the many after-school programs available to them, or from even joining a sports team that has after-school practices? There are a myriad of free after-school activities that are provided by schools and local neighborhood programs that they could avail themselves of. If they choose to go straight home after school then that is exactly what it is: a choice. And isn't it a benefit to the country as a whole for everyone who lives here and does not speak English to learn the language? I would think that even those vehemently opposed to illegal immigration would agree with that line of thinking.

Since Joe pays rent he obviously does not pay property taxes (which subsidize police and fire departments) so technically he did not pay for those services but if his landlord is making a profit renting out his dwelling (if he isn't, then what's the point in doing so?) then his rent (as well as Jose's) does contribute to the taxes being paid on the property and thus both men indirectly help to subsidize the aforementioned public services they both receive.

Now I freely admit that illegal immigration is a problem that we must deal with as a nation. Millions of undocumented workers pour across our borders every year and despite the extremely expensive and at times draconian security measures that were put into effect following 9/11 the vast majority of the shipping containers entering our ports still go uninspected. And the blame for not taking action on these problems falls equally on both of our major political parties.

The Democrats won't crack down on illegal immigration because Hispanics are the fastest growing demographic in the country and make up a significant portion of their voting base, while the Republicans won't crack down on illegal hiring practices or insist on thorough inspections of cargo containers because it would hinder and disrupt the business interests of their lobbyists and donors (and each of these reasons also applies to the opposite party, to a certain extent).

The question of how to handle the problem of illegal immigration thoroughly yet realistically is highly complicated and calls for much more nuanced reasoning than this fictional comparison would have you believe. It's pretty easy to blame illegals for most of society's problems (and many do) but the reality of the situation is that we're a vast and populous nation with a highly complicated and interrelated network of commerce, industry, society and culture that makes the impact of one minority group of people rather insignificant as it relates to the comprehensive problems of the whole. I think that despite all of his hardships even Joe Legal would agree with me on that.

My friend is a pretty reasonable and level-headed guy so I doubt that he sent this to me with any kind of malice or prejudice, but rather more likely just to gauge my response (interestingly enough, this exercise very much reminded me of my inaugural post for this blog). And speaking of which: BD, I just saw the comment you left there at the time of this site's one year anniversary. FIRST! I vaguely remembered reading it some time back (alcohol was most likely involved in the level of vagary) but I couldn't find it again. Because of this I never thanked you for the compliments (which I always love) that you wrote at the time but I really do appreciate the words, amigo.

Tom Arnold: Political Pugilist

Yes, that Tom Arnold. The one who fucked Rosanne. Yes, Rosanne:

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Tom Arnold is not exactly known as a towering intellect. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure he's a very nice man; he's certainly built a pretty decent career in a notoriously difficult industry, no small feat. But when you think of politically astute Hollywood types, Tom Arnold isn't exactly the person that comes to mind.

Clearly, Hannity assumed that Arnold is a Republican (I'm guessing that Hannity's researchers got no further than a picture of Tom Arnold endorsing Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor, since Tom has publicly said he's a Democrat), because I can't imagine Hannity asking a Democrat on.

But the multi-millionaire Hannity (who is so out of touch with everyday Americans he insists that ham costs on 79 cents/pound) didn't count on the former meat packer from Iowa whose whole act centered around being a common man actually championing policies that help the average American, instead of the corporate oligarchy.

This takes Arnold up several notches on my respectometer (and I already love True Lies):


Oh yeah, no fraud and abuse in the private sector. The main (and openly stated) goal of practically every corporation in the country is to make as much money as possible, first and foremost, above all other considerations. But yeah, no fraud and abuse. And since when are U.S. citizens not allowed to sue their government? It happens all the time. And what Hannity says is mostly true: We don't deny people health care because of their inability to pay. We just allow corporate America to squeeze them dry for the rest of their lives if they find themselves in an emergency medical situation where they're not covered by insurance.

Now, is our government perfect or relatively free from the aforementioned fraud and abuse? Of course not, and I wouldn't expect a government run health care system to be either one of these things but just take an honest look at the numbers. We're the richest, most powerful country on the face of the planet, right now and all the way back through recorded history. And 45 million of us have no health care coverage at the dawn of the 21st century. Something has to change.

American Power Powers Down

My conservative counterpart Donald Douglas of American Power has apparently laid down his guns as far as our latest blog feud is concerned and I've decided to follow suit. As such, I'd like to offer the following apology: I'm sorry. No, I'm not sorry for anything I said to Don or about Sarah Palin or even about any of the photoshopped images I've created over the past few days. I said what I felt had to be said in the face of his lies and personal attacks and I appreciate the solidarity of everyone who had my back when things started to get really vicious.

The apology I'd like to offer is to say that I'm sorry to the readers of this site. This latest rhetorical scuffle between Don and myself was mean and it was ugly and I'm sure that it was hard to read about at times. I'll admit that I wrote some fairly unfriendly words in the course of things but I still feel justified in the stance that I took and I still stand behind every word that I wrote. I realize that by this point in my life I should be able to resist getting dragged down into the gutter by someone with Don's level of intellectual dishonesty in the blogger world but for as long as I can remember I've always had a problem backing down from an argument when I've known that I was on the right side of it.

For those who are interested you can read Don's final indignant words to me and my admittedly long winded reply in this comment section. I've decided to take a break from his site for a while, partly to focus on some more positive and uplifting subjects and partly to test out the veracity of this statement that is not original to just myself:

Without commenters like myself and repsac3 and all of the other "radical, godless nihilists" stating actual opposition to the things you write your comment sections have digital tumbleweeds rolling through them with occasional "Great post, Donald!"s echoing off the walls.

