This is Harry Reid's main competition for his Senate seat in November? The woman who steadfastly maintained (until she mumbled something later about being "taken out of context") that patients ought now to try bartering for their health care services ("bring a chicken" or "paint your house") stands a good chance of actually unseating Reid. This speaks volumes about how little Republicans care about what their candidates actually stand for, so long as they stand against the Democrats. Just vote those bastards out of office; we'll sort out the business of governing later. Just don't make it worse.
When I go for my next checkup, I'll offer to wash my doctor's car instead of paying the co-pay. Let's see how he goes for it.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Greenwald with a lot on his mind
Well, isn't that always the case with the former civil liberties litigator and liberal standard-bearer? I love reading Glenn's columns, verbose though he is, because he so clearly calls out inconsistencies and outright falsehoods in the statements of government, the press, and even what passes for the press these days (i.e., Fox News, Rush, WaPo, CNN).
Today's column finds Glenn wondering aloud what President Obama meant when he made this statement during an interview Wednesday evening aboard Air Force One:
Glenn's emphasis. Glenn wondered if Obama actually believed that what the Warren and Burger courts of the '60s and '70s, which gave us so many landmark decisions (nicely detailed by Glenn), were activist courts going against the will of the people, Congress and the framers of the Constitution, or if Obama was simply calling out movement conservatives who on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts are doing what liberals would call activism (e.g., the Citizens United decision about allowing unlimited political contributions by corporations, giving them equal status as persons under the law).
I think judicial activism is to be expected when justices are appointed by the executive branch. No president wants to put a judge on the SCOTUS who does not reflect his/her particular ideological bent. John Paul Stevens, retiring this year, was appointed by a Republican president, but he is seen as the patriarch of liberalism on the court. That didn't go well for the GOP now, did it? So getting all worked up when the court, now comprised of a majority appointed by movement conservative presidents, exercises movement conservative jurisprudence seems a waste of time. Supreme Court decisions can be invalidated by legislation. Electing presidents who do not reflect the court's bias is also a good idea, particularly when justices get old (Reagan appointee Scalia is probably going to be the first of the wingnuts to go, but he wouldn't dare leave during a Democratic administration. One can only hope that God's wonderful timing and sense of irony show up).
Glenn continues at the bottom of his piece with an update (with no relevant link) about an article which contains an unattributed quote saying reporters privately accuse the Obama team of being less transparent than they promised when campaigning for office. Glenn complains that journalists ought not to make such comments in private, but in public, if they want to call themselves journalists. True dat. Isn't that their job, to call out those in authority? But not in this real world, when access to power trumps getting at the truth.
Today's column finds Glenn wondering aloud what President Obama meant when he made this statement during an interview Wednesday evening aboard Air Force One:
It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically. And in the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach.
What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.
Glenn's emphasis. Glenn wondered if Obama actually believed that what the Warren and Burger courts of the '60s and '70s, which gave us so many landmark decisions (nicely detailed by Glenn), were activist courts going against the will of the people, Congress and the framers of the Constitution, or if Obama was simply calling out movement conservatives who on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts are doing what liberals would call activism (e.g., the Citizens United decision about allowing unlimited political contributions by corporations, giving them equal status as persons under the law).
I think judicial activism is to be expected when justices are appointed by the executive branch. No president wants to put a judge on the SCOTUS who does not reflect his/her particular ideological bent. John Paul Stevens, retiring this year, was appointed by a Republican president, but he is seen as the patriarch of liberalism on the court. That didn't go well for the GOP now, did it? So getting all worked up when the court, now comprised of a majority appointed by movement conservative presidents, exercises movement conservative jurisprudence seems a waste of time. Supreme Court decisions can be invalidated by legislation. Electing presidents who do not reflect the court's bias is also a good idea, particularly when justices get old (Reagan appointee Scalia is probably going to be the first of the wingnuts to go, but he wouldn't dare leave during a Democratic administration. One can only hope that God's wonderful timing and sense of irony show up).
Glenn continues at the bottom of his piece with an update (with no relevant link) about an article which contains an unattributed quote saying reporters privately accuse the Obama team of being less transparent than they promised when campaigning for office. Glenn complains that journalists ought not to make such comments in private, but in public, if they want to call themselves journalists. True dat. Isn't that their job, to call out those in authority? But not in this real world, when access to power trumps getting at the truth.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Post-Cocoon Sanity
Former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) appears to have had enough time outside the Beltway to regain his sanity and his ability to recognize not only good policy but good politics.
A Republican actually having something nice to say about the president that doesn't sound like he's convinced he's a socialist Muslim Kenyan? Hmmmm.
A Republican actually having something nice to say about the president that doesn't sound like he's convinced he's a socialist Muslim Kenyan? Hmmmm.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
"Imagine"
Brilliant essay from renowned anti-racist lecturer and author Tim Wise. (h/t Sara and Brian Brandsmeier)
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Game Over.
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.
Let’s play a game, shall we? The name of the game is called “Imagine.” The way it’s played is simple: we’ll envision recent happenings in the news, but then change them up a bit. Instead of envisioning white people as the main actors in the scenes we’ll conjure - the ones who are driving the action - we’ll envision black folks or other people of color instead. The object of the game is to imagine the public reaction to the events or incidents, if the main actors were of color, rather than white. Whoever gains the most insight into the workings of race in America, at the end of the game, wins.
So let’s begin.
Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans? Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.
Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington.
Imagine that a rap artist were to say, in reference to a white president: “He’s a piece of shit and I told him to suck on my machine gun.” Because that’s what rocker Ted Nugent said recently about President Obama.
Imagine that a prominent mainstream black political commentator had long employed an overt bigot as Executive Director of his organization, and that this bigot regularly participated in black separatist conferences, and once assaulted a white person while calling them by a racial slur. When that prominent black commentator and his sister — who also works for the organization — defended the bigot as a good guy who was misunderstood and “going through a tough time in his life” would anyone accept their excuse-making? Would that commentator still have a place on a mainstream network? Because that’s what happened in the real world, when Pat Buchanan employed as Executive Director of his group, America’s Cause, a blatant racist who did all these things, or at least their white equivalents: attending white separatist conferences and attacking a black woman while calling her the n-word.
Imagine that a black radio host were to suggest that the only way to get promoted in the administration of a white president is by “hating black people,” or that a prominent white person had only endorsed a white presidential candidate as an act of racial bonding, or blamed a white president for a fight on a school bus in which a black kid was jumped by two white kids, or said that he wouldn’t want to kill all conservatives, but rather, would like to leave just enough—“living fossils” as he called them—“so we will never forget what these people stood for.” After all, these are things that Rush Limbaugh has said, about Barack Obama’s administration, Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama, a fight on a school bus in Belleville, Illinois in which two black kids beat up a white kid, and about liberals, generally.
Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina.
Imagine a black radio talk show host gleefully predicting a revolution by people of color if the government continues to be dominated by the rich white men who have been “destroying” the country, or if said radio personality were to call Christians or Jews non-humans, or say that when it came to conservatives, the best solution would be to “hang ‘em high.” And what would happen to any congressional representative who praised that commentator for “speaking common sense” and likened his hate talk to “American values?” After all, those are among the things said by radio host and best-selling author Michael Savage, predicting white revolution in the face of multiculturalism, or said by Savage about Muslims and liberals, respectively. And it was Congressman Culbertson, from Texas, who praised Savage in that way, despite his hateful rhetoric.
Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times.
Imagine that a popular black liberal website posted comments about the daughter of a white president, calling her “typical redneck trash,” or a “whore” whose mother entertains her by “making monkey sounds.” After all that’s comparable to what conservatives posted about Malia Obama on freerepublic.com last year, when they referred to her as “ghetto trash.”
Imagine that black protesters at a large political rally were walking around with signs calling for the lynching of their congressional enemies. Because that’s what white conservatives did last year, in reference to Democratic party leaders in Congress.
In other words, imagine that even one-third of the anger and vitriol currently being hurled at President Obama, by folks who are almost exclusively white, were being aimed, instead, at a white president, by people of color. How many whites viewing the anger, the hatred, the contempt for that white president would then wax eloquent about free speech, and the glories of democracy? And how many would be calling for further crackdowns on thuggish behavior, and investigations into the radical agendas of those same people of color?
To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.
And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.
Game Over.
Tim Wise is among the most prominent anti-racist writers and activists in the U.S. Wise has spoken in 48 states, on over 400 college campuses, and to community groups around the nation. Wise has provided anti-racism training to teachers nationwide, and has trained physicians and medical industry professionals on how to combat racial inequities in health care. His latest book is called Between Barack and a Hard Place.
Monday, April 26, 2010
"Show Me Your Papers"
As you already know, our 48th state has become ground zero in the illegal immigration debate, having passed the most restrictive law in the country allowing police to request proof of residency/citizenship to anyone in the state who appears to be in the country illegally. How one determines this without racial profiling is beyond me, but we'll let the courts figure this one out.
In a rare display of seriocomic political commentary, SNL's Seth Meyers comes through with this gem. Money quote courtesy of Bob Cesca:
"Dry fascism," love that!
In a rare display of seriocomic political commentary, SNL's Seth Meyers comes through with this gem. Money quote courtesy of Bob Cesca:
"This week, Arizona signed the toughest illegal immigration law in the country which will allow police to demand identification papers from anyone they suspect is in the country illegally. I know there’s some people in Arizona worried that Obama is acting like Hitler, but could we all agree that there’s nothing more Nazi than saying 'Show me your papers?' There’s never been a World War II movie that didn’t include the line 'show me your papers.' It’s their catchphrase. Every time someone says 'show me your papers,' Hitler’s family gets a residual check. So heads up, Arizona; that’s fascism. I know, I know, it’s a dry fascism, but it’s still fascism."
"Dry fascism," love that!
Friday, April 23, 2010
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Barter for Health Care?
Uh, YEAH RIGHT! I'm sure my brother and father would love this story, about the Republican challenger to Harry Reid who thinks that bringing back bartering for health care as a serious alternative to Obama's health care reform package. (Apparently she's trouncing Reid in current polling in Nevada, which shows you just how fucking backward that state truly is.)
To be fair, she did say that the barter system was not part of her plan and was just talking about it as an alternative at a town hall meeting. But what makes her a fucking loony is that she thinks it's a serious alternative.
I remember when I was a child, definitely under 10 years old, that my parents took my brothers and me out to dinner at the home of this woman who was one of dad's patients. It was a multi-course, huge Italian feast (yum!). I remember asking why we were being treated to such a nice dinner. I don't remember the answer, but if it was a barter or partial barter for service, and this is what Sue Lowden thinks would be a great way to reform health care, then HELLS YEAH! I'm all for this! If I can pay for my annual check ups for me and my family with dinners out, or doing their refinances for free, or a month's worth of laundry, wouldn't that be better than dealing with insurance companies all the time? Let's put those fucking behemoths out of business!
I have a great idea! Let's turn the whole economy into a barter economy. No more money, no need for savings! I'll go to the grocery store and sweep their floor at 3 am for a free cart of groceries. How many hours would I need to work behind the counter at my local gas station/convenience store to get a free tank of gas? What about day care costs? Do I volunteer at the school for 20 hours a month and get free day care? I could also trade back rubs for lap dances at my local strip club! I really think she's onto something.
Kidding aside, bartering is actually a legitimate way to conduct business and save money along the way. B ut if this is what Republicans, who are backing Lowden at the national level, call serious arguments for health-care reform, then they have truly closed their minds for good to the idea of earnest debate.
To be fair, she did say that the barter system was not part of her plan and was just talking about it as an alternative at a town hall meeting. But what makes her a fucking loony is that she thinks it's a serious alternative.
I remember when I was a child, definitely under 10 years old, that my parents took my brothers and me out to dinner at the home of this woman who was one of dad's patients. It was a multi-course, huge Italian feast (yum!). I remember asking why we were being treated to such a nice dinner. I don't remember the answer, but if it was a barter or partial barter for service, and this is what Sue Lowden thinks would be a great way to reform health care, then HELLS YEAH! I'm all for this! If I can pay for my annual check ups for me and my family with dinners out, or doing their refinances for free, or a month's worth of laundry, wouldn't that be better than dealing with insurance companies all the time? Let's put those fucking behemoths out of business!
I have a great idea! Let's turn the whole economy into a barter economy. No more money, no need for savings! I'll go to the grocery store and sweep their floor at 3 am for a free cart of groceries. How many hours would I need to work behind the counter at my local gas station/convenience store to get a free tank of gas? What about day care costs? Do I volunteer at the school for 20 hours a month and get free day care? I could also trade back rubs for lap dances at my local strip club! I really think she's onto something.
Kidding aside, bartering is actually a legitimate way to conduct business and save money along the way. B ut if this is what Republicans, who are backing Lowden at the national level, call serious arguments for health-care reform, then they have truly closed their minds for good to the idea of earnest debate.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Somewhere, in Alaska, a Village Has Lost Its Idiot
Sorry, had to resurrect that old Bush-era slam for this post from Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. Apparently the former half-term governor of Alaska and her team of speechwriters has pulled an Obama quote completely out of context and put out a version of what he said that will fire up her base of supporters.
Well, duh! Benen correctly labels Palin as "painfully, conspicuously unintelligent," but her team is not. See, on the red side of the aisle, it's important to note that the base does not read anything about Obama unless it comes from Fox News or some other right-wing propaganda machine. Their entire view of the President, therefore, is tainted by what the managers of this machine want them to hear. Since they already have the preconception that Obama is not an American citizen, a socialist, a Nazi, and hates America, then all the right has to do is take what he says (precisely, that he loves the United States, the country of his birth, the country that provided him with all the opportunities he has had which have brought him unbelievable success) and pronounce that it means precisely the opposite of what it really means.
Here's John Boehner the other day, after the Obama administration announced that it was suing Goldman Sachs in civil court on fraud charges:
So, as the president announces he's taking a hard stance against Goldman Sachs and holding them accountable for selling their investors financial instruments that they were secretly betting against, he's actually creating a permanent bail-out fund (another RNC/FNC talking point being bled dry).
And the GOP base will believe him because they refuse to listen to anything else.
I can't help thinking that older Americans, who make up the vast majority of the Tea Party movement which now represents the dominant Republican world view, were saying similar things about the last two young Democratic presidents, and that this whole mess since last spring/summer has been nothing more than a generational conflict. Those who used to hold power can't stand losing it to those they raised because those they raised now disagree with them. And young Republicans like Sarah Palin have capitalized on this collective tunnel vision by feeding it a constant diet of Obama hating, non-Republican-hating, non-Christian-hating rhetoric. It's as predictable as a sunrise these days. And it's pathetic.
Well, duh! Benen correctly labels Palin as "painfully, conspicuously unintelligent," but her team is not. See, on the red side of the aisle, it's important to note that the base does not read anything about Obama unless it comes from Fox News or some other right-wing propaganda machine. Their entire view of the President, therefore, is tainted by what the managers of this machine want them to hear. Since they already have the preconception that Obama is not an American citizen, a socialist, a Nazi, and hates America, then all the right has to do is take what he says (precisely, that he loves the United States, the country of his birth, the country that provided him with all the opportunities he has had which have brought him unbelievable success) and pronounce that it means precisely the opposite of what it really means.
Here's John Boehner the other day, after the Obama administration announced that it was suing Goldman Sachs in civil court on fraud charges:
Despite President Obama’s rhetoric, his permanent bailout bill gives Goldman Sachs and other big Wall Street banks a permanent, taxpayer-funded safety net by designating them "too big to fail." Just whose side is President Obama on?
So, as the president announces he's taking a hard stance against Goldman Sachs and holding them accountable for selling their investors financial instruments that they were secretly betting against, he's actually creating a permanent bail-out fund (another RNC/FNC talking point being bled dry).
And the GOP base will believe him because they refuse to listen to anything else.
I can't help thinking that older Americans, who make up the vast majority of the Tea Party movement which now represents the dominant Republican world view, were saying similar things about the last two young Democratic presidents, and that this whole mess since last spring/summer has been nothing more than a generational conflict. Those who used to hold power can't stand losing it to those they raised because those they raised now disagree with them. And young Republicans like Sarah Palin have capitalized on this collective tunnel vision by feeding it a constant diet of Obama hating, non-Republican-hating, non-Christian-hating rhetoric. It's as predictable as a sunrise these days. And it's pathetic.
Remarkable that It's Not Remarkable Anymore
Andrew Sullivan posts this photograph of a circus freak from the late 19th Century Barnum & Bailey Circus. Amazing that today I see people like this guy all around me, the highest concentration of them showing up at Disneyland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
