Archive
Ah, teamwork!
See what happens when everybody puts aside their differences & works together?:
The Senate voted Wednesday to extend for a year key provisions of the nation’s counterterrorism surveillance law that are scheduled to expire at the end of the month. In agreeing to pass the bill, Senate Democrats retreated from adding new privacy protections to the USA Patriot Act.
The Senate approved the bill on a voice vote with no debate. It now goes to the House.
Bipartisanship. If it doesn’t have an entry in Urban Dictionary, then it needs one.
A Common(s) Idiot
At CPAC, Glenn Beck gave his usual rant about The Coming Apocalypse to an enthusiastic crowd. Along the way, he mentioned that he learned what he “knows” (LOL) at the library.
Cue realization of contradiction for comedic effect in 3…2…1…:
“Glenn, the library isn’t free! It’s paid for with tax money. Free public libraries are the result of the Progressive movement to communally share books. The first public library was the Boston public library in 1854. It’s statement of purpose: every citizen has the right to access community owned resources. Community owned? That sounds just like communist. You’re a communist!”
-John Stewart
Good for a chuckle, but there’s a larger tell of what this says about the Right & its incoherence. It’s obvious why Shouty Glenn didn’t realize what he was saying with that line: he, like myself & like most reasonable people, sees nothing particularly bad about public libraries. In fact, I think it’s safe to say if the extent of government were merely communal availability of books then there’d be little for all but staunch Objectivists to complain about.
Now, since Beck & presumably most other right-wingers in the U.S. aren’t including libraries on their list of Absolute Collectivist Evil, they can’t possibly be as purely anti-collective as their rhetoric suggests. Of course, we already know this because they hold sacrosanct even more such things as the public army, public police forces & public national bouncers AKA “immigration agents”. Their true argument, as a result, is haggling over what should be collectively provided for & what shouldn’t — making them no different than the people they scream about on the means.
As if that wasn’t enough, we have the fact that government is not the only way to do collective provision of goods. Some on the Right even mention charity, of course, but there have also been co-ops, mutual aid associations, various cultural organizations, myriad methods of providing something to and as a group. If something is a collective outside of government then there is no grounds, political or moral, to interfere. Approve of it? Then join. Disapprove? Then don’t. Simple.
Sure, there’s the hypocrisy of using anti-collective rhetoric when you don’t have a problem with collectivism for things that you personally like. But I would go further & say that other than the most devout of Ayn Rand followers, we’re all collectivists to some extent.
I personally want “public” to actually mean the public rather than the state, which makes me a radical. Others, though they acknowledge their collectivism, don’t make that distinction, so they’re part of the mainstream. Those who make arguments that suggest the mere idea of commons is downright wicked, when their true reasoning is “my collective is wonderful, yours is evil”, have a more appropriate label: dumbass.
Looking out for number 2
re: Vache Folle’s observation about toilets in the 3rd World: I’m thinking a decent part of it (beyond cost, that is) is that they haven’t embraced the American cultural tendency to treat taking a shit like a mini-vacation at times. Hence, no real need for seats.
I wholeheartedly approve of the Crapper Retreat, btw. If you’re gonna be there awhile, might as well be comfortable.
Word of the day: "Counterproductive"
Fareed Zakaria, in reference to Sarah Palin claiming that the best thing for Obama’s re-election odds would be to declare war on Iran:
The regime would gain support as ordinary Iranians rally around the flag. The opposition would be forced to support a government under attack from abroad. The regime would foment and fund violence from Afghanistan to Iraq and across the Persian Gulf. The price of oil would skyrocket — which, ironically, would help Tehran pay for all these operations.
It is important to recognize the magnitude of what people like Palin are advocating. The United States is being asked to launch a military invasion of a state that poses no imminent threat to America, without sanction from any international body and with few governments willing to publicly endorse such an action. Al-Qaeda and its ilk would present it as the third American invasion of a Muslim nation in a decade, proof positive that the United States is engaged in a war of civilizations.
Mkay, he beat down that obvious idiocy. So where does he go from here?
