The GOP Debates continue…

November 15, 2011

So many great quotes from the South Carolina debate.

Gingrich: “the point of this is not to attack each other, the point of this is that every single one of us is better than President Obama.” No, Newt, the EXACT AND ONLY point to a primary debate is to determine which candidate is the best candidate out of the Republican Party, and has nothing to do with Obama. The general election is where you show that you’re better than Obama. That seems like about as basic as civics gets.

Santorum, on when he would overrule his advisors: “I’ll go into the office with a clear agenda, and I’ll surround myself with people who share my point of view. I have a history of civil service in a not-particularly-conservative state, and I surrounded myself with people who would do what I told them to do.” I’m amazed at how forthright he always is that he’ll ensure that anyone who even moderately disagrees with him on anything will have absolutely no say whatsoever in anything, and that he will turn the United States into an outright fascism.

My favorite quote from Cain he actually said several times. It was “period, however…” For example “I don’t believe in torture, period. However, I believe that waterboarding is an enhanced interrogation technique that can be very useful.” That’s exactly the opposite of what ‘period’ means, unless he’s saying that “I don’t believe in torture (that wasn’t used in the medieval) period.” He’s as bad as Biden is with the word “literally.”

The most interesting part with Romney was when he said that Obama did the right thing by having an American-born terrorist killed, which was really a very right-wing thing to do, and several people in the audience loudly booed him, thus proving that they like Muslim terrorists more than they like Obama. How surprised were they when every other person on stage explicitly agreed with Romney, including the moderators? And they got REEEEEEALLY confused when Bachmann sided with the President!


Stating (what should be) the obvious

October 19, 2011

See, this is why I (and thousands of other people my age) want to get into the political discourse, because the media are so jaded and they’re under such pressure to sound a certain way that they don’t bring up the obvious issues. I was just listening to pundits arguing over the jobs bill, which was not even brought up for debate, let alone voted upon. The Senate voted 50-47 to bring the bill to the floor, and now that it’s just a given that Republicans will filibuster anything, the majority who voted in favor of it abandoned it even though it won.

The liberal on the panel argued how outrageous that was, that our government is so dysfunctional that they can’t even bring something with majority support to the floor. (The 3 non-votes would not have been enough but were in favor of it.) Conservatives said that the Democrats should be happy it didn’t get onto the floor, because it didn’t have enough votes to pass—about 5 Democrats said they would vote against it, and it would have failed 47-53. So the fact that it didn’t go to the floor was a good thing, because it didn’t show the dissent within the Democratic Party.

Now, at this point I think to myself, how is that not absolute, irrefutable proof that the entire system is completely fucked up? Remember, it never even got to be debated on the floor, and they’re establishing as fact two things: 1) if 90% of Democrats favor a bill, it’s an embarrassment to the party because they lack cohesion; 2) they knew the exact vote count BEFORE IT WAS EVEN DEBATED.

So what that means is that there is absolutely zip, zero, NO interest on the part of government to even talk about politics anymore. They had no interest whatsoever in listening to anything anyone had to say. The whole “debate” part, the thing that Congress was specifically designed to do, is a complete sham so that politicians can have video of them saying something on C-SPAN. If you ever actually watch C-SPAN, you’ll see this confirmed by the fact that during “debate” the entire Senate chambers are completely empty. The only people who even bother to show up for work anymore are whoever is in front of the camera. The entire U.S. Congress is a publicity stunt.

Beyond that, it has become a given that nobody is expected to think for themselves. The fact that only 90% of Democrats agree on the jobs bill suggests that, according to the beltway media, “many” Democrats are against the bill. In other words, SO MANY Democrats are against the bill, that four of them are actually going to express their opinion.

So, again with the obvious, but shouldn’t ALL of our elected representatives be expressing their opinion? Is that why the Republican Party is so much more powerful, just because they’re so much better at getting their delegation to blindly agree with everything? Is that why the Constitution specifically built a body of 535 Congressmen from across the country, so that all of the power is given solely to Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi on one side and Eric Cantor and John Boehner on the other? Four people who, if they ever agreed on anything, would be more powerful than the President, Supreme Court, and all 50 states combined?

Maybe it’s a good thing, then, that they’re completely unwilling to talk about anything. Maybe it’s a nationwide conspiracy that, rather than taking that 1% risk that our country becomes a Communist State or Theocracy (depending on who wins), we’ll just have no government at all and just sit and watch as America bleeds to death.


Beyond Letting A Person Die

September 14, 2011

Much ado has been made of the Tea Party Debate moment when the audience cheerfully agrees that our country should let people die if they don’t have health insurance.

The real information here, though, is not what a couple of hecklers in the audience are saying, but what the politicians are saying. Namely, what was Ron Paul‘s actual answer as to who should pay for health care?

They may seem like strange bedfellows, but insurance and religion actually team up pretty well when it comes to health. Ignoring the metaphysical role of religion, the societal role of churches is a form of insurance in itself. Everyone pays their dividends with the understanding that the church will cover them in a time of need, whether in this life or beyond. It is no coincidence that the countries with the best health care in the world are also the least religious. They also have a very small insurance industry.

The fact is, if people don’t need God in this life, they stop coming to him for help, and that means less donations to the churches, not only from the masses but also from charities who work with the churches to provide care to those in need. There is a very good reason why religious establishments would not want the government to provide health care to the American people—because if the government isn’t there for the people, the people will turn to the churches for help. It’s why the churches are there.


The Congress that Never Sleeps

August 24, 2011

In the coverage of the earthquake near Washington, D.C. I heard an interesting little detail in the personal accounts—the quake prompted Congress members to leave the Capitol Building and conduct business out of the Postmaster’s office. Seems they’re burying the lede here… isn’t Congress in recess? Why are there still Congressmen in the Capitol building?

You may be able to come up with the answer yourself. Ask the question: what might be going on during a recess that they would be willing to work through to avoid? As it turns out, they’ve been working not only through recesses, but through holidays and weekends as well. And you probably won’t be surprised to hear that it’s not because of their unerring work ethic or their desire to serve the American people.

See, when they’re in session, Congress has the power to block any hiring (“appointment”) decisions the President makes. However, since Congress is in recess half the year to go back to their home states and talk to their constituents, any temporary hires the President makes during that recess is automatically approved, so the country isn’t shut down for half the year. These are called “recess appointments,” they’re a power explicitly granted in the Constitution, and they are very common, since the U.S. Government has just as much turnover as any other organization. On average, presidents make about 150-200 recess appointments, mostly just to fill vacant positions. Positions are very, very rarely vacant for more than a couple months.

Congress has blocked 223 appointments by Obama (20% of the positions he is authorized to fill). Many of those appointments have been vacant since he took office, including judicial posts, major cabinet positions, and the “jobs czar,” whose role is to address unemployment problems in the United States. Even though Obama has only been able to make 28 recess appointments in three years, Republicans have started leaving a handful of Congressmen in the Capitol for every break, including weekends, federal holidays, and currently when the President himself is on vacation. They leave just enough people there so than any effort Obama makes to fill an open position is blocked. That is why there were several Republicans working during the earthquake– their entire purpose for being there was to block any of Obama’s appointments. This is the only time in the history of the United States this has been done.

Incidentally, the government does not save any money by doing this. The money that an appointment would otherwise be paid in income is countered by the various fines and penalties that the government must pay as a result—for instance, criminals who would otherwise be required to pay fines for breaking the law are instead released without punishment because the government is unable to provide a fair and speedy trial without judges to try them. Of course, blocking appointments isn’t the only way Congress can lose money during recesses. Another example not related specifically to appointments was Congress blocking funds to the FAA, requiring it to be shut down, which meant that the airline companies who pay for the FAA instead kept those fees as additional profit.


The Two Evils (Part Two)

August 19, 2011
Michele Bachmann

Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr

Read part one here

What happened? How did our only choices become ideologues and bureaucrats?

Let’s start with the Republicans. The right wing have some advantages that other groups don’t. The American Civil Christians are the largest cohesive unit in the country, and every Sunday morning, churchgoers are given their marching orders for the week. Attend one of these services, and you may be surprised to learn that very little is said about God or the Bible. You’ll hear the name Jesus come up a lot, but not about the life of the man in the New Testament, but rather in reference to the power churchgoers are given to go forward with their plans. “In the name of Jesus, I implore you to call your Congressman and tell him to vote for H.R. 3200.” Yes, you will hear the phrase “H.R.” as often as you’ll hear anything about faith.

It’s hard to pinpoint the reach of Civil Christians, but I’ve mentioned before that they tend to make up about 26% of any voting bloc. Any Republican who caters to this group is halfway to being elected.

Beyond this group, Republicans also have a greater sense of cooperation. It seems strange to say when it seems that every day there’s another story about Republicans’ refusal to compromise… the “party of No,” as they’re called. I’m not talking about compromising with liberals, though. This was where President Bush got his power. Many Republicans opposed the wars, and the Bush Administration’s shameless handouts to their corporate allies didn’t go over well, either. But there are many Republicans who do feel strongly about not allowing gay marriage, and they’re willing to compromise on those other things if a candidate opposes gay marriage. Still others care about nothing but lowering taxes, even if they may not agree with a Republican’s views on education or religion. If a candidate promises to stand for every conservative principle, even if they contradict each other, he’ll get the conservatives’ votes.

On the other hand, left-leaning Democrats must accept that they will never get all of the liberal vote. Liberal agendas are much farther reaching and much more likely to contradict each other. Technology and science tend to be fairly liberal demographics, but reaching out for the pro-science vote may not sit well with environmentalists or animal rights groups. Minority groups tend to be fairly jealous of each other, and a focus on black rights may get feminists wondering why women don’t get the same attention. The ACLU staunchly believes that free speech of all kinds, even hateful or defamatory, must be protected, yet other liberal organizations like ADL and GLAAD have the phrase “Against Defamation” right in their names.

Beyond these internal conflicts (which aren’t really internal at all, as they stand for their special interest first and Democrats only when it suits them), if activists on the left don’t feel that a candidate will be loyal to them, they’re perfectly happy not voting, or placing a symbolic vote for a third-party, one-cause candidate. I would say that garnering liberal votes is like herding cats, but I wouldn’t want to piss off the PeTA people.

So what’s a Democrat to do? Unsurprisingly, they just take the far left votes where they can get them and ignore the rest. So since they have dismissed a large chunk of their 26%, they make up the deficit by going after the disaffected Republican vote, moderate conservatives who look for any excuse not to vote for the nutbag their primaries let in. It’s no wonder, then, that the only Democrats to be elected President in the last 40 years all had a conservative (or at least non-liberal) bent, and even then, only one could win a reelection.

So what option do liberals (or even moderate liberals) in the United States have? Let me know what you think.

To Be Continued…


The Two Evils (Part One)

August 18, 2011

It seems that every Presidential election has been chalked up by many as “choosing the lesser of two evils.” Why is that, really? It’s too easy to blame it on the nature of politics or corruption by the media or corporate interests. It’s impossible to have a candidate that a majority of Americans would consider the ideal candidate—our country is far too diverse. But it seems that we can’t even find a candidate who the majority of people would agree is “good enough.”

There’s always the fringes to blame. Certainly the current litter of Republican candidates for 2012 shows the fringe’s influence. As last week’s debate in Iowa showed, every single participating candidate claims they would sooner watch our entire infrastructure collapse before they allowed a single tax to go up a dime. Nearly all of them believe that their personal religious values should become federal law, and many of them support permanently amending the Constitution to conform to their short-term political agendas. They are candidates who are promising to hand the entire country over to their constituency of just 26% of the population.

On the Democratic side, liberals complain of the opposite problem—tradition assures that President Obama will seek a second term without a primary battle, and even if he did have to survive a primary, there is no reason to believe that the competition would be any different than it was in 2008, when the Democratic candidate pool was so homogenous it came down to little more than whoever had the most celebrity status. While Republicans are being forced to choose between bible-thumping social engineers and neo-anarchist tax hawks, liberals who want to vote for gay marriage, expanded welfare, or corporate regulation are given no choice at all.

What happened? How did our only choices become ideologues and bureaucrats?

Read part two here


Did 9/11 cause the economic crisis?

August 11, 2011

There have been plenty of arguments that 9/11 led to the wars, or that our fear of terrorists led to us to vote opportunist politicians into office, but I get tired of people blaming the government for all our problems.

Wars and politics aside, I wonder if we allowed subprime mortgages, Bernie Madoff, predatory lending, and corrupt banks to survive because of 9/11.

