J.D. Rhoades's Blog, page 42
August 14, 2011
Crazy Eyes and the Right Wing Cult of Victimhood
Latest Newspaper Column:
This past week, those on the American right stopped patting themselves on the back for nearly causing America to default long enough to engage in another of their favorite pastimes: whining that they're being picked on.This time, the source of the injury to their delicate feelings was the cover of Newsweek, featuring the visage of Michele Bachmann.The cover photo, over a headline dubbing her "The Queen of Rage," showed Bachmann looking pretty much like she's looked in a lot of pictures and videos, including her much-parodied response to the State of the Union address: staring off into space, wide-eyed, as if she's watching a troupe of fairies dancing in a mystic circle only she can see.Republican fairies, naturally. Non-gay ones.Of course, to the right, running an accurate photograph of their current icon is like quoting her past statements accurately: proof of a vast left-wing conspiracy in the media."Can anyone really say with a straight face that the mainstream media is not totally biased against conservatives?" a conservative blogger at a site called "Freedom's Lighthouse" complained.Gee, I don't know, dude. Maybe you should ask Anthony Weiner how the media go easy on liberals. Or you could ask Bill Clinton, who was once shown on a Time magazine cover with his face printed as a frightening-looking photo negative, over the headline "Why People Don't Trust Bill Clinton."
Actually, Bachmann's supporters should be ecstatic about the Newsweek cover, because once they begin their customary temper tantrum, it's like throwing a switch that sends the talking heads and chattering pundits of the allegedly "liberal" media into their own customary fits of blather about their favorite subject: themselves. Was the picture unfair? Are we sexist? Would anyone in the media distort appearances to try to make a male Democratic front runner look unhinged for the sake of a story?Maybe you should direct that last question to Howard Dean.Meanwhile, something a lot more substantive that can and should be more closely examined about Bachmann gets pushed to the back burner: the fact that the woman who's so given to railing about government spending and programs isn't shy about benefiting from them herself.She's been a vocal critic of federal home loan programs like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, even while she and her husband were taking out a $417,000 home loan backed by those agencies. The Bachmann family farm received $251,000 in federal farm payments between 1995 and 2006, and Michele took $50,000 in profit out of the place in 2008.The clinic run by Bachmann's husband received money from Medicaid, a program she decries for "swelling the welfare rolls," until her hubby got caught taking it. At that point, according to a Bachmann spokesman, Medicaid became "a valuable form of insurance for many Americans."Then, as a congresswoman, Bachmann frequently appealed to agencies like the EPA (which she's suggested she'd eliminate if she were president), the Agriculture Department, and the Department of Transportation for funds from the very stimulus programs she once dubbed "fantasy economics."She also praised Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack for using government money to help prop up the struggling pork industry in her state and urged him to continue to "stabilize prices through direct government purchasing."The website Politico has referred to this sort of behavior as "selective socialism." It's the sort of thing we've gotten used to from the right, which, as I've said before, often reminds me of a teenager screaming at her parents "I hate you, you ruined my life, I wish you were dead!" then demanding a ride to the mall.Maybe, like the tea partiers who want to "keep the government's hands off Medicare," Michele Bachmann is actually so unhinged that she truly doesn't regard it as government spending if it's spent on her. Or maybe she's just another grifter assuring the rubes that she's the only one who's looking after their interests while she pockets government cash with both hands.In any case, those are bigger questions about Bachmann than the superficial one of whether or not the Newsweek cover made her look bad.Modern media types, however, are notorious these days for concentrating on style (or "optics," to use the new buzzword) rather than substance. They're more interested in fretting about whether they're "balanced" than in whether they're reporting the truth.That's not because they're liberal. It's because they're lousy at their jobs.
August 10, 2011
You Cannot Make This Stuff Up
Wonkette:
Arizona Teahadists show up at a John McCain town party rally to demand he apologize for calling them "hobbits."
I give up. Satire is dead. There's no way I could write anything more insane than that.
Arizona Teahadists show up at a John McCain town party rally to demand he apologize for calling them "hobbits."
