Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
More accurately, these two pictures demonstrate more than all the ridiculously inflated rhetoric could that the right's hatred of Obama has reached the point of being downright delusional. Volokh has in the past referred to various derangement syndromes, a phenomenon where people are so zealous in their hatred of a particular person that there are no limits whatsoever on how far they are willing to go in accusing that person of every imaginable evil.
We saw this with Clinton, where there was of course plenty of very legitimate criticism, but there were some that were so deranged that they accused him of being a serial rapist, murderer, cocaine dealer and anything else they could dream up. We saw it with Bush, where even with all of the things you could accurately accuse him of being and doing, some felt the need to go even further and claim that he helped plan 9/11. Here is the culmination of such derangement:
These are pictures from Saturday's 9/12 tea party. Here's a kid, maybe 14 years old and already absolutely deranged. Here's the sign he's holding:
And here's the t-shirt he was wearing:
And just for good measure, here's one of his fellow protestors:
Politics
Comments
I really hope that little bastard is just going through a phase, and he'll change his ways in the future. I just hate it when people use quotation marks for emphasis.
Posted by: Wes | September 14, 2009 9:27 AM
I guess it's not a huge surprise that they misspelled 'fascist', huh.
Posted by: Nils Ross | September 14, 2009 9:30 AM
Yikes. What hole did these folks crawl out of?
I have a feeling that the dude wearing sunglasses hasn't picked up a history book since high school.
Posted by: Imrryr | September 14, 2009 9:31 AM
"Do I look like I want to serve....?" coulda stopped there, because as a young republican, you can bet he wouldn't serve even if it was in the totally, most awesomely important war in the history of man.
Posted by: TomMil | September 14, 2009 9:37 AM
I'm sorry, did McCarthyism actually "cure" anything? I was under the impression that it was nothing more than hysterical fear mongering. Or did his surely also deluded parents teach him that McCarthy saved the country from a communist coup or something...
Posted by: MyPetSlug | September 14, 2009 9:37 AM
@Wes - There is always hope. My dad used to make me watch Rush Limbaugh's old television show before school every morning. And I ended up believing everything that idiot said. It wasn't until after I turned 15 that, after thinking long and hard about it, I realized that Rush was completely full of shit.
Posted by: Imrryr | September 14, 2009 9:39 AM
@Wes - Unfortunately, quotation mark "abuse" may be harder to stop... :D
Posted by: Imrryr | September 14, 2009 9:41 AM
And typical of the wrong wing nuts, they have facsist (sic) and communist right there in the same list.
I guess dictionaries are part of a liberal consiracy too.
Posted by: FastLane | September 14, 2009 9:43 AM
Fear mongering is the best tool in the GOP arsenal right now. Bigotry feeds it. Asshattery is the result. Bad spelling and an absolute disregard of history are byproducts.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 14, 2009 9:44 AM
It isn't so scary that nutcases exist. They always have and they always will.
But it is scary that they have an effect on the current administration.
Again I ask: "Where is the backbone?"!!
Posted by: Rodney | September 14, 2009 9:44 AM
It's 1939 all over again?
Which unlucky country gets to play Poland?
Posted by: Stellar Moose | September 14, 2009 9:45 AM
A "blank, mindless face" was my first thought. "Hitler youth", indeed... He looks perfect.
I DO wish that they would make up their minds...is he fascist or communist?:)
Posted by: rcv | September 14, 2009 9:46 AM
For those who didn't get the T4 reference, it was one of several Nazi programs to rid Germany of "Life unworthy of life." In this case, the victims were largely mental patients and those with developmental deformities such as severe autism. The cure was an injection of phenol directly into the brain stem. Wiki says about 70,000 died this way. Phenol proved to be too expensive, so after 1941, various other methods were used, resulting in a further 200,000 deaths before the end of the war.
Just like ObamaCare.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 14, 2009 9:51 AM
Whichever parent dressed him like that should be cited for child abuse.
Posted by: Jeff Darcy | September 14, 2009 9:52 AM
Kid, you're ugly and your mother dresses you funny.
Rt
Posted by: Roadtripper | September 14, 2009 9:57 AM
@#9 MikeMa
Nice post. It's difficult to sum up the current state of conservatism in a concise manner, but you did it well in a four sentence paragraph.
Posted by: Jordan G | September 14, 2009 10:00 AM
What? Do the words Do, in, our, and NOW not deserve to be double underlined too??
Perhaps if they were, I would take his position more seriously...
lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | September 14, 2009 10:01 AM
@14 - I've been a vocal proponent in this forum that indoctrination of kids is child abuse. But in this case, our best hope is to insure the tests and minimal curricula we require be tested, taught and achieved at certain grade levels address delusional thinking. Curricula and tests should actively consider and address the attempts of ideologues to indoctrinate children, whether it's anti-vaccine woo from the Left or all the usual suspects on the Right.
A perfect example would be how Jerry Coyne covered evolution in his latest book, Why Evolution is True, where he primarily focused on the evidence for evolution and explaining it, though within the context of common arguments attempting to discredit science (which would require a fine line to not address religious beliefs, but instead address and dismantle past scientific arguments that creationists still support which have since been falsified).
Of course such standards would be looked upon by the Right as indoctrination given their near-universal delusion and near-universal susceptibility to project their own character defects on their opponents. So I realize even my agenda is overly-utopian to the point of probably not being feasible. But one can fight in baby steps.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 10:10 AM
nice, the left is so angry they call names.
We are not paying our debt now as a nation.
This "reform" will be passed as costs to our grandchildren.
Stop adding to the debt!
Posted by: Observer | September 14, 2009 10:14 AM
I just hate it when people use quotation marks for emphasis.
Not just that, but underlining for emphasis loses its punch when you underline all but 4 words.
Posted by: Loren | September 14, 2009 10:16 AM
Since I don't have a TV, can anyone tell me if the people protesting were anything other than white? I mean, isn't there a significantly different underlying meaning when the racial majority is marching asking for rights versus when it's either a representative cross-section of society or minorities?
Since we aren't living in apartheid South Africa, I can't imagine a good reason for why it always seems to be only white people who are suddenly protesting.
Am I calling it racist? No. I'm merely saying that I only see white people in photographs of these events. Where are the blacks, Hispanics, Asians, native Americans, etc?
Posted by: Umlud | September 14, 2009 10:16 AM
I don't think this is an accurate comparison.
Posted by: FishyFred | September 14, 2009 10:24 AM
Observer said: "We are not paying our debt now as a nation.
This "reform" will be passed as costs to our grandchildren.
Stop adding to the debt!"
I am assuming that Observer was in the anti-Iraq war demonstrations as well, yelling tht the debt was being added to the costs Observer's grandchildren will have to pay. Or was there protesting the Bush tax cuts that added at least $1 trillion to the debt. Or protested the Republican Highway bill that also added to the debt. Or is refusing Medicare, which is going to add to the debt. NO? Observer is only arguing about the health care reform, which in the long run will put us on a path to reducing the debt, particularly as relates to Medicare?
Posted by: BC | September 14, 2009 10:24 AM
I should clarify my second paragraph:
Since we aren't living in apartheid South Africa, I can't imagine a good reason for why it always seems to be only the racial majority who are suddenly protesting.
I read that and suddenly realized that it might be misconstrued. I meant to be trying to understand what the meaning of the racial majority was in protesting when we are clearly not living in a apartheid nation.
(I would also argue that we aren't living in a "post racial" world, either.)
Posted by: Umlud | September 14, 2009 10:24 AM
The protestors were overwhelmingly white (and middle-age was the most popular age), but the organizers had several black speakers and presenters.
The weird thing was that most of them seemed to act in a "stereotypically black" fashion. The comedy that ensued when conservative rapper "Hi Caliber" performed on stage... all those middle-aged and old white people! Had no idea what they were listening to!
Posted by: FishyFred | September 14, 2009 10:27 AM
1. Count how many minorities are among the protesters.
2. Look at these protesters from 1959.
3. Draw your own conclusions.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | September 14, 2009 10:28 AM
@#3 Imrryr, what makes you think he picked up a history book in high school?
Posted by: Michael | September 14, 2009 10:41 AM
Observer @ 19 - current booked debt can almost entirely be attributed to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, where both Congresses, one majority-Democratic and the other majority-Republican respectively passed their total budgets at over 99% of their planned revenues and expenditures. That booked debt we're current paying interest on is approaching $12 trillion dollars, only a very small fraction can be attributed to Obama's attempt to save revenue the side of the budget by defending aggregate demand of the entire economy with his stimulus plan.
To have done nothing would have seen aggregate demand sink, lowering revenue because income would have gone done, which increases the deficit, while losing more jobs, and creating greater expenditure pressures due to the loss of those jobs (unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.). The net effect of doing nothing would be the same size deficit, but with a smaller economy less able to recover.
The refusal of either party's past in addressing future entitlement financing requirements coupled to Bush/GOP's new entitlement (Medicare Plan D), has led to $56 trillion of unfunded future liabilities. $36 trillion of this was booked as a liability during Bush's term. President Obama's new budgets are the first to begin to address this and he is promoting we address entitlement financing after we address health insurance reform, a predicator to managing costs in this micro-economy. In fact, his last speech led off with this challenge, an issue Bush and the GOP never even attempted to seriously address when they were in power.
The current proposal by the President is that his health insurance reform proposal be deficit neutral, with triggers cutting spending if the 'actual to budget' performance fails relative to the planned budget. In case you didn't know it, Bush's failure to address this issue and actually adding to it by not funding his new entitlement, and the Dole-majority Congress that stopped reform in '93, are the two primary reasons federal budget deficits are projected to explode on health care costs if we do nothing (the $56 trillion figure previously cited). We have now realized health care costs going up by whole number factors greater than the inflation rate for a couple of decades now so this is not disputed.
So Observor, if you were truly a deficit hawk, there really is only one viable choice and it's certainly not the Republican Party, who has proven themselves the enemy to optimally managing debt but a mere friend to tax cuts in spite of their harm to economic growth to the entire economy and failure to fund their spending. Unless you are some combination of deluded or dishonest and really cares only for their "team" where that team is in no way related to America and its interests but instead some political faction.
Signed,
An ex-Republican who reviewed the numbers, the performance of each party, and can do the math.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 10:49 AM
Hey kid, did Obama's Nazi Youth Militia even ask you if they wanted you to serve in it? No, I don't think so. Because you're not good enough, are you? And now you're all embittered about that. You wish you could serve in the ONYM with all of the cool kids. Instead you'll only be allowed to serve in the Right-Wing Lunatic Militia, which royally blows. Sucks to be you.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 14, 2009 11:02 AM
Please forgive the draft @ 28, this one is proofed.
Observer @ 19 - current booked debt can almost entirely be attributed to the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, where both Congresses, one majority-Democratic and the other majority-Republican, respectively passed their total budgets at over 99% of their planned revenues and expenditures. That booked debt we're currently paying interest on is approaching $12 trillion dollars, only a very small fraction can be attributed to Obama's attempt to save the revenue side of the budget by defending aggregate demand of the entire economy with his stimulus plan.
To have done nothing would have seen aggregate demand sink, lowering revenue because income would have gone down, which increases the deficit, while losing more jobs which simultaneously reduces federal revenue while also creating greater expenditure pressures due to the loss of those jobs (unemployment insurance, food stamps, etc.). The net effect of doing nothing would be the same size deficit, but with a smaller economy less able to recover and far more people harmed by a smaller economy.
The refusal of either party's past in addressing future entitlement financing requirements coupled to Bush/GOP's new entitlement (Medicare Plan D), has led to $56 trillion of unfunded future liabilities. $36 trillion of this was booked as a liability during Bush's term. President Obama's new budgets are the first to begin to address this and he is promoting we address entitlement financing after we address health insurance reform, a predicator to managing costs in this micro-economy. In fact, his last speech led off with this challenge, an issue Bush and the GOP never even attempted to seriously address when they were in power.
The current proposal by the President is that his health insurance reform proposal be deficit neutral, with triggers cutting spending if the 'actual to budget' performance fails relative to the planned budget. In case you didn't know it, Bush's failure to address this issue and actually adding to it by not funding his new entitlement, and the Dole-majority Congress that stopped reform in '93, are the two primary 'government-controlled' reasons federal budget deficits are projected to explode on health care costs if we do nothing (Most of the $56 trillion figure previously cited; the major reason is the aging of the population and its resultant growing ratio of entitlement beneficiaries to workers supporting them). We have now realized health care costs going up by whole number factors greater than the inflation rate for a couple of decades now so this is not disputed.
So Observor, if you were truly a deficit hawk, there really is only one viable choice and it's certainly not the Republican Party, or conservatism in any form, all of which has proven themselves the enemy to optimally managing debt and but a mere friend to tax cuts in spite of their harm to economic growth to the entire economy and failure to fund their spending - unless you are some combination of deluded or dishonest and really care only for your "team" where that team is in no way related to America and its interests but instead some political faction.
Signed,
An ex-Republican who reviewed the numbers, the performance of each party, and can do the math.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 11:05 AM
Was I the only person who found the pictures far more sad than anything else? Anyone with views that extreme that young on anything is in for a mighty fall sooner or later when they release the world is a more complex place.
Reminded me, naturally, of Jesus Camp.
Obs cartoon of the week.
Posted by: David Durant | September 14, 2009 11:23 AM
Michael Heath,
That's the second proofreading error in the last month. What ARE we going to do with you? :)
Nice post with or without revision.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 14, 2009 11:28 AM
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 10:49 AM
It was so nice you said it twice! When people attack "big-spending" liberals I just get SO MAD!! I point out that ok maybe Johnson wanted both guns and butter and he is considered a liberal... but Carter? a frugal man and an honest man (not a common commodity on the repub side).. then Clinton.. who ran a surplus in his last years...
vs
the first great spender Reagan, who blew up the debt, followed by Bush I who made some dumb choices and had a war and then later a bad economy.... and then.. BUSH II - the biggerest spender of them all.
I spent 10 trillion and all I got was two stupid wars.....
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | September 14, 2009 11:44 AM
David @ 31:
No. Jeff Darcy @ 14 and myself @ 18 both expressed the view these pictures represent evidence of child abuse, taking it well beyond merely sad. Though I too am sad; I also appreciate and concur with your equating it to Jesus Camp, though I suspect this child's abuse is worse than anything I remember from that movie.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 11:48 AM
Poor kid...
@#3:
Since high school? You're very generous.
Posted by: lytefoot | September 14, 2009 11:49 AM
// nd the Dole-majority Congress that stopped reform in '93, //
Bob Dole was minority leader during that time. The Democrats, as is the case today, had majorities in both houses. Also, Barack Obama voted for the initial bailout (as senator) so to assume that the deficits from the budgets that he voted for have zero bearing on people's like or dislike of him is as honest an assessment as one claiming that the GOP stopped Hillarycare in '93.
Posted by: Cam Winston | September 14, 2009 12:02 PM
We're having an election today in Norway, which probably won't change much about the country. I think Americans might be surprised at the distaste from most of the parties towards the most right wing and populist party, the Progress Party (yes, the name does have a hint of "Strength through Joy", doesn't it?). Although the Progress Party will probably be the largest single party after the votes are counted, it won't be able to form a coalition with other parties because they don't like it. The main attraction of the Progress Party to its fans is its anti-immigration politics.
But its musings and policies are positively enlightened and genteel compared with the frothing-mouthed, banjo-playing-in-the-background, shit-spewing views of your more moronic elements (including all the shitehawks on Fox and the other views-as-news channels).
Of course, our death panels keep the gene pool sweet...
How does the US manage to breed such a large number of noisy people to whom the truth is a stranger, and enlightenment an evil? Do you need death panels too?
Oh sorry, they're not really called "death panels". They're free schools and free medical services.
Posted by: Sam C | September 14, 2009 12:21 PM
Combining Susan Jacoby's The Age of American Unreason with Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting With Jesus would provide an excellent course in the origins of American stupidity.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 14, 2009 12:34 PM
Sort of On-Topic:
(Especially since it also has to do with food)
There are some good scenes from the new "Julia and Julie" movie about how the Child's were hounded by McCarthyites, and while they don't come out and say it, it might have led to Julia Child's TV career since her husband left the State Dept earlier than planned and came back to the states.
Posted by: KeithB | September 14, 2009 12:41 PM
Those words have semantic value in context: they are dog whistles. Only the insane can hear the call, so don't bother trying.
Posted by: Nattering Nabob of Negativism | September 14, 2009 12:48 PM
It's 1939 all over again? Which unlucky country gets to play Poland?
Well, the only coutries next door are Mexico and Canada. Both have oil, but I think the latter has more, and the former is the origin of a ton of people many Americans are trying to keep *out*, so I can't see annexation in that direction being a popular move.
So I guess we up here are screwed. If we wave our Socialist Medical System in the air, will it scare the invaders off?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 14, 2009 12:54 PM
MyPetSlug: Along with Nixon, rehabilitating McCarthy through historical revisionism is one of the two great crusades of the modern Union Right. Well that and the nativist b.s. behind referring to our federated state as America, but that has a significantly longer history.
Posted by: Julian | September 14, 2009 1:07 PM
Stellar Moose @ # 11: Which unlucky country gets to play Poland?
Afghanistan (even if already overexposed in the role). And Pakistan is warming up for a special guest appearance as "The Soviet Union".
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | September 14, 2009 1:07 PM
No surprise that the kid's a Seminoles fan.
Posted by: Traffic Demon | September 14, 2009 1:41 PM
Has anyone submitted that kid's sign to the Blog of Unnecessary Quotation Marks yet?
Posted by: fannie | September 14, 2009 1:49 PM
Haven't you heard? Mr. Starburst himself, right-wing pundit Jonah Goldberg has proved conclusively (in his own mind anyway) that fascism is merely another expression of the liberal worldview, just like Communism. Really, you have to keep up with the times. Adolf Hitler is now seen as the biggest and best liberal of the 20th century. I thought everybody knew that!
Posted by: tacitus | September 14, 2009 2:03 PM
@ 36 - you are correct regarding my error regarding the make-up of the 103rd Congress. That was a primary reason I re-published my redundant comment yet still failed to correct that error. Please forgive me. However, my point is still accurate - Robert Dole was a primary reason that health insurance reform was stopped during that time. I suggest reading David Broder's The System for an in-depth analysis of how Clinton failed to pass health care during his tenure and the primary role Dole played. I've seen similar retellings of those times from other credible sources and they are all consistent with the Broder version.
@36:
The bailout he voted for has had little to no effect on the federal budget deficit, that instead is a reflection of what The Fed makes or loses. Last year they reported $28 billion in profit and IIRC, it does not appear they will lose money this year. Certainly some aspects of their portfolio given this project will not be winners, but that is an entirely different matter.
Here is a pie chart allocating responsibility for this year's budget deficit. Please also note that the CBO is reflecting a $500 - $600 billion per year structural deficit into the future that is solely contributable to the budgets and budget results from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2009, and that is only if GDP growth rates are met, otherwise that share of future deficits will rise. (I'm estimating that number since I don't have time to go find the precise number).
I stand by my corrected comment post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 2:07 PM
Abstinence-only sex education.
Posted by: Mandrake | September 14, 2009 2:10 PM
The reason they're upset and marching is that they don't believe that their voice is being heard. Most of it is steam (I even saw some that even called for secession from the untion. McCarthyism was wrong then, and is now. Socialism and Facism are NOT the same thing). But they do have their points.
1. Federal spending is completely out of control. Obama's budget will multiply our national debt by a factor of 4 (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/03/21/GR2009032100104.html)
2. They don't want the government involved in healthcare. Many of your rights are removed/reduced (DON'T BELIEVE THE NEWS MEDIA, READ THE BILL FOR YOURSELF!! here's a link to it at the library of congress http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.3200:) and compare that to what the conservatives are saying.
3. They want the government out of our lives as much as possible. (As seen on many of the signs protesters were carying)
4. (And I can't believe that the media was trying to make a point of this)People have guns. Open cary is legal in most states, legit, and nothing's wrong with it. GET OVER IT!!
I'm a moderate conservative, who can see some of the points on either side of the isle. I'm an independant, not a democrat or a republican. At the end of the day, it's perfectly american to disagree. I have friends who are liberals. Just because we disagree doesn't mean that we can't see the others point of view.
Posted by: Dave | September 14, 2009 2:14 PM
Ok, Dave, no need to shout.
I'll bite. Please enumerate some of the rights that will be "removed/reduced" if the healthcare bill is passed. If it's so obvious, I'm sure you must have a whole list of them ready...
Posted by: tacitus | September 14, 2009 2:25 PM
Dave, I agree with you that none of the plans floating around are perfect, especially financially. My personal opinion is that it is our moral imperative to provide as many people with health care as possible. I think making our deficit slightly more disgusting is a small price to pay.
What really grinds my gears is that if any of your concerns were deal breakers, then the protesters would be complaining about them. The fact that they have to push this death panel crap means they don't really have any confidence in their point of view.
Posted by: Brandon | September 14, 2009 2:28 PM
And Dave, are these same fools willing to give up Medicare? Are they willing to admit we are practically the only industrialized country without healthcare for all?
Even all the 'murka' first bullshiters should recognize they are being played by the insurance companies for dupes to keep their monopolies (and salaries) in place.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 14, 2009 2:32 PM
Yeah, it can't possibly have been because one of the gun carriers was associated with a pastor who is praying daily for the death of President Obama. In any case, while open carrying of guns may be legal, it's not always sensible. You wouldn't want just any gun nut wandering the halls of your local grade school now would you. And if you think it would be wise for Obama to wander through a crowd of gun-toting Obama-hating teabaggers, then I suspect the Secret Service might wish to disabuse you of the idea.
Boy, for a "moderate conservative" you sure are easy to hoodwink. Where were the protests during the last eight years, you know, during the greatest expansion (and abuses) of government power in the last 25 years (at least)?
I'm sorry, but your claims ring hollow.
Posted by: tacitus | September 14, 2009 2:34 PM
Dave, I have to disagree with your point 3. The government has been much more intrusive under republican control than it ever was under a democratic administration. (sex ed, wanting to control abortion, constant attempts to change school standards and insert religion into goverment)
As for increasing the debt 4 times, where were all of the fiscal conservatives during Reagan's term, or W's term? You think it's just coincidence that these 'teabaggers' didn't show up until Obama was in office?
Posted by: FastLane | September 14, 2009 2:39 PM
Hell, as a libertarian I hate the left, and I still have to stand up and defend them against the kind of nonsense assjacks like you are spewing.
Here's the long and short of it, asshole. In a democracy, you lose sometimes. And when you lose, the majority doesn't fucking listen to you! Welcome to the real world, you goddam crybaby. Jesus Buttfucking Christ, it's pathetic to see all these "we're tougher than you" conservatives whining that "the guy we didn't vote for isn't listening to us."
Grow a pair, man up, and accept the fact that you all got your asses handed to you this time around.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 14, 2009 2:39 PM
Dave @ 49 - I can't access your link to the WaPo article regarding Obama quadrupling our debt.
In addition, do you understand how economic growth plays into debt and how its relative to GDP? What would happen if the government didn't wisely spend and invest? Wouldn't the total economy's optimal GDP amount decrease, thereby driving down income, which would drive down federal revenues, thereby still increasing debt but also maker it a bigger share of GDP?
My point is, you can't separate debt from what is going on with GDP as you do in your post. We also know that we can not afford to pay for current booked liabilities without reforming health insurance and getting government spending back to pre-Bush stimulative rates (the amount it multiplies both money and GDP). We also know empirically that gov't administrated insurance and reform of health insurance, if done correctly, will increase taxes, but will also drive down the debt/GDP ratio through more optimal GDP growth rates, which is paramount if one is looking to see growth rates that allow us to afford future unfunded Medicare liabilities.
Your arguments are so overly simplistic as to be fatally flawed. I'm not arguing your prescription, but instead that your premises are too narrow in order to evaluate your prescriptions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 2:47 PM
@James Hanley...That rant was magnificent.
Posted by: Gretchen | September 14, 2009 3:00 PM
Michael has hit the nail on the head: There was no critical thinking displayed at the rally, just as there is none apparent in Beck, Rush, or (not)Joe the (not)plumber when they get to yammering. The level of argument consists of gotcha moments that can be fit on bumper stickers. They advance no alternative policy because they don't know what policy is. Death panels. Communist/Nazi/crypto-Muslim/Socialist/Atheist who wasn't even born in this country, damn him to Hell.
The reason no one is listening is that they have nothing to say. Literally. Network has long been one of my favorite movies, but it's more fun to watch it than to live in that world.
Posted by: kehrsam | September 14, 2009 3:12 PM
Hah. One can always troll the fringes and find what he wants to find.
But this photo's far more representative that they're hip to those tricks:
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2009/09/YCR20090912.jpg
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 3:12 PM
Tom: Did you listen to the speeches given at the rally?
Posted by: kehrsam | September 14, 2009 3:18 PM
tom van dyke: 20% of Republicans believe that Obama is a secret Muslim, and about 60% are birthers or birthers-lite. It's a safe assumption that racism is still rampant in the Republican party, even if they're not wearing white hoods.
Posted by: Brandon | September 14, 2009 3:22 PM
no tom, the guy in your picture is simply an idiot for making that assumption - as are you.
Posted by: dean | September 14, 2009 3:23 PM
Rt @ 15, *not* cool to pick on the kid's looks. It's stooping to Rush's level.
Posted by: JPS, FCD | September 14, 2009 3:25 PM
I LOVE THIS!!!!!!!
Cure for a case of percieved Nazism is one strong dose of McCarthyism.
I suspect that 90% of the people in this photo were home "schooled."
Nobody is debating health care anymore. This is 100% about racism.
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 14, 2009 3:28 PM
It also appears that the blogger who sent an email showing the "massive" crowd in DC this weekend, well, tried to pull a fast one.
Greg Laden had the first story I saw: here's the link to
the offending picture, and details:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/blog-posting/blogger-claim-photo-shows-millions-tea-party-prote/
Posted by: dean | September 14, 2009 3:31 PM
Dave, #49: They don't want the government involved in healthcare. Many of your rights are removed/reduced...and compare that to what the conservatives are saying.
The conservatives are saying that the gubmint is going to set up death panels that will put bullets in the heads of old people and veterans. They don't come across as much better than the nuts in the photos.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 14, 2009 3:39 PM
You missed all the signs complaining about taxation without representation. As a DC resident and therefore one of the relative small number of Americans entitled to bitch about taxation without representation, I fought the urge to explain to these people all afternoon that not liking your representation is not the same as not having any.
Also for a group that was mostly older people, they were extraordinarly messy and piled their trash up all around the Mall and left there stupid signs everywhere.
Posted by: katydid13 | September 14, 2009 3:39 PM
The conservatives ARE the nuts in the photographs. Why is that not clear?
Posted by: Greg Laden | September 14, 2009 3:40 PM
The new GOP motto. If reality doesn't match your desire, make shit up! Love the old rally picture. Thanks dean for linking it. Kind of let the air out of the teabagger's balloon.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 14, 2009 3:41 PM
The reason they're upset and marching is that they don't believe that their voice is being heard......
If those signs (or these) are typical of what was at that demo, they don't deserve to be heard (ie. in the sense of paid attention to; taken seriously by adults). This is not even on the same planet as rational critique of government policy (and I'm sure there's plenty to criticize; Ed does so here, regularly); it's not even at the level of the points you made (which other commenters have addressed) -- it's fucking batshit-bugnuts howling-at-the-moon round-the-twist delusional insanity! Birtherism? Crying "Nazi"? Not-so-veiled threats of violence? Excusing them on the grounds of some imputed frustration is to furnish an apologia for some pretty vile and potentially dangerous sentiments.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 14, 2009 3:45 PM
@katydid13 - Yes indeed. I was particularly amused by this picture of an American flag lying in a pile of trash http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/8071/trash5.jpg . Good thing it wasn't dumped there during an anti-Bush demonstration...
Posted by: Imrryr | September 14, 2009 3:52 PM
@Mikema in 69
(that reads more awkwardly than I'd intended: nevertheless)
You should extend thanks to Greg Laden - I found the information at his blog.
Posted by: dean | September 14, 2009 4:03 PM
I suggest that these crowds are made up of four groups:
-Professional agitprop paid for by Koch and similar.
-Health industry employees that are given the day off with pay, often bussed to the rallies for free, as long as they protect their employer's interests by blocking any reform.
-A small core of genuine crazies who have immersed themselves in the alternate reality of conspiracism and right-wing fear/hate mongering.
-Gawkers who are amazed and entertained by the novelty of the street theater.
Posted by: Art | September 14, 2009 4:17 PM
The reason they're upset and marching is that they don't believe that their voice is being heard.
Dave @49 - So their signs say, but in fact, their voices are being heard way out of proportion to their numbers. It's what called a a heckler's veto in some circumstances, and a temper tantrum in others.
As for your other points: If they cared so much about federal spending, why didn't they carry on like this over the last 8 years, when the GOP basically treated the US Treasury like an ATM for its cronies and big contributors? If they strongly oppose government involvement in healthcare, why were these the same people who were on-board for government interference in the Terry Schiavo case, for pissing away American pre-eminence in stem-cell research and for every proposal that comes down the pike that would allow government to micromanage obs-and-gyn issues, and why are they not for shutting down Medicare? If they're against government involvement in our lives, where were they when the Patriot Act was passed? And if they're only carrying guns because it's legal and hey, what the hell?, why are they flashing them at every possible opportunity?
You're acting like that's what's really motivating these people, but if they were, they'd be consistent about it. Why this now?
They can't just come out and say the thing that's really freaking them out about this administration: The President of these United States is black.
When you can't say what's bothering you, you're forced to make stuff up to explain your pique. Thus, we have "Obama was born someplace else," "Obama is starting a secret army!""Obama is the Anti-Christ."
Posted by: Molly, NYC | September 14, 2009 4:18 PM
Dean---See comments 61 & esp 64. They prove the photo's point.
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2009/09/YCR20090912.jpg
Or if you want to argue that 61 and 64 are not representative, then you prove my original point, that picking out a couple protesters out of tens or hundreds of thousands proves nothing.
[Actually both I and the guy in the photo are correct.]
Kehrsam, did you hear something in the speeches you'd like to comment on? Whether or not I heard the speeches meself is irrelevant. It's what you think that's important.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 5:01 PM
It occurs to me that the lack of universal health care in the U.S. and right-wing animosity toward anti-poverty programs contribute to keeping our wingnut population uncomfortably high. I wonder how many of these protesters are victims of preventable judgment-impairing conditions such as brain damage from birth complications, stunted brain growth from poor childhood nutrition, and fetal alcoholism?
Posted by: Sanity Jane | September 14, 2009 5:18 PM
No, the photo you posted, by itself, is meaningless, and the two posts you reference don't provide proof either. The implication the clown in the picture, and you, are making, is that everyone would call him,or other protesters, racist simply for protesting, despite anything being said says. He's (guy in your picture) an ass for saying that, and you're an ass for agreeing (even if you hadn't already provided a good deal of proof in other posts, this would be enough to make that call on you).
you also neglect to mention that no single protest is taken in isolation: the same references to nazis, socialism, offensive caricatures, etc., appear, protest to protest, locale to locale. it is not a case of "a couple out of thousands" being picked out.
I don't expect any honest responses from you - you've don't seem to do that, but such a foolish series of statements was a poor response, even for you.
Posted by: dean | September 14, 2009 5:23 PM
You call that an honest response, Dean? You didn't respond to a word I said about the comments and then called me a name. Again.
Cheers, the defense rests.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 5:31 PM
tom, you truly are an idiot.
Posted by: tom | September 14, 2009 5:35 PM
Tom, those comments would only prove the photo's point if you could demonstrate the protesters have no racial animus. Until then, it's just a bare denial.
Posted by: DaveL | September 14, 2009 5:40 PM
Posted by: Walt Smith | September 14, 2009 5:40 PM
@Tom
Here are some more photos to prove you right
http://www.flickr.com/photos/42406957@N04/
well not really
'Whether or not I heard the speeches meself is irrelevant. It's what you think that's important'
What? So you dont care what the people you are agreeing with actually say? You are only going along for the ride? Who are the brown shirts in Amerika again?
Posted by: theroachman | September 14, 2009 5:44 PM
I like how one single photo is far more representative!
Posted by: 386sx | September 14, 2009 5:45 PM
A picture is worth a thousand... other pictures. Lol.
Posted by: 386sx | September 14, 2009 5:47 PM
What shocks me the most about these protests is this:
1. For eight of the past nine years we've had a Republican in the White House who actively promoted the position that the government had the legal right to seize anyone, at any time, anywhere in the world, and hold them without charge, without trial, without access to counsel, without judicial oversight- indefinitely. The 'teabaggers' did not appear to protest.
2. Now we have a Democratic president, who unfortunately seems intent on continuing and defending the above position...but the protesters break out the totalitarian rhetoric about things like healthcare reform
Posted by: DaveL | September 14, 2009 6:00 PM
Actually some of you are charging racism while others say that you're not. Work it out amongst yourselves and get back to me.
As for providing proof at comment 80-something for people who will ignore it anyway, Walt, surely you jest. Mostly I just came back to be amused at the incoherent charges of incoherence and the race-baiting charges of racism.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 6:01 PM
Actually some of you are charging racism while others say that you're not. Work it out amongst yourselves and get back to me.
Lol, just pick out the one(s) you think would be far more representative.
Posted by: 386sx | September 14, 2009 6:07 PM
Tom @86 What?
Look at all the pages of the link I provided at Post 82
Count up the number of stars and bars you see and then count the number of non whites you see, make a comparison.
Do you not see a little racism there eh?
Posted by: theroachman | September 14, 2009 6:09 PM
Would that all of the protesters held up signs like the one TVD linked to! If that were the case, there wouldn't be nearly the ammunition there presently is, with ones like the "What's the difference between the Cleveland Zoo and the White House?" sign.
TVD: See, here's why people are frustrated with you - there are two opposing claims here, the claim that a great number of the signs at these rallies display racism (what many here have claimed) and your claim that the majority of the signs have nothing to do with racism in the least. (Or something like that.) Those claiming that there is racism have provided evidence for their positive claim, and they ask to see evidence from you. Since you have made a positive claim, you bear the burden of proof for your end since evidence has been provided that contradicts your claim. Yet you don't seem to admit that such evidence has provided, which is curiously what you claim everyone else has done. Hmm, I think there's a word for that...starts with a P...pr-, pro-, proj- -- eh, someone'll remember it.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 14, 2009 6:13 PM
Mr. B, no evidence would convince you, this much I have learned. Any evidence I do present is skated past.
If I frustrate y'all it's because I see through you and decline to step into your epistemological traps, where you play prosecutor, judge and jury. I'm content to let the incoherent responses [and namecallers] speak for themselves.
If Mr. Kehrsam has something to say about the speeches, let him say it. If somebody wants to defend ACORN, go ahead. If you agree with Mr. Laden that the protests are "100% about racism," but if you disagree, you should say that too instead of being concerned with what li'l ol' me has to say.
And a page of photos at flickr is not an argument or proof. In a crowd of 10-500,000 you'll find most anything. And Mr. Laden [and some comments here] certainly put the truth to this signage:
http://pajamasmedia.com/eddriscoll/files/2009/09/YCR20090912.jpg
I've found the libertarian gang at Reason to be among the most honest brokers during the Clinton and Bush years, and expect them to be helpful in the Obama years.
This is their report, a better cross-section of signage and attitudes because at least the camera's moving.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzUrv3SdJdo
Me, I don't like the president's health insurance plan and resent being linked in the least to racism, nor can anyone be held liable for every person in a crowd of 10-500,000.
[Hell, we can't even get an honest count on how many people were there, let alone how many are racists.]
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 6:29 PM
Actually, the quotation marks around "serve" make perfecly good sense as scare quotes. Presumably he believes that if he were drafted into a "Nazi Youth Militia," the things he would be made to do would not actually be of service to (i.e., do any good for) the country. Those quotes are actually the only things on the poster that come close to coherence or sanity.
In general though, this stuff has gone from being offensive, to scary, to just funny. People this deluded are no threat. If they come after us with their guns, they will probably hold them backwards and shoot themselves.
Chances are that kid will be a radical-leftist atheist in a few years time.
Posted by: Nigel | September 14, 2009 6:36 PM
@58 : Kehrsam
> The reason no one is listening is that they have nothing to say.
And yet here we are all discussing them (not to mention major news networks).
Posted by: David Durant | September 14, 2009 6:41 PM
Others here have provided evidence to support their point. If you're going to be so gutless, why even participate?
Posted by: Walt Smith | September 14, 2009 7:08 PM
David Durant:
Perhaps that's indicative of the fact the Right has yet to present a coherent vision for health insurance reform that has gained enough traction within its own movement members that the non-Right needs to take notice. To date, I've seen no such proposal.
One of my favorite quasi-economists on the Right, Bruce Bartlett, has been making an interesting classic Burkean argument that's shaped my thinking on this effort, as best as I can tell he's being ignored within the GOP. All that does is continue to provide evidence that modern day conservatism, even its purest form, no longer bears any resemblance to Mr. Burke. The protesters' posters are the conservative movement, their posters either match or are a mere one or two degrees from the talking points of GOP Congressmen and other leading party members.
Here's a great description of the challenge from Bartlett. While this forum is well versed on this reality and if you're well-informed, no need to read this link, I have yet to see it acknowledged by those on the Right with media access. Until they engage on the merits of the issue both descriptive and workable prescriptions, the Left will continue to fill that gap with patterns noticed elsewhere, such as this group's prejudicial tendencies, both past and present. Given the Democrats' cowardice to criticism, there is currently no incentive for the Right to raise its game, especially since I doubt it has much aptitude left for critical thinking.
And here's a Burkean response by Bartlett. His argument is well worth reading and I guarantee you a broader perspective if you consider his argument.
The problem with Bartlett's idea for the modern-day American conservative is that it is Burkean, which is to deal conservatively with reality, whereas today's American Right refuses to recognize reality, especially now that it doesn't carry the burden of responsibility that comes with power.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 14, 2009 7:19 PM
The Nazi's Aktion T4 was mostly aimed at those with mental illness deemed "incurable"---i can see why these folks are worried.
Posted by: PalMD | September 14, 2009 7:20 PM
tom van dyke,
We can accurately estimate the distance, size and mass of stars and planets yet the best we can do when estimating the size of a crowd is a range of 10-500,000? Wow.
I think of the 10-500,000 at least 99-499,000 have to be racists.
Posted by: Owen | September 14, 2009 7:26 PM
PalMD @95 wins the thread.
tvd @too many, as always, loses.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 14, 2009 7:39 PM
Oh bang, PalMD!
That made me cackle like Bette Davis in Baby Jane.
Posted by: Leni | September 14, 2009 7:54 PM
Tom,
I watched your reasonTV video, and honestly had to laugh. Mixed in with the obvious images of racism, the confederate hat, Obama as Hitler, etc., you have another huge dose of "former Republicans" who are now, suddenly, fed up with "all of them" and want to "vote them all out," when in reality they simply want to get rid of the Democratic majority and establish a new majority of "conservatives like them." That response to the problem is both cute and convenient. It's cute in that it is utterly idiotic and devoid of reality. It is convenient in that these yahoos didn't say a damn thing for the last eight years but now suddenly we have to desperately change everything and "throw them all out?" I truly have to wonder if they would be out there protesting if McCain had been elected and were implementing his policies that were not only going to be more devastating on the deficit, but also less sound both fiscally and in terms of long term growth.
In addition what I see in the video is a bunch of idiots who have no clue when it comes to economics, spending, the government, or really anything else that they seem to think they are qualified to debate. In the midst of a recession, one of the worst things the government could do would be to cut expenditures. Were we to do so we might as well just warm up the soup kitchens and dust off those Hoovervilles. Their political arguments are as laughable as they are self-serving. Again, they ignore years of abuse by the Bush administration, decades of reckless spending and, when we finally have a president who actually is implementing policies that are realistic in their scope, projected impact, etc., they start screaming for ousting of those in power. Convenient given that I would wager that in excess of 85% of the people at the protest didn't vote for Obama in the first place and likely didn't vote for the Democrats in congress either. I would also not be surprised if their idea of "voting out" the members of congress would also include them retaining "good conservatives" who also just happened to be Republicans.
Sorry Tom, I call bullshit. I'm not saying that all of the protesters are racist, but anyone with a pair of eyes and a functional brain can see that many of them are. I really see this as a protest by people who lost, don't like that they lost, and can't get over the fact that they lost. At the same time they can't admit they lost even though a majority of them voted for Bush and probably voted for McCain. They're hypocrites and liars.
-------------
Michael,
Just wanted to say, heck of a post @ #30
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 14, 2009 8:00 PM
After reading these posts again, I see tom's point: it's only evidence if he says it's evidence.
If you accept that his position falls into place.
Posted by: dean | September 14, 2009 8:09 PM
That's funny, that's the same line fed to us by creationists, apologists, free-energy cranks, birthers, etc. I wonder how all these people, including you, would know such a thing without having ever presented evidence?
Rather, because you know you have no argument.
Or, as sane people would put it "logical arguments".
Posted by: DaveL | September 14, 2009 8:11 PM
Between the leftwingnuts and the rightwingnuts, I'm getting a little edgy and scared. Reason is going out the window.
Posted by: GP38-2 | September 14, 2009 8:59 PM
GP38-2, #102: Between the leftwingnuts and the rightwingnuts....
Why? Now what are the "leftwingnuts" doing?
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 14, 2009 9:43 PM
Thx for looking at the video, Mr. Dogmeat. At least it's better evidence. I don't see any better or worse than I see in these very comments sections. A cross-section of weirdos, fools and somewhat valid arguments.
As for my presenting evidence for that meta-argument, the comments here usually do most of the work for me.
As for the Van Jones and ACORN mentions I've been called out on for "evidence" over the past week, the headlines caught up as I hoped they would, and saved me a lot of time and trouble and puerile insults.
Jones resigned, and the Senate voted 81-7 today to strip ACORN of some more funding.
Good.
As for evidence presented by others hereabouts, I seldom disagree with Mr. Brayton's. In fact, I'm arguing elsewhere with some Glenn Beck supporters based on one of Ed's posts and its link to Media Matters of all things.
I'm not an epistemological nihilist. I seldom challenge any of the actual evidence presented [albeit rarely] hereabouts, only its interpretation or significance.
Surely nobody thinks I write here in hopes of convincing anyone of anything, as if I could have written anything in a comments section that would change minds about ACORN. I just try out ideas in a hostile environment, seeking out principled counterarguments, or respond to the occasional interesting idea.
_____________
Mr. Heath, per Edmund Burke, "conservatism" is best described [and most useful] as opposition to radical change, especially instituted by political means.
The protesters [right or wrong] view Obamacare as radical change; their sentiments are quite Burkean, even if their arguments are not.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 10:20 PM
TVD, I'm not surprised, but you've managed to pigeonhole me based on, what, one post that pointed out to you that you made a positive claim that then put the onus on you to support with evidence. Instead, you claim "epistemological traps," which is somewhat telling to me since you think that burden of proof is a "trap" (or maybe it's just a trap when it's pointed at you). I don't care if we're talking about racism at tea parties or whether you're wearing wingtips at this very moment: you make a claim, you provide the evidence or concede that your claim is unsubstantiated.
Believe me, after seeing some of these, I would be more than happy to see evidence that the attitudes expressed in signs like the Cleveland Zoo sign are exceptions rather than the rule, but frankly, from what I've seen, I think I'm going to be more than a little disappointed in that regard. I've seen and heard more racism, bigotry, and xenophobia (not all of it in these photos) in one day than I'd like to see ever again.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 14, 2009 10:51 PM
Mr. B, tellya the truth, I was at the office and couldn't listen to the audio. I saw a random assortment of signs---as opposed to cherry-picked ones---and because of the libertarian Reason's credibility over the years as an honest broker, simply posted it as better evidence.
I have no doubt that a number of things jumped out at you as offensive or stupid. I won't begin to defend them. They are not me.
And if I seemed to pigeonhole you, it was only in using your comment as the most intelligent foundation to continue, and a reasonable person to begin addressing. I don't know you and certainly I apologize for making you one of the pack, but it's difficult to think of pseudonyms as actual human beings.
But we all have our radar, and each is tuned into what it's looking for. I assure you my eyebrows raise and my jaw drops as often in reading these comments sections as yours undoubtedly did viewing the video.
But at least we've arrived at a fair sample of each. That's progress, of a sort.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 14, 2009 11:24 PM
Mr. B -
I sincerely hope you aren't actually expecting a response from TVD. He is really not interested in trying to deal with reasoned and challenging arguments. He ignores everyone who has anything substantive to offer, with the exception of Ed, preferring instead to goad people into saying nasty things to him for being so bloody obtuse. He gets off on pissing off people who disagree with him. Bonus points when he pisses off people who have well reasoned, substantive question for him.
I have, for example, asked him repeatedly why it is exactly, we can't just keep religious iconography out of publicly owned spaces. Why it is so very important to have religion in schools, government office buildings, capitals, etc. Others have asked equally reasonable questions of him. But he just likes to ignore the questions he has no answer to.
TVD is a petty troll and really nothing more.
Posted by: DuWayne | September 14, 2009 11:28 PM
dave - you posted earlier (#46) a post with several points, however nobody pulled you up on point 4:
A few minor edits, and suddenly we're back in the pre bellum South. It's simply an appeal to tradition. Some times traditions are wrong and need to change. Still, how very conservative of you.
Secondly it may have escaped your notice, but part of the media's job is to criticise (well, before 2001 anyway). The media has simply questioned the wisdom of allowing deadly weapons in the hands of those so clearly having a psychotic-break from reality.
Yep, that's that "communo-fascist-Islamo-athieism™" right there!- DJ
____________________________________
*[how dare they! I'm so outraged by the media making a point I'll make a point to show it!]
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 12:34 AM
Also - allow me to point out post #79:
"Never let it never be said Dispatchers are above self-criticism! :) - DJ
Posted by: DIngoJack | September 15, 2009 12:55 AM
"Never let it said Dispatchers are above self-criticism"
[For those interested: why yes, I am an idiot!] - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 1:00 AM
Thx for looking at the video, Mr. Dogmeat. At least it's better evidence. I don't see any better or worse than I see in these very comments sections. A cross-section of weirdos, fools and somewhat valid arguments.
Better evidence of what? Better evidence than what? Did you actually read what I posted? What you consider "valid arguments" are really self righteous nonsense, hypocritical blathering of people who can't accept the fact that they lost, that they, the rats leaving the sinking ship of the GOP, have no legitimate policies, no legitimate arguments, simply bogus claims of conservatism and fiscal responsibility that were strangely silent for the better part of the last decade. When Steven Baldwin is one of the more rational, knowledgeable commentators, it's a pretty sure sign that the inmates are running the asylum.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | September 15, 2009 1:14 AM
Tom van Dyke - You never did get around to telling us why you disliked ACORN so much, (Before some Republican shill* sank them with her idiotic behaviour, that is), pray enlighten us mere mortals. It's not just Quercophobia, surely? - DJ
__________________
PS *sigh* still managed to bugger it up. Oh well, you get the idea.
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 1:32 AM
If the people protesting "Obamacare" want legitimacy, they're going to have to do a lot more than resemble Burke in sentiment.
As things stand, their sentiments seem pretty well represented by the signs they carry... Which seem to be mostly completely fucking retarded.
Posted by: Leni | September 15, 2009 1:32 AM
@tom van dyke:
We didn't actually get that far; it's usual to actually specify some charges before starting on the evidence bit, and that's what I was asking you for. I still don't know what you object to about ACORN.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 15, 2009 2:38 AM
Oh and Tom (just to be a style-nazi) use parentheses to enclose parenthetical thoughts, sub-ordinate clauses and the like. Brackets are used for editorial insertions. Like this: [emphasis added]. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 3:43 AM
Personally, I am all in favour of these protests. Think back to the last time that we had frothing-at-the-mouth, crazy-eyed crowds inventing outrages and obviously false slogans, and clothing themselves in the most transparently false and hypocritical martyr mantles, to the point that even the most apathetic voters were forced to take notice: the sixties liberals. And what was the result of that? 40 years of conservatism in government.
If the modern conservatives want to copy that mistake and give us 40 years of liberalism in government, fine by me.
Posted by: Valhar2000 | September 15, 2009 5:49 AM
Valhar,
And that's the reason I, at least, don't take any joy in this bizarre emotional breakdown the Republicans are having. I want an effective loyal opposition. (Then again, the Dems sometimes still seem to be playing loyal opposition to the conservatives, quaking in fear, kowtowing, and backtracking every time Glenn Beck streaks his shorts.)
Posted by: James Hanley | September 15, 2009 7:12 AM
Valhar2000, #116: Think back to the last time that we had frothing-at-the-mouth, crazy-eyed crowds inventing outrages and obviously false slogans, and clothing themselves in the most transparently false and hypocritical martyr mantles, to the point that even the most apathetic voters were forced to take notice: the sixties liberals.
Huh. The Vietnam War, Jim Crow, and the second class status of women and ethnic minorities were real problems (along with others) that needed to be dealt with. I'm not sure what you are getting at by comparing the '60s protests against legitimate issues that the established political players were ignoring or maintaining with the current crop of teabaggers.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 8:24 AM
Totally off topic.
(Chiroptera - how do you link to a specific comment like that? - DJ)
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 8:33 AM
In the sign the work "look" is decorated with quotation marks (as Dave Barry might say). Should be italics.
I know, I have nothing more profound to say about this. That's because it's so ridiculous.Posted by: John Hinkle | September 15, 2009 8:41 AM
Duh. Guess I should've read the very first comment by Wes. (palm >> forehead)
Posted by: John Hinkle | September 15, 2009 8:44 AM
DingoJack, #119:
First I click on the date at the bottom of the comment; that puts the url for that comment in the bar at the top of the browser. Then I paste that into my comment surrounded by the usual html tags for a link.
For those who don't know how to link in html, here is an explanation.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 8:46 AM
DJ - click on the date/time stamp of the comment you want linked. You'll then get your page refreshed with a URL for the blog thread where the page starts at that specific comment. You can then copy and paste that URL into a HTML tag. When readers click on the link in your comment post, they'll stay on the blog thread, but get moved up to the comment post you've linked.
You're being friendly to readers when doing this for a comment post well below the comment you're referring to, however you're also spending one of the two links we're budgeted without having to go through moderation. So merely typing "@ #" is another way to refer to a specific comment post while retaining your budget of two HTML tags per comment post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 15, 2009 8:50 AM
However, my point is still accurate - Robert Dole was a primary reason that health insurance reform was stopped during that time.
Spin.
Robert Dole could manage to secure every Republican vote and the Democrats could still pass HillaryCare if they wanted (no filibuster was used, so that's a "what if" argument). Much as the case today, Democrats are in complete power yet they still spend their time blaming Republicans when things don't go their way.
Here is a pie chart
LOL!
Matt Yglesias posts a chart and suddenly it's the gospel? Because Matt Yglesias said so? Because Matt Yglesias said it was the wascly wepubilcans' fault? Are you kidding me?
GOOD LORD.
And their minions are happy to carry the water.
Posted by: Cam Winston | September 15, 2009 8:55 AM
If you want another way to get that anchor link for an individual comment, you can also right-click and copy the link, which you can then paste into your comment as Chiro and MH have described above.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 15, 2009 8:56 AM
Michael Heath, #123: So merely typing "@ #" is another way to refer to a specific comment post while retaining your budget of two HTML tags per comment post.
I resort to that on those occasions where I want to put two links in the body of the post or reply to more than two people at once.
One potential problem: if a comment gets deleted, then the numbering gets all messed up; if several comments get deleted, then the numbering gets really, really messed up, so it becomes hard to figure out which post is being replied to, especially if you neglect to name the person who wrote the post. The url tags, though, seem to stay good.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 9:00 AM
#118: I was not comparing "protests against legitimate issues" with the current teabaggers, I was comparing the kooks who vandalizied buildings, harangued the veterans, and generally made stuff up to justify their idiocy.
I will freely admit that the situation back and the situation now are not symmetrical, and that protesters back then were orders of magnitude less kooky in the aggregate and had many legitimate complaints, but they don't have to be symmetrical: people watched those guys back then and decided that liberals and hippies are lunatics who deserve no consideration, and all modern conservatives could end up getting tarred with the same brush as the teabaggers.
#117: I didn't mention this in my first post, but I realize that and agree with you entirely. 40 years of the Dems governing might not be very good at all if played out in the real world.
Posted by: valhar2000 | September 15, 2009 9:25 AM
It's a good thing that no one hurt TVD's feelings, because if past experience is anything to go on, that would mean that he would just start saying that he's being persecuted.
I called this guy out as a bigot before, pointing out several points of his bigotry (albeit with what he considered "rude" words) and he then played the martyr card.
Good to see you're up to your same tricks, TVD. You just keep flogging that horse. Who knows? It might actually get up and start walking if you just hit it some more.
Posted by: mercurianferret | September 15, 2009 10:11 AM
James Hanley @ 117,
It's worse than that, the Dems are playing 'loyal' opposition to themselves!
Sad, but true. I wish we had more than a decent opposition party, I wish we had a true multi-party system. I've been voting green, independant and even the occasional libertarian locally, but there isn't much chance of them gaining ground here in Dumbfuckistan (aka Kansas).
Posted by: FastLane | September 15, 2009 10:13 AM
The level of argument consists of gotcha moments that can be fit on bumper stickers.
See "thought-stopping cliches". Slogans eliminate the need to think about what you are saying.
Posted by: Tsu Dho Nimh | September 15, 2009 10:18 AM
valhar2000, #127: I will freely admit that the situation back and the situation now are not symmetrical....
That's okay. There have been a lot of false equivalences being made recently around here so I wasn't sure. Yeah, I know, it's too bad that what should be a reasonable statement can be misread so easily, but that's the time we live in. (Also, even intelligent people make silly statements sometimes.)
-
...people watched those guys back then and decided that liberals and hippies are lunatics who deserve no consideration....
I disagree with this analysis (I think that people were already against the goals of the movement and used the excesses as a justification), but I will just agree here that it is an opinion that can be held by a reasonable person and leave it at that.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 15, 2009 10:21 AM
Cool Bananas. Cheers for that to all. OK back to the real stuff now. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 15, 2009 10:22 AM
@ 124 - I see you select your facts in a manner useful to defending your worldview irrespective of reality, in this case willful ignorance.
I stand by the assertions and arguments in my posts on this thread and I won't be responding to you in the future.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 15, 2009 10:32 AM
How much do you want to bet that kid is a young-earth creationist?
Posted by: ??? | September 15, 2009 12:18 PM
@134 I believe that's a losing bet! Who'd bet no?
As for the guy with the 1939 poster: Sorry, you're 6 years late. We already invaded Iraq. If we're going to follow the Third Reich timeline, we're going to lose the war and lose our army. Oh, and a long series of trials against our previous political leaders and their followers. Some will be charged--either executed or imprisoned, while others shall flee to South America to be weeded out 50 years later. We will have utter unrest and only unite 45 years later. Our previous political leader shall kill his dog and shoot himself in a suicide pact with his wife.
Posted by: ~L.K. | September 15, 2009 12:41 PM
What's wrong with the chart, specifically? All Yglesias did was collect the numbers from a NY Times article citing the CBO and put them into a pie chart. You're totally welcome to contribute something useful if you want to.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | September 15, 2009 2:35 PM
I'm totally frightened that ANYONE would say "McCarthyism" is a cure for ANYTHING. That type of atittude pitted American against American.
Is it just me, or is this country really falling apart since September 11th? We entered a war that cost more debt and lives. We didn't catch 'the bad guys' or find 'weapons of mass destruction', we only pitted ourselves against each other, especially against minority groups. And we sorta shrugged when the Patriot Act emerged. I'm surprised none of these anti-government protestors speaking up right now spoke against that act. You wanna talk about Big Brother watching you? Well, read up on this act and see how many civil rights it violates. If you're even 'suspected' as a terrorist, you aren't even read your Miranda rights!
WHERE WERE THESE SO-CALLED ANTI-GOVERNMENT PROTESTORS THEN?
Posted by: Jess | September 15, 2009 2:38 PM
I've been looking through the photos and videos. Is it just me, or is like "Where's Waldo- People of Colour Edition?"
Posted by: DaveL | September 15, 2009 3:35 PM
I see you select your facts in a manner useful to defending your worldview irrespective of reality, in this case willful ignorance.
You state that after you posit the notion that Bob Dole was the driving force behind killing HillaryCare whereas simple mathematics and a little thing called "rationality" would say "the Democrats couldn't pass it even though they had majorities and the executive branch"?
Whatever makes you sleep better at night, dude. I'm betting that if you can't sleep, you blame Republicans, don't you?
What's wrong with the chart, specifically?
Congress passes budgets. Presidents sign them.
Seems to me that any budget after the '06 elections can't be blamed on Tom Delay and anyone voting for those budgets, hello Senator Obama, are in line for some blame. I have no problem blaming Bush. I have a big problem with people trying to gloss over a 1.8 trillion deficit and blaming Bush when Obama supported TARP and then pushed through a stimulus that we were told we had to have, and then we're supposed to think people that are nervous about all this spending are either bigots, ignoramouses or racists. Especially racists.
Posted by: Cam Winston | September 15, 2009 4:34 PM
Cam Winston - I will respond because I better understand why you are not accepting well known assertions.
Your points are very rational if you don't know the history (Dole) or the mechanics (budgetary process) respectively and you do not.
The Broder book I cited provides a detailed history of why Clinton's health insurance reform failed and Dole's role. There's been numerous recent citations recently about how Dole insured that the Senate would not pass Clinton's health care the matching agenda. The main instigator of the idea to be oppositionist to the plan, which Dole originally agreed to work on, was Bill Kristol.
Kristol, who was Dan Qualye's Chief of Staff when he was VP, whose dad pretty much started the neo-con movement, is owner of the neocon magazine, The Weekly Standard, and was a primary instigator at championing Palin to be the VP pick, advised Sen. Dole and the leaders of the Republican party that if they helped Clinton pass health care, they'd be delivering a 20 year majority to the Dems and compromise his presidential chances. In fact, Dole used Kristol's talking points in the Republican response to Clinton's '94 State of the Union Speech including that, "there is no health care crisis".
Here's a link to Kristol's memo: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/bill-kristols-1993-memo-calling-for-gop-to-block-health-care-reform/
I never claimed Dole was the sole reason, he was a key factor though.
In regards to my points about the budgets. You have no understanding of the process. I will explain briefly. The President has an Office of Management and Budget, they develop budgets and then submit them to the Congreess. The Congress then reacts. Congress doesn't primarily execute the Budget, the Executive Branch largely does.
Here is the President's 2010 budget: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/. The fiscal year starts 10/1 and the year ends on 9/30. Congress will then work from there and respond accordingly, which of course the President can either sign or veto. Much of the allocation of how the President proposes the sub-totals is managed by the Congress - specifically the Committees. If you actually read the budgets and watch the process, and I do, then you'd know that during the Reagan and W. Bush years, what the President presented to Congress was pretty much accepted in terms of top line revenues and expenditures, along with allocations to the Cabinets and other entities. In fact during the Reagan years the projected revenues (and how to collect those revenues) and expenditures that passed Congress was 99.5% of what the President's submitted. For a good tutorial on this entire process, along with a critique on why Reagan initially failed, I recommend reading David Stockman's book during his time as Reagan's first Budget Director. (Lou Cannon's biographies on Reagan provides good coverage on why Reagan's later budgets succeeded).
The infighting in Congress is usually on how to allocate the funds. Of course there are fights about top-line numbers as well, during the Clinton/Gingrich years, we had two major showdowns. However, unless there is a filibuster-opposition party in Congress, the President historically wins the debates on the top line numbers, as Clinton did against Gingrich and Reagan did against O'Neill. There's a reason that historian and economists largely point to the President when discussing budgets and budget performance. The GOP in the mid-90s was actually somewhat successful at working with Clinton on influencing his budgets.
In addition, I never solely blamed the GOP, I specifically called out the Democratic-majority Congress during Reagan's era as co-contributors to the deficits generated then. I was also neutral in my judgment of the Reagan era-deficits in my previous posts. While Reagan's initial budgets caused unnecessary deficits due to their aggravating the recession he inherited; he eventually adapted (by discarding with supply side economics); I was impressed with his last five budgets, he also came to trust Volcker's Monetarist approach at the Fed (who Carter appointed and Reagan re-appointed once). I happened to support some of Reagan's deficit spending then given our need to rebuild our military after we got over our Viet Nam hangover and were left with unacceptable hardware and inventory of hardware.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 15, 2009 5:25 PM
OK, so what adjustment would you like to make to the pie chart? Should we give him 1% of the part of the budget that went over during his 3 years in the senate?
None of that changes the fact that our deficit is nothing new and generally attributable to things that happened over a period starting well before Obama even entered national politics. The fact that people are suddenly shocked (shocked!) to note that their government is running a deficit is laughable. Most of these people seemed perfectly satisfied when it was their guys in charge. This does not strike me as coincidence.
My guess is that racists make up only a minority of the group. Ignoramuses seem to make up a larger percentage. For example, if you can't tell the difference between the Nazis and the communists, that's the category you go into. Likewise, if you can't tell the difference between offering somebody cheap health care and being a Nazi, that's probably a good categorization.
The problem here is that I'm not seeing a whole lot of coherent arguments that pass the economic and policy smell test. I'm seeing a whole lot of rage that they're not the ones in charge any more and that they have to pay taxes, but seriously, suck it up. That's life.
I'm willing to chalk this up to a combination of people being angry that the economy is bad, angry that they're out of power, and easily stirred up by people who would rather make noise than talk policy.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | September 15, 2009 5:29 PM
After posting the comment I decided to find something that both comments from both Dole and Clinton from that time and came up with this, which corroborates my original corrected point about Dole's role: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/12/health/policy/12dole.html
My previous postings were based on my memory of Broder's book, I had seen some headlines recently but had read none of them until now with this link. The Esquire article is merely Clinton's version, which does corroborate Broder's book.
BTW - I know of zero more honest, and careful, media people than David Broder. I've been reading him now for 30+ years.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 15, 2009 5:36 PM
And in the way that process normally works out, Michael Heath has it exactly right @140. The fighting is usually over the details, not the top-line numbers.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 15, 2009 6:51 PM
Evidence that the political process can accommodate even the profoundly retarded.
Posted by: bithead | September 15, 2009 7:55 PM
Anyone who has seen the handwriting of 14-year-olds knows that there is no way that kid made the poster. It is clearly the handwriting of a full-grown adult.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | September 15, 2009 8:59 PM
Footnote: McCarthy was called out for his accusations, he couldn't prove anything so he left the senate in disgrace and died an alcoholic.
Posted by: Rick Cain | September 15, 2009 9:54 PM
Yeah, but Ann Coulter wrote a book about McCarthy claiming he was right all along, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism.
The insanity we're seeing is coming from their authoritarian leaders, who share their delusions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 15, 2009 10:04 PM
The insanity we're seeing is coming from their authoritarian leaders, who share their delusions.
I think it's a bit more than that. For years we've had the screaming heads on the right making false claims, books like Coulter's rewriting history, making McCarthy into a hero, Nixon into a victim, Reagan into a messiah. Add that to a population of people who are already more likely to accept the word of "experts" once filtered through their own preconceptions and the tendency builds. They dismiss anyone who disagrees because of their "bias" all the while ignoring that their point of view is the flawed one that ignores reality. They've established a sub-culture where Faux News is the only "fair and balanced" legitimate news service, everyone else is "liberal," and biased, and corrupt, and owned by Obama, etc. Now that they've built a castle around their heads, they blindly accept whatever these conservative pundits say as gospel. As far as they are concerned, Obama is a fascist, socialist, atheist, Muslim. The vast majority of them, if they ever knew what any of those labels meant, have now filtered them through a Faux-o-meter to simply mean "BAD."
As has been mentioned previously on this thread, you have:
*People who are pissed off because they aren't in charge any more
*People who are pissed off because they have to pay taxes
*People who are pissed off because the economy is in bad shape
Add to that the ignorance, rhetoric, and racism, and you have a very small core of very vocal, very angry, and very stupid people. This tiny minority is receiving attention far beyond its numbers; is disrupting legitimate debate and discourse that could actually accomplish something; is being whipped up by unscrupulous media hacks to make money; is being manipulated by politicians to retain power; is being duped by corporate interests to preserve profit margins.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 16, 2009 10:03 AM
I don't think scare quotes mean what you think they mean.
There. Fixed it for you.
Posted by: MPL | September 19, 2009 12:13 AM