The terrorist attacks were a tragedy, to be sure, but a tragedy which ushered back to life an era of fear and suspense, the greatest sales tools known to man. It was a sales opportunity like no other, in that nobody knew what they were afraid of. It was Muslims who carried out the attacks, but there are too many Muslims within our ranks to turn them into enemies. What’s worse, it was too difficult to convince Muslims to disavow their faith. It was easy to fear communists—if one did know of a communist, if you could convince them to wave an American flag and vote in November you’d have a moral victory giving you a sense of safety for a while. We tried to get the Muslims to disavow themselves, but got a resounding “fuck you, we didn’t do it.” Then it was us waspy Americans who were left with a decision—profess our hatred for all Muslims, or decide they weren’t the enemy. Some chose the former, but for the most part, too many Americans had a friend named Ahmed for the culture war to really develop teeth.

So instead, we blamed a lack of privacy. It wasn’t a rational decision, and we didn’t come to that decision ourselves—we were given it, by people who knew how to make privacy profitable. The enemy became anyone and everyone who wanted our information. We guarded our credit cards, stopped answering our phones, and refused to give anyone our social security numbers. We paid for people to purge our names from the internet. We protested social websites who posted our information every time we clicked ‘post.’ We blocked advertising companies and market researchers from finding out where we shopped and what we bought.

For many industries, it was a dream come true. If they could dangle a carrot in front of us just long enough to let them into our lives, they could eat us away from the inside, and nobody would ever find out because we wouldn’t let anyone else in to see what they were doing. Credit card companies started charging enormous rates and fees. Mortgage lenders sold us houses we couldn’t afford. Stock brokers put our money into fake assets, and nobody saw any of it happening because we wouldn’t allow anyone to check them out. The giant corporations actually got us to fight on their behalf, getting us to revolt against any effort to investigate their records, lest some unknown enemy get a hold of the bank account number they set up for you and use it to fly a plane into a building.

That’s my theory, anyway.


A recap of the fallout over the Debt Ceiling debate

August 8, 2011

The overall consensus seems to be that we’re suddenly slipping back into a recession because everybody in Washington is more interested in making other people look bad than actually governing… and in response to that criticism today, Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney blamed Obama, Obama blamed the Tea Party, the Tea Party blamed Congress, the Democrat-led Senate blamed the House of Representatives, and the Republican-led House blamed Democrats.

Great. We feel much better now.


About Not the Debt Ceiling

July 29, 2011

It was my fullest intention to write this week about the debt ceiling. I was going to answer all your questions about what it was, what it meant, what the stakes were. I had real-life anecdotes that put it into terms that non-politically savvy people could understand. I had an essay prepared on why liberals didn’t need to worry about the debt ceiling so much, and an essay to conservatives on why raising the debt ceiling was in their own best interests.

But instead I’m going to write an essay on why I’m not going to write about the debt ceiling.

As vogue as politics have become in the last few years, the population of people who actually care is still relatively small, and I accept that. There were segments on Jimmy Kimmel Live! and the Late Late Show that exposed the fact that nobody really even knows what the debt ceiling is. It seemed to me that it was perfect fodder, then, for me, as my personal goal is to provide what I consider agenda-free education on current events and such. Could there be a more perfect topic than one that all of us are thinking about but nobody understood?

I started conducting research. What did people want to know about the debt ceiling? What were their misconceptions? What were they afraid of that the didn’t have to be? What weren’t they afraid of that they should be? What I learned over two weeks of discussions is that nobody really cared what the debt ceiling was.

http://a.abc.com/media/_global/swf/embed/2.6.9/SFP_Walt.swfOn some level, people seem to believe that the debt ceiling is a completely fabricated term. It seems to fall in the same category as Y2K, or the Clinton Impeachment, or the outrage over Janet Jackson’s nipple, or that weirdo in California who said the world was ending. The politicians spend all their resources making a big deal out of something, but the consensus among most people is that no matter what happens, whether the debt ceiling passes or whether it doesn’t, when August 3rd rolls around, life will just go on as if nothing had happened.

And that’s as good of a reason as any why we should stop thinking that just because we’re a democracy, the average person somehow has any clue what’s really going on. It’s not their fault, though. Just as Hollywood movies have to blow something up or spend millions of dollars in computer effects to keep an audience’s attention, news media and politicians have been ramping up the rhetoric for so long that we just assume that everything from Washington is just the latest overblown faux-crisis. Even the Washington insiders are exploiting this jaded view of themselves—this week, Republicans literally referred to Harry Reid’s proposal to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as “gimmicky.”