I give up. Satire is dead. There's no way I could write anything more insane than that.
August 7, 2011
Twitrage Times Two
Latest Newspaper Column:
A couple of weeks ago, I used the term "Twitrage" to characterize the sort of ill-informed online indignation that's spread by sites like Twitter and Facebook and has become part of the common currency of our national discourse.
A couple of recent events demonstrate Twitrage at its finest.
First there was the kerfluffle over "Black Latino Gay Spiderman." I know the very idea of such a thing both boggles the mind and raises the hackles of comic geeks and wingnuts alike, which is probably what the right-wing website The Drudge Report had in mind when it blared "MARVEL Kills Off SPIDER-MAN, Replaces with Half-Black, Half-Hispanic Reincarnation. ... 'Miles Morales' ... could be gay."
A news item in England's newspaper The Daily Mail was similarly lurid. "Marvel Comics Reveals the New Spider Man Is Black - and He Could Be Gay in the Future," the headline said, and went on: "Spider-Man has been given a makeover - as a half-black, half-Latino teen. Miles Morales has replaced Peter Parker as the face behind the famous webbed mask."
The results were predictable. Shock! Horror! Outrage! "When will this PC crap stop?" moaned one typical Twitrager who goes by the online handle of "NoMoreObama2012."
"We will never accept the new spidey-gay boy!!!" one Facebooker fumed.
Even Glenn Beck got into the act, blaming, of course, Michelle Obama. (What, you expect sense from Glenn Beck?)
So, was it true? Well, yes. But also no. The reason lies in one of the weirder things about the world of comic books, so please forgive me a moment of nerdiness.
See, Marvel Comics (which publishes Spider-Man, X-Men, etc) also publishes series called "Ultimate Spider-Man," "Ultimate X-Men," etc. The "Ultimate" series portray alternate versions and storylines - another fictional universe entirely, really. The writers seem to delight in "what would happen if" speculation.
Oh, as it turns out, the "Miles Morales" character isn't actually gay either. That came from an offhand comment by one of the book's artists: "Maybe sooner or later a black or gay - or both - hero will be considered something absolutely normal."
So fear not. In the "main" Marvel Universe, Peter Parker is still Spider-Man, and vice versa. Still alive, still white, and as far as anyone knows, still straight. And if that explanation has caused you to have an irresistible desire to consume family-size bags of Cheetos in one sitting and live in your parents' basement while engaging in endless online debates about pop-culture trivia like whether the Starship Enterprise could beat the Death Star, I'm sorry.
Our next example of misplaced Twitrage comes from The Huffington Post, which reported the tale of Alison Capo of Virginia and her 11-year-old daughter Skylar. Young Skylar found a wounded baby woodpecker being stalked by a cat. Being a tenderhearted youth, Skylar rescued the woodpecker from the voracious feline and, when she was unable to locate the bird's mother, took it home.
Then Skylar and her mom carried the bird with them, for some unexplained reason, on an errand to a "local home improvement store." An alert fellow shopper, who happened to be an officer of the Fish and Wildlife Service, informed them that little Woody was a member of an endangered species and "transporting" him was illegal.
The officious officer later showed up at Casa Capo with a citation announcing a $535 fine and, HuffPo reported breathlessly, "possible jail time."
Shock! Horror! Outrage! The story of the little girl whose merciful act was deemed criminal by the big bad unfeeling bureaucracy made the online rounds, with the usual results. The big bad government made the little girl cry! Her mom might go to jail for saving a baby bird!
Except for the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service immediately dropped the citation, stated that the local office had tried to cancel it before it was served, and apologized to Ms. Capo before the story even hit the Internet.This part, of course, was buried three-quarters of the way through the HuffPo story and isn't mentioned anywhere in the outraged tweets and online postings on the subject. Because "government bureau immediately catching its mistake, fixing it, and apologizing" just doesn't fit the narrative. Where's the outrage potential in that?
