Ron and Rand Paul: Why some on the Right are isolationists.

Back when I was a bit more politically naive, I appreciated the paleocon worldview. Yeah, they're racists. Yeah, they are the nadir of human progress. But they oppose neocons. And the enemy of my enemy is my-- well, let's just leave it at that. For example, I would watch Pat Buchanan on Chris Matthews say something old and grizzled and bitter about Bush and how he was fucking up everything and I would say to myself, "Awww. He's jusa big o' teddy-baywr! How'd he get mixed up in the Nixon administration?"

Now, despite their isolationism, I would prefer that paleocons not get anywhere near positions where they can affect foreign policy. I would go as far as to say that neocons are slightly better because, although every corner of the globe they touch turns into a charred hellscape, the neocons rape and pillage to provide for our economy. For now, we have money. This means we can use our lucre to buy the myriad goods and services gained through our globe-raping. On the other hand, if paleocons were in charge, Jesus would seriously think about coming again.

Obviously I'm just being a smartass, but my gut says paleocons would be worse. Exhibits A and B are Paul Sr. and Jr., or Ron and Rand Paul. Read this post by digby for some good background on the Pauls. The post explains that Paul Sr. was very much a part of the black-helicopter crowd in the nineties. He only gained cross-partisan support in 2008 because he was anti-war and anti-neocon, but he is nonetheless a liberal's nightmare. His son seems to be no better, and maybe worse. Like his dad, Junior rejects the neocon agenda of world domination and has actually parroted his father's controversial statements about how meddling in the Middle East contributes to terrorism. However, he has thrown in his lot with the Tea Party, a group of people who's respect for human rights is limited in scope to those with white skin and penises and limited in substance to property rights. Rand Paul also leads an army of militia-types with automatic weapons, who Rand claimed were merely protecting the integrity of the ballot during his recent primary victory. His opponent from the GOP establishment was complaining about these intimidation tactics, which made me do my Nelson laugh.

Ron and Rand are, above all else, very good politicians. They have found a highly nutritious niche market of voters to feed on, and now that our economy is in the shitter, their niche has turned into a veritable ecosystem of discontent, racial resentment and downright hate. This ecosystem is what fuels isolationism on the Right. That, and the fact that warfare has not gone very well for us lately. Anti-war liberals must remember that all anti-war sentiment on the Right is maintained exclusively by racism and xenophobia. If it were not for xenophobia, everyone on the Right would be like William Kristol, as opposed to Pat Buchanan. Isolationism has always been out there as a political force. It did not disappear in the Cold War. Remember the Balkans in the nineties? Somalia? Back then, when Clinton was directing America's military might against non-commies, everyone on the Right was a goddamn hippy. Hint: they were not being peaceful. They were being isolationist. Big difference. For fuck sake, right-wingers criticized Clinton for killing Iraqis!

This is the end, my friend

Krugman says

If the bill is passed, it will make health insurance available to millions of people who can’t get it now either because of preexisting conditions, or because they just don’t make enough: community rating and the subsidies — remember, we’re talking about almost $900 billion in aid — will make a huge difference. Yes, there will be some people forced to buy insurance by the individual mandate; everything I’ve seen says that the number of people for whom this will be a real hardship will be far less than the shouting suggests.

Krugman is a smart, committed liberal, and if he says its time to pass the health care bill, then it's time. Even the most angry, spiteful liberals who want health insurance companies and all the people who work for them to be sent to gulags will probably respond kindly to Krugman's slightly more reasonable approach. Yes, the bill has been watered down with shitty toilet water, and the insurance companies stand to make immediate gains, but it's time for liberals to accept the best argument for passing this bill now: it will probably improve.

Fuck the War Pigs

... and Merry Christmas.

God damnit, Harry!

This post will probably be the first in a series of posts describing exactly why Democrats suck at politics and how this country's dispossessed are being fucked because of it. Any reader of the liberal blogosphere during the past five or so years already has a few ideas of their own about why the Democrats can't serve their traditional constituencies, including the trivial answer, which is that their constituencies are often not the dispossessed but the monied elites. Of course, this trivial answer holds in many cases, but sometimes liberals within the Democratic Party cannot be ignored, and incremental reform is forced through. This post is a short analysis of one of those cases in which a Democrat takes a short break from whoring themselves out, and instead tries to advance a liberal cause. I will try to explain how a relatively simple exercise in describing an injustice and what you plan to do about it turns into a shitstorm:

This morning, Senate majority leader Harry Reid got up in front of a Senate microphone to speak about the opposition to health care reform and this happened:

"You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right," [Reid] continued. "In this country...there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' " - about slavery.

When women wanted to vote, he went on, opponents said, " 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that -- the day isn't quite right.' "

He finished with: "When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone, regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

There are those who would say that Harry Reid was simply describing conservatism, that he was simply drawing historical parallels, not comparing degrees of wrongness. They are right of course. Conservatism is, by definition, always on the wrong side of history in every single matter of importance in American society. Conservatism is not a set of principles. It is defined by the defense of the status quo, whatever that may be. The American Revolution was liberal because it resulted in freedom from a monarchy. Unions are liberal because they result in freedom from economic exploitaition. Universal health care, Medicare for all, or the more limited public option are liberal because they will result in freedom from corporate abuse and corporate "death panels".

However, what Harry Reid said was incredibly stupid because the American people do not learn political history in school. That is, they do not learn about politics in the context of society. They do not learn the various ways in which power is controlled and abused in a democracy. Instead, they are taught that democracy is simply government by the people. So what the American people heard in Harry Reid's above quote was not a reminder of the history of American reactionary politics and how it has manifested itself today, but simple hyperbole.

The Democratic Party can't or won't teach the people about the role of the elite in democracy, so the public is not prepared to hear strong condemnations of power coming from the powerful. Instead, the public has been dicked around so much from thirty years of entrenched conservative governance that they fail to notice when their interests are being advanced. Instead, they think that everything their government does is an abuse of power. Right now, Jeffrey Dommer could convince people that health insurance companies are villains. Harry Reid can't. Why is this? Maybe it has to do with the fact that deep down, under all of the centrist whoredom is a pissed-off liberal fighter. Sometimes that liberal fighter is let out screaming, but unfortunately the political context into which the fighting words are loosed is devoid of understanding. I would advise Democrats to shut up about history. Americans don't understand it. What Americans do understand is being fucked around with, and I suggest the Democrats learn how to tell it to people straight.

The Justice Party

I created this blog less than a week ago and then I find this. Baby Jesus does exist! (Sorry O'Reilly).

Conditions are ripe for a liberal third-party. Course, if you ask me, it should be called the Liberal Party, but whatevuh. Violet's proposal is pie-in-the-sky, and I've never heard of her blog before, but it's an idea that could spread because it's what every liberal is thinking anyway. The Democrats are already fractured into a progressive wing, the Blue Dogs, and people who don't give a shit about policy, just whether or not they get theirs, which of course includes the Blue Dogs.

Obama has had his chance to implement the kumbaya strategy of governance, and it has not produced great justice.

Laws of war.

Who says "soft" sciences like political science don't have laws?

They've even got the same damn slope!! Then there's this: