J.D. Rhoades's Blog, page 36

The Party of (Conditional) Love

Latest Newspaper Column

As you know, I call the Republican Party the "Party of Love," since it's an article of faith with them that it's the liberals who are filled with hate.Unlike, say, Republican state delegate and Senate Candidate Bob Marshall of Virginia, who said recently that children with disabilities are God's punishment on women who have had abortions. (Sarah Palin has been notably silent on that particular insult to her Down syndrome baby.) Or the Republican speaker of the Kansas House who urged people to pray to God, in the words of Psalm 109:8, that President Obama's "days be few, that his children be fatherless and his wife a widow." Some enterprising Republican entrepreneurs have even made this a bumper sticker.
Yes, the right is filled right to the brim with love. But it seems that right-wing love is a conditional thing.- Right-wingers love the troops, unless they turn out to be gay, or report war crimes, or start speaking out against a war the right wing loved and cheered for.



At least they loved the war until a Democrat became president, at which point the war they cheered for becomes that president's fault and something that should have been ended yesterday.- Right-wingers love the Constitution, except the parts that grant citizenship to people who were born here.They also aren't all that crazy about the parts that give the right to counsel or to a jury trial to people accused of crimes, or the parts that don't allow the government to just read your mail or tap your phones without any oversight whenever they feel enough concern about your activities. Unless the president is a Democrat, and then they're suddenly very, very concerned about these things.But they still don't want jury trials for cases where someone was injured by a doctor's or a corporation's negligent acts. Those juries are "out of control."- Right-wingers love free speech and the right of free assembly, so long as it's exercised by older white people wearing teabags on their hats. Anyone else is either an anarchist or a dirty, flag-burning hippie who needs to get one of those jobs they say don't exist because it's the president's fault.- Right-wingers love the idea of cutting government spending, unless it's cuts to money spent on them, which they don't consider spending at all.- Right-wingers love the idea of cutting taxes, but only if you're talking about cutting taxes on the wealthy. A tax plan that raises taxes on the poor and middle class is just fine with them. In fact, one of the right's biggest gripes now is that not enough poor people are paying federal income tax.- Right-wingers love "family values" and demand that politicians practice marital fidelity. But only if the politicians are Democrats. Republicans who conduct years-long affairs with staffers, and who ditch their wives because "they're not young or pretty enough, and besides she has cancer," are fine.In fact, even bringing up those affairs is "appalling," because, after all, Bill Clinton had affairs. The fact that Bill Clinton had affairs, however, is itself so appalling that it must be brought up at every opportunity.- Right-wingers love the rich and successful and think they deserve credit for their hard work and innovation. Unless those rich and successful people are George Soros, Warren Buffett, or anyone who made their money in the entertainment industry who doesn't vote Republican. Those people should just shut up.George Orwell, in his novel "1984," described a party that maintained its grip on power by a rigorous adherence to the principle called "doublethink."
Doublethink was described as "the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary."Well, it certainly has become indispensable to the American right wing. No wonder so many of them go crazy.

My Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:  I saw a news story today about a little argument you apparently had with Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona. Apparently, you were unhappy with the way she described a meeting she'd had with you a while back. At the time, she'd said the meeting was "cordial," but in the book she said you were "patronizing" and "condescending." She apparently got a little heated up about it, and ended up shaking her finger in your face after which one of you stalked away, it wasn't clear which.  Now, Mr. President, I've always been a big supporter of yours. I haven't always agreed with you on some things, like Libya,  the public option, and the detention provisions of the NDAA,  but I agree with you on a lot more than I disagree. And even if we were discussing things I disagree with you about, I would never dream of being disrespectful or shaking my finger in your face. At least not normally.  But here's the thing. I also read that, after the finger-shaking incident, Governor Brewer's book " "Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,'' went from 285,568 on the Amazon sales list to 20.20! That's the biggest one day jump in Amazon's history. Which leaves me with a bit of a conundrum.  As you may or may not know, I'm a published author in addition to being a lawyer and newspaper columnist. (If you weren't aware of this, just call up the guys downstairs and have them bring you my Homeland Security file. After all the stuff I said about the guy who was President before you, I'm 99% sure I have one).The books have done okay. I've gotten some great reviews and letters from fans, and the respect of some of my fellow writers. That means the world to me. But, sadly, none of them have cracked the top 20,  at least so far. I think you can see where I'm going with this.  See, I've always been one of those people who thinks outside the box. When something controversial occurs, and other people are saying "this is terrible, how could such a thing happen?" I'm thinking "how can I get me some of this?" Like I said, I have nothing but respect for you. But could you do me a solid? I know you're probably going to be in North Carolina a lot in the coming months, what with it being a battleground state and all. One of those times, could I maybe come by and be a jerk to you? It wouldn't take too long, maybe a couple of minutes. I'm not talking about any kind of threat or anything, because I don't want to get my butt kicked by the Secret Service or get indefinitely detained. But maybe I could make fun of your tie or tell you I don't like Al Green or something. A little sneer, a little finger shake, I'd flounce off, and we'd be done. If I could do that, and if we could make sure that there are cameras there, I'll bet my sales would go through the roof. I might get invited on Jon Stewart or Conan or even--dare I say it out loud?-- Craig Ferguson. Like I say, I wouldn't normally even dream of asking something like this, but it's always been a dream of mine to leave the day job behind and write full time, and this may just be my ticket. The books, by the way, are The Devil's Right Hand; Good Day In Hell; Safe and Sound; Breaking Cover; Storm Surge; Lawyers Guns & Money; and the new one, Gallows Pole. All are available in Kindle and Nook formats. I think we can both agree that those are much snappier titles than "Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Blah Blah Blah." They also make great reading on airplanes. Just saying.Thanks, Mr. President. You're the best. Your fan, J.D. "Dusty" Rhoades

Supervillain or Newt?

[image error]
Supervillain or Newt shows you an idea and asks you to decide: does the idea come from an insane megalomaniac bent on world domination, or from a fictional supervillain?

I only got 50% right the first try :-( .

Year of the Water Dragon

Astrology.com:

In a Dragon year, everything is magnified tenfold. And after the rather meat-and-potatoes Metal Rabbit year we just lived through in 2011, we are in for the ride of our lives. Commotion, turmoil and general hullabaloo will characterize the Dragon year ahead. As of January 23, 2012, better get ready to rock and roll -- or else crawl under a rock until it's over.

Think of the Water Dragon year as a 12-month-long, bumpy road with interludes of elaborate and joyful festivity. Fortunes will be made and lost with lightning speed. All events will be charged with a rare intensity. In short, 2012 will be a year of derring-do, hell-raising and exorbitant fun.

Dragon years are favorable for the enterprising and ambitious. If you want to succeed at something major, start early in the Dragon year. Don't give up. Express yourself openly. Show no fear. In China, it is said that the Dragon year brings luck to those who dare to speak out, to take charge and even to take over.

Dragons are fearless and direct to a fault -- but they are not without ruse. They're clever go-getters who are always in the running for first place. They want to excel at every endeavor. Dragon years, therefore, are propitious for people who have the courage to take risks, to stand fast in the face of danger and hold firmly to their principles. For those among us who are timid and shy, who shrink in the face of challenge and who daren't speak up for what it is they want, Dragon years can be rigorous and even a little bit frightening at times.
Time to be fearless, folks. Time to put aside the doubt and uncertainty and pain of the last year, to grab the dragon by the whiskers, go forth and conquer.
Happy year of the Water Dragon!
h/t to Balloon Juice

There Is Such A Thing As A Stupid Question

Latest Newspaper Column:

It is often said, mostly by people in the field of education, that "there are no stupid questions." This, of course, is simply not true. In fact, in the real world, stupid questions abound. "Why do they have to ask my name and credit card number when I call the psychic hot line?" is a stupid question.