It used to be said that "a lie can travel a thousand miles before the truth gets its boots on." In the era of Facebook and Twitter, misplaced outrage moves at the speed of light. My advice: Take a deep breath, look up the facts, read the whole story - and think before you tweet.
A couple of weeks ago, I used the term "Twitrage" to characterize the sort of ill-informed online indignation that's spread by sites like Twitter and Facebook and has become part of the common currency of our national discourse.
A couple of recent events demonstrate Twitrage at its finest.
First there was the kerfluffle over "Black Latino Gay Spiderman." I know the very idea of such a thing both boggles the mind and raises the hackles of comic geeks and wingnuts alike, which is probably what the right-wing website The Drudge Report had in mind when it blared "MARVEL Kills Off SPIDER-MAN, Replaces with Half-Black, Half-Hispanic Reincarnation. ... 'Miles Morales' ... could be gay."
A news item in England's newspaper The Daily Mail was similarly lurid. "Marvel Comics Reveals the New Spider Man Is Black - and He Could Be Gay in the Future," the headline said, and went on: "Spider-Man has been given a makeover - as a half-black, half-Latino teen. Miles Morales has replaced Peter Parker as the face behind the famous webbed mask."
The results were predictable. Shock! Horror! Outrage! "When will this PC crap stop?" moaned one typical Twitrager who goes by the online handle of "NoMoreObama2012."
"We will never accept the new spidey-gay boy!!!" one Facebooker fumed.
Even Glenn Beck got into the act, blaming, of course, Michelle Obama. (What, you expect sense from Glenn Beck?)
So, was it true? Well, yes. But also no. The reason lies in one of the weirder things about the world of comic books, so please forgive me a moment of nerdiness.
See, Marvel Comics (which publishes Spider-Man, X-Men, etc) also publishes series called "Ultimate Spider-Man," "Ultimate X-Men," etc. The "Ultimate" series portray alternate versions and storylines - another fictional universe entirely, really. The writers seem to delight in "what would happen if" speculation.
Oh, as it turns out, the "Miles Morales" character isn't actually gay either. That came from an offhand comment by one of the book's artists: "Maybe sooner or later a black or gay - or both - hero will be considered something absolutely normal."
So fear not. In the "main" Marvel Universe, Peter Parker is still Spider-Man, and vice versa. Still alive, still white, and as far as anyone knows, still straight. And if that explanation has caused you to have an irresistible desire to consume family-size bags of Cheetos in one sitting and live in your parents' basement while engaging in endless online debates about pop-culture trivia like whether the Starship Enterprise could beat the Death Star, I'm sorry.
Our next example of misplaced Twitrage comes from The Huffington Post, which reported the tale of Alison Capo of Virginia and her 11-year-old daughter Skylar. Young Skylar found a wounded baby woodpecker being stalked by a cat. Being a tenderhearted youth, Skylar rescued the woodpecker from the voracious feline and, when she was unable to locate the bird's mother, took it home.
Then Skylar and her mom carried the bird with them, for some unexplained reason, on an errand to a "local home improvement store." An alert fellow shopper, who happened to be an officer of the Fish and Wildlife Service, informed them that little Woody was a member of an endangered species and "transporting" him was illegal.
The officious officer later showed up at Casa Capo with a citation announcing a $535 fine and, HuffPo reported breathlessly, "possible jail time."
Shock! Horror! Outrage! The story of the little girl whose merciful act was deemed criminal by the big bad unfeeling bureaucracy made the online rounds, with the usual results. The big bad government made the little girl cry! Her mom might go to jail for saving a baby bird!
Except for the fact that the Fish and Wildlife Service immediately dropped the citation, stated that the local office had tried to cancel it before it was served, and apologized to Ms. Capo before the story even hit the Internet.This part, of course, was buried three-quarters of the way through the HuffPo story and isn't mentioned anywhere in the outraged tweets and online postings on the subject. Because "government bureau immediately catching its mistake, fixing it, and apologizing" just doesn't fit the narrative. Where's the outrage potential in that?