While I do like to stir shit up over at his site it's become quite obvious that the comments left by myself and others with political views similar to my own are really what drive the conflict and discord that Don's conservative readers seem to thrive on. True, there are a few level-headed Republicans to be found amongst the frothing masses but experience taught me long ago that trying to engage most of his readers civilly is an exercise in futility. And since his last post concerning the Palin photoshopping story, the only post to garner more than two comments is a round up of "leftist" reactions to the recent Supreme Court overturn of the Ricci case decided by President Obama's nominee to that court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It seems that his acolytes were quite happy to swarm all over that one, if only to agree with Don and each other whilst getting their partisan jabs in.

So, it's time here to regroup, recharge and reassess what's going on in the world and why some of those events are important/interesting enough to post and discuss in this forum. As always, thanks for taking the time to stop by and read Brain Rage. I always appreciate it.

Something Someone Else Said

"The rise of Idiot America, though, is essentially a war on expertise. It's not so much antimodernism or the distrust of the intellectual elites that Richard Hofstader teased out of the national DNA, although both of these things are part of it. The rise of Idiot America today reflects — for profit, mainly, but also and more cynically, for political advantage and in the pursuit of power — the breakdown of the consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. It also represents the ascendancy of the notion that the people we should trust the least are the people who know the best what they're talking about. In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert.

This is how Idiot America engages itself. It decides, en masse, with a million keystrokes and clicks of the remote control, that because there are two sides to every question, they both must be right, or at least not wrong. And the words of an obscure biologist carry no more weight on the subject of biology than do the thunderations of some turkeyneck preacher out of Christ's Own Parking Structure in DeLand, Florida. Less weight, in fact, because our scientist is an "expert" and therefore, an "elitist." Nobody buys his books. Nobody puts him on cable. He's brilliant, surely, but no different from the rest of us, poor fool." -Charles Pierce, Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free

You can read my own take on the benefits of elitism at this post.

Something Someone Else Said

"No, I think that it's not time for that, but I think it's time for a debate. And I think that we ought to study very carefully what other countries are doing that have legalized marijuana and other drugs, what affect it had on those countries, and are they happy with that decision." -California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, when asked at a press conference if the current economic crisis means that it's finally time to legalize cannabis.

A reasoned debate amongst responsible adults would be a good first step, and much more preferable to the alternative.

[Update: This account from a former budtender in one of Oakland's "Oaksterdam" dispensaries closely mirrors my own experiences working there.]

Something Someone Else Said

"What's truly revealing about the torture people is that we can list dozens of historical examples of how torture was prosecuted by American officials -- be it following World War II or the Spanish-American war and so forth -- literally dozens of factual definitions that waterboarding and other techniques are torture and how they're basically ineffective. Facts and details torn from history books and official government documents.

Yet their counterargument is torn from a fictional TV series. And so 24 is supposed to trump facts and history." -Bob Cesca, Bob Cesca's Awesome Blog! Go!

Making goddamn sense about American interrogation policy...

Hitchens Plays Biblical "What If?"

Professor PZ Myers over at Pharyngula puts up a great post which features columnist Christopher Hitchens playing a seemingly loaded game of religious "What if?" with an evangelical radio show host named Todd Friel whom Hitch spiritually and intellectually pwns the hell out of.

Part 1:


Part 2 (the audio ends halfway through this clip):

This exemplifies everything I love about Hitchens: he displays a razor sharp intellect combined with an unapologetic disdain for hacks like Friel and the religious premises he tries to force on others. I don't mind admitting that I would be intimidated as hell if I ever had to debate this man in public.

Paul Debates Baldwin On Cannabis Legalization

Is it just me or do Baldwin's arguments not have a valid leg to stand on?

You can read some of my other extensive posts on the need to legalize cannabis here.

Geek Cred: How Pwned Can One Old Man Get?

My latest back and forth with old man Jacobson continues in the update to the post further down the page, taking up the previous ongoing skirmish where the other McC left it hanging like so much loose, liver-spotted skin. Feel free to head on over to his senior rest center and talk some shit on my behalf if the mood grabs you. Now get off my lawn!

O'Reilly Pwned On Drugs

This is why I simultaneously love and despise this man (even in classic clips such as this) at the same time: he can be so incredibly entertaining and sure of his own rightness and moral superiority while at the same time so incredibly maddening and impervious to logic and points of view contrary to his own:

Somebody needs to tell this jackass that the world is not the simple black or white fantasy land he thinks it to be. He's raising kids as we speak. I'm just saying.

Glenn Beck: Giggling Stoner

This is the reason it's taken an economic crisis for the idea of legalizing cannabis to be taken seriously: because many of the movements opponents can not be taken so, and until they start treating it like a legitimate issue the debate can not happen. Glenn Beck uses every blatant exaggeration and stereotypical assumption (notice that he offers no real facts or scientific evidence to back up his claims, just knowing smirks and little laughs) he can muster to try and prove his point that cannabis is inherently "bad" and that the current economic crisis is just a smokescreen for degenerate lobbyists and stoners who want to destroy society and eat potato chips all day. Also, watch the clip with this observation in mind:

Which of these two comes across as though he’s high on pot? It’s not the one arguing for legalization.

Jesus. This guy's a Libertarian in the same way I'm a Socialist: a few of the tenets of the philosophy sound like good ideas but neither of us would ever really qualify as such. Plus I always take what militant former alcoholics and addicts say about substance abuse with a very large grain of salt. The mindset that because they couldn't control themselves, therefore the use of these substances is uncontrollable is self-centered at best and delusional at worst.