Once when I was whitewater rafting, the guide warned us about a particularly dangerous rock formation. An unlucky rafter, she told us, had fallen out, gotten wedged under the rocks in the turbulent water, and it took three weeks to get his body out. A cute blonde girl from the back of the boat piped up: "Was he all right?" That was a stupid question.

You expect stupid questions from a certain subset of cute blonde girls and from the type of people who call psychic hot lines. One does not, however, expect truly brain-dead questions from the "public editor" of The New York Times.

Unfortunately, said "public editor," whose name is Arthur S. Brisbane, recently asked such a mind-bogglingly idiotic question that the majority of readers responding could not believe it had even been asked.

In his column of Jan. 12, titled "Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?" Brisbane wondered if "Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about." As one example, Brisbane cited the frequently made (and utterly false) claim made by Mitt Romney that President Obama has made speeches "apologizing for America."

This statement by Romney is blatantly untrue. It is, to put it plainly, a lie. Brisbane noted that Times columnist Paul Krugman called Romney's statement an example of "post-truth politics," along with other Romney canards like the one about how he'll reverse Obama's "massive defense cuts." (The defense budget has grown steadily every year so far.)

All well and good for an op-ed columnist, Brisbane said, but should a reporter do the same? Should a reporter, confronted with a statement like Romney's that is factually untrue, inform his or her readership that "the president has never used the word 'apologize' in a speech about U.S. policy or history," or that "any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president's words"?

The reaction from The Times' readership, bless them, was sharp and immediate.

"If you truly have to ask this question," a reader from Seattle wrote, "then you seriously need to think about a job change." A reader from Georgia was even more direct: "You can't be this stupid."

Perhaps the most pointed comment was made by "Stuart" from Riverside, Calif.: Was the question being asked "because NYT reporters perceive they have a real conflict between reporting the truth and being rewarded with approbation, access, career advancement and privilege by the people who benefit from the falsehoods?"

You have whacked the nail on the head, "Stuart" from Riverside, Calif. The biggest problem with the press right now, and the one that does the most to threaten our democracy, is not that they're liberal or conservative or even corporate. It's that the people tasked with reporting the truth are too close and too chummy with the people they're supposed to be watching.

Reporters who point out that a politician is lying through his or her teeth don't get invited to barbecues where the candidate lets them swing on his tire swing and makes them baby back ribs, like the "reporters" who were supposed to be covering John McCain.

They don't get invited to the cool parties at the White House. They don't get those juicy little exclusive tidbits that press secretaries feed them if they've been good little toothless lapdogs. So what you get are "reporters" who become nothing more than stenographers, taking down the lie du jour and passing it along without analysis or comment.

At best, what you get is "some say this, but others say that," without anyone bothering to ask, "Well, which is factually true?" But that's what we need reporters to do: Tell us the facts, don't just recite what some press flack has told them.

Comedian Bill Engvall has built his signature routine ("Here's your sign") around people who ask such ridiculously obvious questions that they ought to be required to wear a sign that says "I'm Stupid." So, Arthur S. Brisbane of The New York Times, I say to you: Here's your sign.

The Romney Standard of Truthfulness

Latest Newspaper Column:

"I like being able to fire people." It was the kind of statement, like John McCain saying he didn't know exactly how many houses he owns, that can define a candidacy. It played right into the picture that Mitt Romney's opponents, both Democratic and Republican, had been trying to paint of him: that of a heartless "vulture capitalist" who made his fortune not by job creation, but by buying companies and laying off thousands.It made Mitt Romney look like - well, like a guy you wouldn't want to have a beer with. In a political environment where a candidate ordering orange juice instead of coffee in a diner causes pundits to call his regular-guyness into question, it's hard to see it as anything but a major gaffe.Romney's opponents seized on the quote. Rick Santorum's criticism was somewhat mild. "I am not too sure that is a very good message to a lot of folks out there," he said. Jon Huntsman was a little more pointed: "Gov. Romney enjoys firing people, I enjoy creating jobs."Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, started sounding like they were about to join Occupy Wall Street."There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business," Perry said. His campaign even made "I like being able to fire people" into a ringtone you could download from his website, no doubt bringing joy to the tiny black hearts of horrible bosses everywhere.For his own part, Gingrich said, "I think there's a real difference between people who believe in the free market and people who go around, take financial advantage, loot companies, leave behind broken families, broken towns, people on unemployment."A pro-Gingrich Super PAC released a video called "King of Bain: When Mitt Romney Came to Town." It called Romney a "predatory corporate raider" who "destroyed the American dream for thousands of workers and their families."The ringtone has since been taken down, and Gingrich has backed off. "I think they're way overboard on saying he wants to fire people, he doesn't care," Gingrich said.Whew. For a minute there, it was a little disorienting. I thought they were going to form a drum circle or something.The Romney campaign complained that the comment had been taken out of context. Romney, they said, was talking about being able to ditch your insurance company when they're not serving you well.They were, or course, right about the context. It was more than a little amusing, however, to hear that complaint coming from the campaign that had edited Barack Obama quoting something a Republican adviser had said about the McCain campaign ("If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose") and made it sound as if it was the president talking about his own campaign.When confronted with that little bit of dishonesty, the Romney campaign was unapologetic. "He did say the words. That's his voice," Romney adviser Tom Rath insisted. So using the Romney campaign's own standard, the "fire people" quote was fair.But we certainly don't want to use Mitt Romney's standard of what's fair, do we? That would be horrible. So let's look at what he actually meant."I don't want to live in a world where we have Obamacare telling us which insurance we have to have, which doctor we can have, which hospital we go to," Romney said at a press conference. "I believe in the setting as I described this morning where people are able to choose their own doctor, choose their own insurance company. If they don't like their insurance company or their provider, they can get rid of it."Problem is, "Obamacare" doesn't restrict that. In fact, just the opposite. The law doesn't empower the government to pick your insurance company or your doctor. Nor does it keep you from "firing" either one. In fact, through the health care law's prohibition on denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and the setting up of insurance "exchanges" that allow people to compare different companies, the ACA actually will make changing insurance easier than the current system.And here's the thing: Mitt Romney knows that. As I hope they will continue to remind the American public, the Obama administration based much of the act on the one championed by Romney himself in Massachusetts.So while Mitt Romney may or may not actually enjoy firing people, his actual quote shows us one thing: We don't want to use the Romney standard of what's truthful.

Reflections On Iowa

Latest Newspaper Column

So Mitt Romney, whom the media still insist on calling the "presumptive Republican nominee," has won the Iowa caucuses by a whopping eight votes.

The surprise of the evening (which everyone saw coming days ago) is that the person whom Romney beat by that molecule-thin margin was not Newt Gingrich, but was instead the former senator from Pennsylvania, Rick "For God's Sake Don't Google My Last Name" Santorum.

Santorum had the advantage of timing. This is a contest where every other member of the Republican Klown Kollege has gotten to be the front-runner for at least two weeks, until people actually got to hear them and they became a late-night TV punchline. (Gingrich got to do it twice.)

Santorum's "surge" came right before the caucuses, when people were desperate for a conservative, any conservative, to vote for. It was closing time at the GOP Bar, everyone else had turned out to be a dog, and Iowa conservatives were willing to squint and keep the lights turned low when they took Rick Santorum home.

It remains to be seen, however, how he'll look to them the morning after, when people who aren't completely off the deep end find out about some of the things he actually believes, such as:

- Exceptions to abortion restrictions to protect the mother's health are "phony."

- Insurance companies should be able to deny you coverage for pre-existing conditions.

- We don't need food stamps or other programs to fight hunger, because there are fat people in America.

The smart money says no. Even if those positions don't turn off sane people, that dorky sweater vest might. I mean, really. Dude. A sweater vest? Seriously?