It used to be said that "a lie can travel a thousand miles before the truth gets its boots on." In the era of Facebook and Twitter, misplaced outrage moves at the speed of light. My advice: Take a deep breath, look up the facts, read the whole story - and think before you tweet.
August 5, 2011
New Look For the Blog....
I'd stuck with the original turn of the century Blogger template too long. I'll probably be tweaking the changes a bit as we go, but I'd love your input on the new look. Note the new "reaction" buttons below, and the Facebook "like" button.
July 31, 2011
"Job Creators" and the Tea Party Jihad
Latest Newspaper Column:
I usually don't read a lot of "celebrity" news, but for some reason, a story in the online version of the British newspaper The Guardian caught my eye.
According to the Guardian story, Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg and Gwyneth Paltrow (who, as it turns out, is Spielberg's goddaughter) recently got in a little bit of trouble when a motorboat from Spielberg's 85-meter yacht, the Seven Seas, got a little too close to a beach in Sardinia.
Swimmers were quick to call in the Coast Guard, which slapped a fine of 172 euros (about 247 bucks) on Spielberg for violating Italy's strict laws about beach safety.
My first thought upon reading this story was, "Heck, he ought to just rename the boat 'Job Creator' and come back to America. In this political environment, he could do anything he wanted: run over fishermen, crash into the docks, generally act like the Rodney Dangerfield character in 'Caddyshack' did when he got on his boat."
See, thanks to the no-taxes-on-the-wealthy rhetoric that has been mandated by the fanatical wild-eyed mullahs of the Tea Party Jihad (or Teahadists, as I call them), what used to be known as "rich people" are now "job creators." And God forbid anyone doing something that might disturb the delicate feelings of the JCs, like asking them to pay their fair share for the running of this country.
According to the speaker of the House, Cryin' John Boehner, "The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators, uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs."
Hear that? Even talking about asking the JCs to pony up a few more shekels is likely to make them curl up like snails into their shells and take the jobs with them. Environmental and financial regulations? Fuhgeddaboudit. We can't make the "job creators" angry.
This deification of the so-called "job creators" has gotten so entrenched that I've actually considered getting a license plate that says "JOBCREATOR" so I could drive as fast as I want and never get my car inspected. On April 15, I'll just write "Job Creator" on my tax form, send it in, and tell the IRS to go pound sand. And if anyone dares cross me, I'll threaten to sic John Boehner or Mitch McConnell on them.
The only problem is, the frequently repeated assertion that "if we tax the rich, it'll kill jobs" is a crock. After all, Bush the Younger was a tax-cuttin' fool (literally), and The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) called his track record on jobs "the worst on record."
According to The WSJ, "The Bush administration created about 3 million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Yet the Teahadists act like Clinton-era tax rates are so heinous an example of government tyranny that they're perfectly willing, even eager, to suicide-bomb the entire economy to stop them from ever coming back.
As so often happens, neither history nor math is kind to the Teahadist dogma. The Center for American Progress looked at the numbers and found that top income tax rates bear little or no relation to job growth.
In fact, they note, "In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now. ... For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent."
Further, "When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that."
Long story short, lower taxes on the wealthy don't equal more jobs. They never have. That's just another one of the long cons the GOP is running on people, playing on economic fear to reap more tax breaks for the same fat cats who'll most likely use the extra cash to give themselves huge bonuses for sending jobs overseas.
Don't fall for it.
I usually don't read a lot of "celebrity" news, but for some reason, a story in the online version of the British newspaper The Guardian caught my eye.
According to the Guardian story, Oscar-winning director Steven Spielberg and Gwyneth Paltrow (who, as it turns out, is Spielberg's goddaughter) recently got in a little bit of trouble when a motorboat from Spielberg's 85-meter yacht, the Seven Seas, got a little too close to a beach in Sardinia.
Swimmers were quick to call in the Coast Guard, which slapped a fine of 172 euros (about 247 bucks) on Spielberg for violating Italy's strict laws about beach safety.
My first thought upon reading this story was, "Heck, he ought to just rename the boat 'Job Creator' and come back to America. In this political environment, he could do anything he wanted: run over fishermen, crash into the docks, generally act like the Rodney Dangerfield character in 'Caddyshack' did when he got on his boat."
See, thanks to the no-taxes-on-the-wealthy rhetoric that has been mandated by the fanatical wild-eyed mullahs of the Tea Party Jihad (or Teahadists, as I call them), what used to be known as "rich people" are now "job creators." And God forbid anyone doing something that might disturb the delicate feelings of the JCs, like asking them to pay their fair share for the running of this country.
According to the speaker of the House, Cryin' John Boehner, "The mere threat of tax hikes causes uncertainty for job creators, uncertainty that results in less risk-taking and fewer jobs."
Hear that? Even talking about asking the JCs to pony up a few more shekels is likely to make them curl up like snails into their shells and take the jobs with them. Environmental and financial regulations? Fuhgeddaboudit. We can't make the "job creators" angry.
This deification of the so-called "job creators" has gotten so entrenched that I've actually considered getting a license plate that says "JOBCREATOR" so I could drive as fast as I want and never get my car inspected. On April 15, I'll just write "Job Creator" on my tax form, send it in, and tell the IRS to go pound sand. And if anyone dares cross me, I'll threaten to sic John Boehner or Mitch McConnell on them.
The only problem is, the frequently repeated assertion that "if we tax the rich, it'll kill jobs" is a crock. After all, Bush the Younger was a tax-cuttin' fool (literally), and The Wall Street Journal (not exactly a bastion of liberalism) called his track record on jobs "the worst on record."
According to The WSJ, "The Bush administration created about 3 million jobs (net) over its eight years, a fraction of the 23 million jobs created under President Bill Clinton's administration and only slightly better than President George H.W. Bush did in his four years in office."
Yet the Teahadists act like Clinton-era tax rates are so heinous an example of government tyranny that they're perfectly willing, even eager, to suicide-bomb the entire economy to stop them from ever coming back.
As so often happens, neither history nor math is kind to the Teahadist dogma. The Center for American Progress looked at the numbers and found that top income tax rates bear little or no relation to job growth.
In fact, they note, "In the past 60 years, job growth has actually been greater in years when the top income tax rate was much higher than it is now. ... For instance, in years when the top marginal rate was more than 90 percent, the average annual growth in total payroll employment was 2 percent. In years when the top marginal rate was 35 percent or less — which it is now — employment grew by an average of just 0.4 percent."
Further, "When the marginal tax rate was 50 percent or above, annual employment growth averaged 2.3 percent, and when the rate was under 50, growth was half that."
Long story short, lower taxes on the wealthy don't equal more jobs. They never have. That's just another one of the long cons the GOP is running on people, playing on economic fear to reap more tax breaks for the same fat cats who'll most likely use the extra cash to give themselves huge bonuses for sending jobs overseas.
Don't fall for it.
July 30, 2011
July 29, 2011
John Boehner Says I'm Right
Remember a couple weeks ago, I said that some Republicans wanted the U.S. economy to crash for their own political gain?
John Boehner has confirmed it:
Speaking on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham's show this morning, Boehner agreed that failing to raise the limit before the deadline would be devastating, and said the "chaos" plan won't work when asked by Ingraham what's motivating the recalcitrant Republicans:BOEHNER: Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I'm not sure that that — I don't think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.
You know, you can say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but when the time came, she could deliver the votes. She even got Dennis Kucinich on board to pass a health care bill he said he hated.
Boehner's an empty suit who can't control the terrorists in his own caucus who want to suicide-bomb the economy. You want to know how nutty these people are? The Tea Party Jihad wants to primary Allen West (you know, the guy who abused a helpless prisoner who he later admitted was probably be the wrong guy then became a Big Damn Teabagger hero for challenging a woman to a fight) for not being conservative enough.
Meanwhile, David Frum, who I've praised here from time to time as one of the few sane conservatives, is upset because the White House released a picture of Michelle Obama barefoot--in her own house.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of a passionate intensity"-Yeats.
We are truly fucked. -Dusty Rhoades
John Boehner has confirmed it:
Speaking on conservative radio host Laura Ingraham's show this morning, Boehner agreed that failing to raise the limit before the deadline would be devastating, and said the "chaos" plan won't work when asked by Ingraham what's motivating the recalcitrant Republicans:BOEHNER: Well, first they want more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I'm not sure that that — I don't think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.
You know, you can say what you want about Nancy Pelosi, but when the time came, she could deliver the votes. She even got Dennis Kucinich on board to pass a health care bill he said he hated.
Boehner's an empty suit who can't control the terrorists in his own caucus who want to suicide-bomb the economy. You want to know how nutty these people are? The Tea Party Jihad wants to primary Allen West (you know, the guy who abused a helpless prisoner who he later admitted was probably be the wrong guy then became a Big Damn Teabagger hero for challenging a woman to a fight) for not being conservative enough.
Meanwhile, David Frum, who I've praised here from time to time as one of the few sane conservatives, is upset because the White House released a picture of Michelle Obama barefoot--in her own house.
"The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of a passionate intensity"-Yeats.
We are truly fucked. -Dusty Rhoades
July 28, 2011
Defaulting On Your Obligations: The Teabagger Way of Life
Chicago Sun-Times:
Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.
"I won't place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!" Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation's finances in order.
....
Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he 'had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."...Keith Liscio, who said Walsh hired him to be campaign manager — Walsh disputes that — has sued Walsh for $20,000 in salary he said Walsh owes him. Both sides are trying to settle that case.
Staffers learned during the campaign that Walsh was driving on a suspended license. His license was suspended twice in 2008 for his failure to appear in court, and he was cited in 2009 for driving on a suspended license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State. Walsh's energetic Tea Party politics are making him the darling of cable TV.
Yeah, I'll just bet they do.
Now here's my question. One of many, actually, but let's start here.
Anthony Weiner texts racy pictures of himself to consenting adults. It's the lead story for days. Shock! Horror! He must resign!
This hypocrite who beats his chest and swears he'll not let his kids have to deal with "one more dollar of debt" stiffs those same kids to the tune of 100k, not to mention not paying his staff, and oh, by the way, drives with a suspended license (which is an actual CRIME), and what we hear from the national media is...the sound of crickets chirping. The only place I've seen this story is in the Sun-Times (his local paper) and the liberal blogosphere.
Do you honestly think that if any of this stuff had come out about, say, Harry Reid, we wouldn't have Weinergate all over again? Can anyone with a remaining brain cell still claim that the media has a 'liberal' bias?
Freshman U.S. Rep. Joe Walsh, a tax-bashing Tea Party champion who sharply lectures President Barack Obama and other Democrats on fiscal responsibility, owes more than $100,000 in child support to his ex-wife and three children, according to documents his ex-wife filed in their divorce case in December.
"I won't place one more dollar of debt upon the backs of my kids and grandkids unless we structurally reform the way this town spends money!" Walsh says directly into the camera in his viral video lecturing Obama on the need to get the nation's finances in order.
....
Before getting elected, he had told Laura Walsh that because he was out of work or between jobs, he could not make child support payments. So she was surprised to read in his congressional campaign disclosures that he was earning enough money to loan his campaign $35,000.
"Joe personally loaned his campaign $35,000, which, given that he failed to make any child support payments to Laura because he 'had no money' is surprising," Laura Walsh's attorneys wrote in a motion filed in December seeking $117,437 in back child support and interest. "Joe has paid himself back at least $14,200 for the loans he gave himself."...Keith Liscio, who said Walsh hired him to be campaign manager — Walsh disputes that — has sued Walsh for $20,000 in salary he said Walsh owes him. Both sides are trying to settle that case.
Staffers learned during the campaign that Walsh was driving on a suspended license. His license was suspended twice in 2008 for his failure to appear in court, and he was cited in 2009 for driving on a suspended license, according to the Illinois Secretary of State. Walsh's energetic Tea Party politics are making him the darling of cable TV.
Yeah, I'll just bet they do.