The United States should use the latest IAEA report to bolster a robust containment strategy against Iran, bringing together the moderate Arab states and Israel in a tacit alliance, asking European states to go further in their actions, and pushing Russia and China to endorse sanctions. Former secretary of state James Baker suggested to me on CNN that the United States could extend its nuclear umbrella to Israel, Egypt and the Gulf states — something that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has hinted at as well.
At the same time, Washington should back the “Green Movement” in Iran, which ultimately holds out the greatest hope for a change in the basic orientation of Iran’s foreign policy. (emphasis mine)
Translation: “Hey, Tehran! Double-time it on the murders of those activists, wouldja?”
Here’s an alternative proposal: Leave the “green movement” alone because any association with the US is poison. Meanwhile, drop the idea of sanctions because they don’t actually hurt the regime, since as we’ve already established they could give half a fuck about their people. As for any pursuit of nukes, remember that the most likely target of any future nukes already has nuclear weapons.
Why'd I do this? Seriously, why?
Matt Yglesias had a post about think tanks, mainly about how the Right has plenty of them already & the progressive ones were established as responses. I pointed out a less mainstream one in comments &, well…:
The term “market anarchism” is a dead tell that it’s a right-wing group. Proudhon, for example, wouldn’t be associated with “market” anything. Those idiots are followers of Gustave de Molinari . So we’re firmly in Bob Roddis* territory here.
This logic sounds familiar…
(* – I added the Bob Roddis link so you can tell who he’s talking about. I’d never heard of him until I did a search.)
Edit: I didn’t want to turn it into an argument. Honestly, I more wanted to see Matt’s reaction, considering unlike most of the prog bloggers he’s actually encountered a left-libertarian before on a serious issue. Didn’t even intend on this becoming a subject of a post. I brought up the Labor Theory of Value as an example of something a right-wing group wouldn’t support & got this response from a commenter:
Actually Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner were both right-wing anarchist who adhered to the labor theory of value. It looks like these guys are mostly Rothbard fans, and Rothbard was influenced by both of those guys. Of course, being a good little Austrian, Rothbard rejected LTV himself. But I guess those guys didn’t get that memo.
Benjamin Tucker: right-winger. You know, that guy that said of his own philosophy that “it wants to deprive capital of its reward”…
Spot the oddball
One of these is a question to which “sure!” is not a sane response. See if you can guess which one:
This shouldn't be controversial, but…
Joe Stack’s daughter is a fucking idiot:
The daughter of the man who carried out a suicide plane attack against the IRS in Texas said she considered her father a hero for standing up to “the system” but said the attack that killed a government worker and injured 12 was “inappropriate” and “wrong.”
“His last actions, the suicide, the catastrophe that caused injuries and death, that was wrong,” Samantha Bell, Stack’s daughter from his first marriage, told “Good Morning America” in a morning television exclusive telephone interview that aired today. “But if nobody comes out and speaks up on behalf of injustice, then nothing will ever be accomplished. But I do not agree with his last action with what he did. But I do agree about the government.”
When “Good Morning America” asked if she considered her father a “hero,” Bell, 38, said, “Yes, because now maybe people will listen.” (emphasis mine)
Um, yeah, and jihadis have a point about US foreign policy buried in their pro-murder screeds too, how’d that work out?
The irrationality of this is almost too offensive for words. Really, Samantha? Murder-suicide is a helpful way of getting people to acknowledge your issues, take them into consideration, & potentially do something about them?
Add something to this
As in “I cannot”, in reference to Ioz’ remarks. Well placed as usual…
Consistency Fail
At that other orgy of wingnuttery: gay “librul media” star Rachel Maddow shows up with a camera and is treated relatively nice. A group of gay Republicans goes as far as to co-sponsor the entire damn conference & gets the man-on-box-turtle/Kobe Bryant walks into Union Oyster House post-game treatment.
No real point here, I just found the contrast funny.
Because I don't feel like signing up for Twitter again
Matt Yglesias, regarding cynicism about the motivations of politicians:
If a politician admitted on television “I’m running for office out of a lust for fame and power” that politician would be in big political trouble.
If a politician didn’t WANT fame and power, then they wouldn’t be a politician…
Network
Donate
psychopolitik 