The news networks spent millions of dollars and hours upon hours of air time obsessively covering the Iowa caucuses, all the while telling us they don't really matter. The caucuses, they tell us, are nonbinding and have no effect on the delegate count. They are, in effect, a straw poll on steroids. The winner of the 2008 Iowa caucuses, they point out, was Mike Huckabee. The eventual nominee, Hon. John McCain, came in fourth. And so on.

What the media consistently ignore in all this cognitive dissonance is that the alleged importance of the Iowa caucuses is entirely their creation. It's one of the clearest examples of how 24-hour news coverage has warped and distorted the political process.

For instance, the day after her dismal showing in the supposedly meaningless caucuses, former front-runner Michele Bachmann dropped out of the race (an announcement that led to much wailing and gnashing of teeth by political humorists everywhere).

It looked for a moment like Rick Perry was going to bail out as well, but a Twitter message to his followers defiantly stated, "Here we come, SC! And Florida! And ... dang, I forgot the third one. Oops."

When confronted with the weakness of their candidate lineup, some Republicans insist that it really doesn't matter whom they run, because Obama is "worse than Jimmy Carter."

This is, on its face, absurd; there's no way, for example, to hang something like the millstone that was the Iran hostage crisis around the neck of the man whose administration presided over the death of Osama bin Ladin, the fall of Moammar Gadhafi and the end of the Iraq War.

In addition, while there's dissatisfaction with Obama on both sides of the aisle, the deep hatred required to motivate people to get out of the house and go to the polls for an "even a flip-flopping, unprincipled empty suit like Romney over Obama" vote is restricted to a few noisy wingnuts who think everyone's as angry and hateful as they are.

Ask John Kerry how well "sure, you don't trust me, but I'm not the other guy" worked for him.

But leaving that aside for the moment, the biggest problem with that desperate attempt at historical analogy is that the GOP doesn't have a Ronald Reagan to run against Obama.

Reagan was a charismatic candidate with a solid conservative record and a message of hope. The current right wing that runs the GOP has made "hope" a word to be mocked, and when it comes to charisma, these people are not only not Reagan, they're not even Dan Quayle.

The Republicans have their best opportunity in a long time to win the White House, and they're blowing it with lame candidates, inept campaigns and nasty infighting.

That's usually the Democrats' job.

Review: SNUFF, Terry Pratchett

Snuff by Terry Pratchett
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Sam Vimes has always been my favorite Discworld main character because he's easily the richest and most complex: a good man and a good copper who's always aware just how thin the barrier is between that and becoming bad. It doesn't help that he's taken on a rider in his head (possibly imaginary, but very possibly all too real) who would cheerfully give him a shove through that barrier.


In this book, Vimes takes a holiday at the insistence of his adoring (and incredibly rich) wife Sybil. Vimes being Vimes of course, it's not long before he's neck deep in murder and corruption in a place where no one knows him or cares that he's the Commander of the City Watch.


There are some of the usual pointed and witty observations here, as well as some good suspense. Pratchett does seem to indulge his penchant for beating you over the head with the book's message a little more than usual, but once you get past that, it's an amusing, fun read. I would have liked to see more of Vetinari (my second favorite Pratchett character), but then I feel that way in every one of the Discworld books. I just love that magnificent bastard.


View all my reviews

Fearless Predictions For the Year Ahead

Latest Newspaper Column:

Once again, here are our predictions for the year ahead (assuming that the Mayans weren't right):JANUARY: Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich fails to place higher than third in the South Carolina primary, then throws an on-camera tantrum in which he claims that he has the right to subpoena all of the voters in the state to come to Washington and appear at a hearing to explain themselves.FEBRUARY: A firestorm erupts on Fox News, talk radio, and the right-wing blogo-sphere when President Obama wishes his wife a "happy Valentine's Day." Bill O'Reilly devotes 30 minutes of his news show to ranting that the exclusion of any mention of Saint Valentine "just proves that President Obama has declared war on religion." Anti-Muslim blogger Pamela Geller shrieks that the omission of the saint's name is "the most compelling evidence yet that Obama is secretly an Islamofascist trying to impose Sharia law on the United States."MARCH: Scientists discover a new faster-than-light subatomic particle whose only function seems to be to allow Kim Kardashian to get divorced a split second before actually being married.APRIL: The first day of spring sees the return of a perennial rite of the election season: flag-pin mania. Michele Bachmann, still gamely hanging on despite low delegate numbers, gets the ball rolling when a picture of President Obama taken on a Hawaiian beach shows him without a flag pin. "A president who was a real American would figure out a way to attach the pin to his chest, even without a shirt," Bachmann proclaims. This sets off a war among the GOP candidates to see who can most ostentatiously display the largest flag pin. Tragedy brings the contest to an end when Rick Perry attempts to nail a seven-by-five-inch pin to the center of his forehead and ends up in a coma.MAY: Rick Perry miraculously comes out of his coma, but dramatically changed in that he can now remember more than two things at a time. His rebounding poll numbers drop precipitously when Republican primary voters turn against him for "acting like he's smarter than us."JUNE: TLC announces its new fall schedule and causes controversy with its new program "Celebrity Cannibal," a reality show in which D-list celebrities compete in various contests, with each week's loser cooked by celebrity chef Gordon Ramsey and devoured by the rest of the cast. In the show's end-of-first-season cliffhanger, all those in the remaining cast (Hulk Hogan, Courtney Stodden, Stephen Baldwin) face expulsion from the show when they refuse to ingest former rock singer Courtney Love.JULY: Canceled due to budget cuts.AUGUST: The Republican Party holds its nominating convention in Tampa, Fla. Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney finally gets enough delegates to clinch the nomination when the head of the Massachusetts delegation rises and delivers these stirring words: "Romney, I guess. Whatever. Can we go to the beach now?"SEPTEMBER: Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin gives an interview on Fox News in which she announces that "it's not too late" for her to enter the race for the 2012 GOP nomination. "Who knows what might happen in the future?" she chirps to an incredulous Gretchen Carlson. Despite the fact that the nomination has already been awarded to Romney, contributions pour in to Palin's campaign headquarters. Palin uses the contributions to purchase a yacht, which she christens the "One Nation" and uses on an extended "campaign tour" of the U.S. Virgin Islands.OCTOBER: Apple announces its latest innovation: the iWash, an Internet-enabled washer/dryer combination. Despite the fact that no one at Apple can coherently explain why a washer and dryer need an Internet connection, record-breaking crowds of "early adopters" line up around the block at various Apple stores to purchase the device. Rumors that a security problem in the iWash's operating software could allow hackers to remotely steal your underwear fail to affect sales.NOVEMBER: America goes to the polls, but the turnout among a dispirited, unenthusiastic, and battle-weary electorate is the lowest in U.S history. Barack Obama wins over Mitt Romney, with a national tally of 400 votes to 275 - in the popular vote, not the Electoral College.DECEMBER: Dec. 21, the supposed date upon which the Mayan "Long Count" calendar (and therefore the world) ends, comes and goes without the expected cataclysm. The American economy receives a massive boost as merchants are deluged by people realizing they're going to have to do their Christmas shopping after all.And so, once again, I offer you my traditional New Year's greeting, courtesy of Ogden Nash: Duck! Here comes another year!

Review: CRIMES IN SOUTHERN INDIANA by Frank Bill

Crimes in Southern Indiana: Stories by Frank Bill
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

You might try to comfort yourself by thinking that Frank Bill's exaggerating for dramatic effect in these short, tightly written tales of country meth addicts, domestic brutality, dog-fighters, unpredictably vicious rednecks, and rural ultra-violence. You might try to tell yourself that things this grim and lurid could never happen in real life. But I can tell you, they do.


This is not a book for the faint of heart; it's pure distilled essence of redneck noir, and there are few happy endings. But the quality of the writing keeps you coming back for just one more page, then another, until it's all gone, like a bottle of cheap whiskey that you can't put down and that's gone all too soon.


I got this book for Christmas, and Frank Bill just made it to the top of the "Buy As Soon As It Comes Out list."


View all my reviews