Now here's my question. One of many, actually, but let's start here.
Anthony Weiner texts racy pictures of himself to consenting adults. It's the lead story for days. Shock! Horror! He must resign!
This hypocrite who beats his chest and swears he'll not let his kids have to deal with "one more dollar of debt" stiffs those same kids to the tune of 100k, not to mention not paying his staff, and oh, by the way, drives with a suspended license (which is an actual CRIME), and what we hear from the national media is...the sound of crickets chirping. The only place I've seen this story is in the Sun-Times (his local paper) and the liberal blogosphere.
Do you honestly think that if any of this stuff had come out about, say, Harry Reid, we wouldn't have Weinergate all over again? Can anyone with a remaining brain cell still claim that the media has a 'liberal' bias?
July 24, 2011
Our Hopes Once Flew So High
Latest Newspaper Column:
This past week, as the mud wrestling in the U.S. Congress over the debt ceiling continued and people began to wonder just how deep the slime pit in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp actually goes, a couple of events seem to have gotten pushed to the back of people's minds. The events were (1) the 42nd anniversary of man's first walk on the moon; and (2) the landing of the final mission of Atlantis, the last space shuttle. The space shuttle's last hurrah got some passing mentions throughout the week; it seemed the moon-walk anniversary barely got noticed at all.
That's a shame. Maybe if we were paying a little bit more attention to these two events, they might remind us of just how far our aspirations can go and the great things we can accomplish if we try.As I watch the old videos of the moon landing today (courtesy of YouTube), I can still remember that sense of wonder as I sat in the darkened living room of the house I grew up in and watched the grainy pictures being beamed back to us from so far away.I remember the tension in the room as Eagle, the tiny, buglike lunar exploration module, descended toward a lunar surface that appeared to be littered with boulders the size of Volkswagens.I remember being impressed by the cool, almost drawling way astronaut Buzz Aldrin called out altitude and velocity as mission commander Neil Armstrong guided the vehicle down, while an increasingly tense voice from Mission Control called out their rapidly dwindling fuel supply ("Sixty seconds. ...THIRTY SECONDS..."). Even at 7 years old, I knew this was huge.Then, of course, there was that amazing moment when a ghostly figure dressed in a bulky white space suit gave a little hop off the ladder and set his feet, for the first time, on the surface of another world, saying, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."It wasn't until years later that I realized that really didn't make sense. Later I read that Armstrong admitted he'd blown the line, that it should have been, "one small step for [a] man." Since he'd been up for 24 hours and was, you know, on the freakin' moon, he can, I think, be forgiven.The end of the space shuttle program marks the end of another amazing chapter in human history. At its initial roll-out in the late '70s, the concept — a reusable spaceship that could take off, land on Earth, and then do it all over again — seemed both revolutionary and completely familiar, at least to us science fiction readers.It was intended to be a cheaper and more practical way to haul humans and cargo into orbit, and it was going to be vital in the construction of the first truly international space station. Not only did the program accomplish that goal of giving us a toehold in space, but it also launched satellites that, among other things, have let us look deeper into the universe than ever before.One unintended consequence of the shuttle program, however, was that it made space travel seem almost routine. Back in the day, we used to get pulled out of class to watch the "moon shot," as we used to call it. Networks would cancel other programming to follow the progress of the moon missions.
Eventually, however, shuttle launches and landings got mentioned way down around the 15-minute mark on the network news and "below the fold" in most newspapers — unless something went terribly wrong, as it did on two dark days when shuttles and their entire crews were lost.Maybe that's why a lot of the public seems to have lost its fascination with space exploration and its own sense of wonder at the spectacle of men and women riding into the sky atop pillars of fire, on voyages of discovery that even Columbus could never have imagined.There was a time when we looked to the stars. A time when we tried to accomplish great things, not, as President Kennedy said, because they were easy, but because they were hard. Now, it's all about what we can't do, what we can't afford. Aspiration and the ambition to do great things, to take on seemingly impossible challenges as a nation, have become something to sneer at.I hope, someday soon, we can start looking up again. We need it. Not just as a country, but as a human race.