That’s not to say that people don’t have opinions about the debt ceiling. Boy, are there opinions. I even had this crazy idea of addressing those opinions, contributing to the discourse, dispelling some myths, but as I took a serious look at the substance of what people had to say about the debt ceiling, it was very clear that they still didn’t care about the actual issue of raising the debt ceiling. They care about the battle between liberals and conservatives, and the higher the stakes, the more intense the battle. But the opinions themselves are almost entirely just political mad libs, where they just pulled out their arguments about health care reform, or tax cuts for the rich, or the ACLU, and swapped out the nouns with “debt ceiling” and “default.”

I’m not saying they don’t care whether we raise the debt ceiling. They care. They really, really care. But very few people are willing to admit that they had never heard of the debt ceiling until earlier this year, and even now they don’t know what it is. Think back to when Clinton was impeached. Everybody made a really big deal about that. People took sides, and from how they put it, they saw the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the subsequent hearings (depending on which side you were on) as the bellwether of the end of our society. Then Clinton was impeached, and everybody was shocked and stunned that he got to keep on being President. Why? Because at no point did anybody really care what “impeachment” meant. They never made any effort to find out. It was just the latest noun in their word salad of political outrage.

It’s no wonder, then, that people don’t take the current debate over raising the debt ceiling seriously. Most people can’t differentiate between the current debate and the other 10 things a year that they’re told is the worst thing ever to happen in the history of America. They don’t care what the debt ceiling is, because they’ve got other things to care about, and it didn’t seem to hurt them any that they didn’t really understand Y2K or impeachment or so-called armageddon.

And so if I were to spend an entire week publishing online a survey of the debt ceiling and its history, who would read it? How would it prove to be a constructive use of my time?

I don’t have a problem, by the way, with people thinking they have better things to worry about. Ultimately, that’s the smartest stand to take, because if Speaker Boehner and President Obama are as powerless as they appear to be, there’s certainly nothing that any of us can do. However, there are also plenty of people who take one side or another and take it very, very seriously. They believe that nothing less than the permanent integrity of our nation rests in this decision, that the unprecedented move of defaulting on our debts would cause an irreversible, worldwide catastrophe, that if our government cannot raise the debt ceiling, they will officially be the worst government in the history of democracy. Maybe they’re right, maybe they’re not, but what’s important here is that they don’t care whether they’re right. They don’t even care what they’re talking about. And their reckless abuse of ignorance is patently obvious to everyone.

Their willing ignorance is what has led 65% of Americans (that figure is based on nothing) not to care, but more importantly, it is what has empowered politicians to have these fights at all. If politicians thought that nobody would care, they wouldn’t bother trying to earn political points on these issues and they’d just do their jobs, but if they thought that Americans would actually attempt to educate themselves and make rational decisions based on the facts they were presented, they wouldn’t take these hardline stances and they would govern with open minds and nuance, which would inevitably lead to agreement and compromise. But the Darwinian nature of a two-year political cycle has long sifted out the governors of nuance and they have been replaced by the politicians best able to exploit their willfully ignorant base, whether it’s the no-taxes moral majority of the right or the black man of hope versus the feminist icon of empowerment on the left.

If there is any one thing that Americans should truly be afraid of, one thing that ultimately does cause visible permanent damage to our national well-being, the willfully ignorant angry mobs who spit in the face of facts and reason are it.


Welcome Back!

June 28, 2011

 

TVMAfter an “indefinite hiatus,” The Vigilante Mind is back. For those of you who have never heard of TVM, welcome and enjoy.

You’ll see on this page a handful of older essays, and some old segments will be posted as well. In August, the TVM podcast will be revived in its new home on YouTube.

Over the next few weeks we’ll also be posting introductions to the Vigilante Mind segments, with an explanation of what each segment’s all about. To begin with, TVM will be posted just one segment at a time. If more subscribers hop on and resources permit, we’ll return to full 30-minute episodes sometime down the road.

If you have any questions or comments, offer them below, or email us at VigilanteMind@gmail.com. And once again, welcome!


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.