This past week, as the mud wrestling in the U.S. Congress over the debt ceiling continued and people began to wonder just how deep the slime pit in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp actually goes, a couple of events seem to have gotten pushed to the back of people's minds. The events were (1) the 42nd anniversary of man's first walk on the moon; and (2) the landing of the final mission of Atlantis, the last space shuttle. The space shuttle's last hurrah got some passing mentions throughout the week; it seemed the moon-walk anniversary barely got noticed at all.
That's a shame. Maybe if we were paying a little bit more attention to these two events, they might remind us of just how far our aspirations can go and the great things we can accomplish if we try.As I watch the old videos of the moon landing today (courtesy of YouTube), I can still remember that sense of wonder as I sat in the darkened living room of the house I grew up in and watched the grainy pictures being beamed back to us from so far away.I remember the tension in the room as Eagle, the tiny, buglike lunar exploration module, descended toward a lunar surface that appeared to be littered with boulders the size of Volkswagens.I remember being impressed by the cool, almost drawling way astronaut Buzz Aldrin called out altitude and velocity as mission commander Neil Armstrong guided the vehicle down, while an increasingly tense voice from Mission Control called out their rapidly dwindling fuel supply ("Sixty seconds. ...THIRTY SECONDS..."). Even at 7 years old, I knew this was huge.Then, of course, there was that amazing moment when a ghostly figure dressed in a bulky white space suit gave a little hop off the ladder and set his feet, for the first time, on the surface of another world, saying, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."It wasn't until years later that I realized that really didn't make sense. Later I read that Armstrong admitted he'd blown the line, that it should have been, "one small step for [a] man." Since he'd been up for 24 hours and was, you know, on the freakin' moon, he can, I think, be forgiven.The end of the space shuttle program marks the end of another amazing chapter in human history. At its initial roll-out in the late '70s, the concept — a reusable spaceship that could take off, land on Earth, and then do it all over again — seemed both revolutionary and completely familiar, at least to us science fiction readers.It was intended to be a cheaper and more practical way to haul humans and cargo into orbit, and it was going to be vital in the construction of the first truly international space station. Not only did the program accomplish that goal of giving us a toehold in space, but it also launched satellites that, among other things, have let us look deeper into the universe than ever before.One unintended consequence of the shuttle program, however, was that it made space travel seem almost routine. Back in the day, we used to get pulled out of class to watch the "moon shot," as we used to call it. Networks would cancel other programming to follow the progress of the moon missions.
Eventually, however, shuttle launches and landings got mentioned way down around the 15-minute mark on the network news and "below the fold" in most newspapers — unless something went terribly wrong, as it did on two dark days when shuttles and their entire crews were lost.Maybe that's why a lot of the public seems to have lost its fascination with space exploration and its own sense of wonder at the spectacle of men and women riding into the sky atop pillars of fire, on voyages of discovery that even Columbus could never have imagined.There was a time when we looked to the stars. A time when we tried to accomplish great things, not, as President Kennedy said, because they were easy, but because they were hard. Now, it's all about what we can't do, what we can't afford. Aspiration and the ambition to do great things, to take on seemingly impossible challenges as a nation, have become something to sneer at.I hope, someday soon, we can start looking up again. We need it. Not just as a country, but as a human race.
July 21, 2011
Review: IRREGULAR CREATURES, Chuck Wendig
Irregular Creatures by Chuck WendigMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
I've been a fan of "Terrible Minds", Chuck Wendig's high-energy and hilariously profane writing blog, for a while now. So when I finally got my very own Kindle, this was one of my first purchases.
Irregular Creatures is a small collection of short stories in what I'd call the modern fantasy/horror genres. Some of them are quite strange, some are downright nasty, all of them are great fun to read. Wending combines the wild imagination of a Neil Gaiman, the squicky sensibility of a Clive Barker, and the direct, blunt-object-to-the-skull prose style of a young Harlan Ellison. Absolutely worth the download.
View all my reviews
