Rss Feed
Tweeter button
Facebook button
Technorati button
Reddit button
Delicious button
Digg button
Flickr button
Stumbleupon button
Newsvine button

Posts tagged with Innane Babble

1 comments

8:39 AM

Beck’s Tea Party

A poll coming out of the NYTimes today shows some interesting characteristics and caricatures of the Tea Party movement. One such caricature, widely perceived as true and explored in this poll, is the intimate connection between Glenn Beck’s opinionated musings and said Tea Party movement. Similarly, the demographic info emerging about this movement shows that its proponents are largely wealthier and more educated than the average American, which as Nate Silver relates, “The tea-partiers skew older and college-educated: that’s basically the cable news demographic.”

I don’t think this poll implies any sort of causation – Tea Party to Beck or vice versa, but rather a relationship based upon mutual interests: Glenn Beck is scared shitless of the Federal Government when it is run by Democrats, and so is the Tea Party movement. The most apparent effect of this relationship is that both entities appear frequently willing to disregard the factual basis for a policy argument in favor of an emotionally driven argument (of the sort that frequently result in Beck sobbing like a spoiled child who doesn’t get their way).

Offered up as support for this relationship between the Tea Party and Beck, Nate Silver points to the conspicuous timing of Beck’s cable opinion show debut: the day before President Obama was inaugurated.

This begins to point to a certain opportunist impulse in one, Glenn Beck. Especially when one considers that Beck released 7 books, 3 dvds, 26 cds, and multiple subscriber-only media venues since 2007, his role as a media siphon and capitalist extraordinaire is all the more clear.

So what though? Who cares if someone on cable (news) happens to be continually expanding the franchise that is their name? It surely is within all of their legal rights and freedoms to do so.

And that is the point here. I guess that within the ever-expanding web of Beck’s media empire, he was able to instill a sense of seriousness within his pursuits. He capitalized not only on resources that were just waiting to be thrown at the next conservative darling, but also upon the lingering political self-consciousness of the conservative movement. His conspiracies, images of communist takeovers, out-of-control government, and the framing of the government versus the people do much to exploit the foibles of the modern conservative base.

So in context, does Beck matter to politics at large?

I would say no, unless people outside of the base to whom he directly speaks start to take him seriously. He obviously has no policy savvy. He has no credentials upon which to espouse one paradigm or policy over another, but he surely has the credentials to be the voice inside the base’s head.

I am comfortable discussing Beck within a context of media alone. The second that reputable or otherwise credible people begin to discuss him within a context of policy they should be rightly viewed as failing their audience. With or without Beck, I doubt the GOP base would ever have supported Health Care Reform under Obama. With or without Beck, I doubt that base would tacitly acknowledge Obama’s role in lowering their taxes. And I sincerely hope that no public officials are taking cues on policy from Beck or Beck’s audiences’ rantings, but no more than I hope that extreme right wing policies stop being perceived as so ethereally appropriate in this day and age.

Indeed, maybe Beck’s role in our politics today is just an indicator of to whom right wing politicians will have to pander when their poll numbers are down. But it isn’t like those politicians would have done anything differently with or without the presence of Beck.

Again, Beck just capitalizes upon those foibles of modern conservatism: government bad, taxes bad, guns good, and so on.

So whats new?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
That’s Tariffic
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor rty

The outrage! The horror! The talking point?

This sort of phony sincerity, derived from a long ago established understanding in the conservative’s mind of how everything, everywhere works, has come to be the standard for those on the right-wing, especially those in the media. If only this was an earned outrage, derived from the pressing realities of the harsh world around us, but it isn’t.

Getting mad that the bottom 47 % doesn’t end up paying taxes to the Federal Government doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t make sense when unemployment is at 10% nationally and it doesn’t make sense when 200,000 homes go into foreclosure every month.

I love how the mere presence of that 47% qualifies as empirical evidence on Fox, thereby justifying whatever conclusions happen to follow the number. Honesty seems to be evaporating in conservative politics and media, with priority given to the opportunism and expediency that defines the GOP in 2010.

Tom Schaller at 538 provides a thorough analysis of America’s tax policy, its efficiency and its effectiveness in comparison with other OECD nations. This analysis comes in response to not only the rampant reliance by conservatives upon the theory that a tax code which “redistributes wealth” is inherently bad for our economy, our government and our society, but also in response to a column in USA Today which panders to the fears and pre-conceived notions of the Tea Partiers by Jonah Goldberg. Just a taste of that column follows, the full version can be found here:

We are heading toward being a country where instead of the people deciding how much money the government should have, the government decides how much money the people should have.

Only after they passed “ObamaCare” did Democrats clarify that this was one of their motives. ObamaCare’s appeal has less to do with saving money — which it won’t do — and more to do with spreading the wealth around.

Never mind the reality of heading towards an economy whose claim for social mobility was replaced by the will and desires of the insurance industry, because the Health Care Reform was just about furthering some devious, socialist, bolshevik, big government plot…

Moving away from the ludicrous premise upon which Goldberg’s concerns are based, the larger issue regarding our national discourse on taxation needs to be addressed. As such, it appears as if a large swath of this country operates under a different version of reality when it comes to taxes, how tax policy effects our economy, and how our tax policies compare to other OECD nations. Schaller’s conclusions after sifting through relative tax/transfer data from the 26 OECh nations are as follows:

1. Dollar for dollar, America offers the most effective and efficient government on the planet, doing so for about 20 cents on the dollar nationally, 28 cents if you include state and local taxes. If you ask a conservative to name a country that provides as many quality services for less, or more and better services for the same price, they can’t name one. If they do, encourage them to start packing their bags. Sure, they could save a lot of money living in Mexico–if they don’t count all the bribes they’ll have to pay to educate their kids and protect themselves from possible violence. Bottom line is we’re simply not as big as conservatives would have us believe. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t seek efficiencies, govern more effectively within budget constraints, or try to eliminate fraud and abuse. But American government is pretty clean and fairly lean.

2. American government is redistributive, but not to the degree to which boogeyman conservatives would have us believe... We’re clean and lean, but if you believe in sharing the wealth, comparatively we’re also pretty mean.

3. When it comes to deficits and fiscal responsibility, conservatives tend to focus on the spending and not the taxation side. If you’re raising less than you’re spending, you can either raise more, spend less, or some combination of both. But conservatives invariably turn the conversation to how big government is as a spender, rather than how small it is as a taxer. And frankly, too many Americans of all ideological stripes simply want a free lunch. We know this because when you give them access to policies at the ballot, they vote for guaranteed spending and restrictions on taxes. (See California, the state with the single WORST debt burden in the country.)

4. It’s just a myth that all this American “socialism” will only constrain our growth, turning us into one of those laggard western European nanny states. There is way too much to cover here, so I’ll just point to Jon Chait’s recent takedown in the New Republic of conservative Jim Manzi’s supposed case-closed case for why America’s smaller government produces higher growth rates.

If the conclusions reached by Schaller are viewed in their context, it becomes clear that his task in analyzing this data was a result of an ideological perspective within the American conservative consciousness that refuses to consider in earnest the effects of tax policies and a political culture that blindly assumes lower taxes are good for everyone and everything. An ideology that refuses to acknowledge the other half of the equation which creates debts and deficits needs to be shown empirical data to dispel their theories, but somehow I don’t think empirical data means anything to an ideologue.

Emerging from the mist of a settled Health Care Reform, we’ve watched a movement get loud, angry, violent, and we’ve watched them get nothing done. I speak of the Tea Partiers, teabaggers and pseudo-populist rage-fomenters that comprise such groups as the Tea Party Patriots and Freedom Works. I speak of the same absurd minority protest group whose numbers are constantly dwarfed by immigration rallies, anti-war rallies and pro-health-reform rallies but whose media presence implies a greater significance than any other movement that exists, past or present.

At this point however, when the Tea Partier’s cause celebre – preventing America from obtaining democratic reforms to the health care system – has fallen flat on its face, it is hard to distract from the fact that these folks have no real influence on policy. I don’t know if this statement can be regarded as at all controversial though, considering that it is infinitely hard to infer the policy consequences of such rallying cries as “Say NO to Socialism” or “Keep Government Out of my Medicare”…

Never mind the glaring contradictions of such sentiments when one acknowledges that this movement is fueled by our bunk economy’s bad habit of bringing innocent, hard-working Americans down with it. It began with the bank bailouts, where the policy sell was tough regardless of the facts on the ground because when viewed in the abstract, who would honestly be in favor of the Federal government handing hundreds of billions of dollars over to corporate mega-banks? Obama had his work cut out for him in trying to sell that policy after the fact, especially when one considers the immediate recoil Republicans have at any fleeting mention of the consequences of George W. Bush’s 8 year debacle, but now that the taxpayer has recovered nearly all the money that was spent on the TARP bailouts of 2008, populism is in favor of the Obama administration.

Shortly after our country fully realized that we have a bona-fide Black President, we began to realize the political and legislative potency of that President with the passage of a historic economic stimulus package. The facts more than a year later reveal the positive impact of the stimulus, with hundreds of thousands of Americans put back to work, state governments helped to stay afloat, and tax cuts offered to 95% of Main St. America. Apparently this all threatened the egos of Republicans and Tea Partiers alike because nothing says I’m confident in the strength of my ideas like calling the opponent Hitler.

Then came Health Care Reform, the legislative priority that dominated the protest signs of teabaggers for the next year and will likely continue to exist at the forefront of anti-government activism in the year to come. All these agitations by the Obama Administration, these efforts to realign the priorities of the government from top to bottom, these audacious attempts to stave off the inevitable courses as set by the most powerful moneyed interests in the years prior, these actions incited the most virulent conservative activism in the last few decades.

The NYTimes profiles some connected figures in the Tea Party network, and the narrative that was sparked by cries against socialism and big government contrasting the ever present, supported, and oft-lauded role of government in these folks’ lives continues seamlessly. In my mind, one has no ground to stand upon to protest big government while accepting unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security or any of the other completely non-controversial, popular and necessary programs. This shallow margin by which Tea Party rhetoric has made its way into the halls of Congress is necessarily shallow. To delve deeper into the political discourse of the teabaggers, one must overlook the logical gaps of arguments that are created by the emotions of a populist reaction to economic uncertainty.

But that glaring hypocrisy is not a concern for much of the Tea Party movement. Principle and integrity of political arguments be damned, because these people are pissed! They are entitled to their government handouts, but fuck anyone else who tries to balance the scales. Fuck anyone else who has found themselves a victim of machinations larger than themselves. Fuck anyone whose woes lead them to vote for Democratic candidates or to support Democratic platforms. But to what avail is all this resentment being levied?

Rooting out government waste and spending taxpayer money more wisely is not some new idea that the Tea Party owns. Being against totalitarianism and facism isn’t new, but for christsake only the most paranoid and conspiratorial among us would actually buy into the notion that this Health Care Reform is even related to those despot regimens. Not trusting the notion of government is not an excuse for being completely and utterly irrational in one’s rhetoric. In fact, when such sentiments of paranoia and fear are allowed to prevail in political movements the result can be nothing but more paranoia and fear. As we’ve seen, the Tea Partiers and Republicans could not thwart the democratic will of the electorate or the administration to reform our health care system. But what have they done?

I can’t honestly answer that question. I can’t produce a single tangible result of this movement, beyond the ratings boost Fox News enjoyed by creating a fictional picture of America in revolt. The Tea Party movement really has no objectives beyond trying to elect Tea Party candidates and agitate for agitation’s sake. Does anyone really know what Tea Party candidates are for? What would a government run by Tea Partiers look like? Do Republicans really have to do much to convince the Tea Partiers that they are friendly? Would a Republican administration or a Republican congress just give in to the demands of this minute faction of the electorate simply because they are afraid of agitation from within?

I’m not trying to pose these questions or ruminate on this subject to salt the wounds created by Health Care reform becoming law, but because I think that any political movement needs to justify its existence in no uncertain terms. And they need to do it constantly. This isn’t a call for more delusional rhetoric to stir up the passions and prejudices of the tea-baggers, but a call for this movement to grow up and try to dispel the facts surrounding their inadequacy. I say this because I’m tired of the rigor that is applied to criticizing liberal politics and liberal movements not being applied to these Tea Partiers and the Republican/conservative ideologies that they push. This criticism is being levied not only at conservative outlets like Fox, but at similarly mainstream outlets like CNN and MSNBC who have dedicated countless hours of coverage to the Tea Party cohorts while unwaveringly ignoring other legitimate movements.

As a last aside, the Tea Parties are not doing themselves any favors by enlisting the inept former gov. Sarah Palin to be their poster child. Didn’t they get the memo that this person hurts things more than she helps things? Or maybe they really just want to ride the media coattails of a future reality TV star?

This is just one example of Beck’s paltry skill. For many more examples of his obliquely crass, chalk-board aided diatribes, see here.

Considering the incomprehensible nature of all these charts Beck draws, I continue to wonder why anyone lets him waste air-time and money to continue to feature said charts. More confoundedly though, I continue to wonder exactly how Beck thinks that these charts help him make an argument.

I like to feature examples of illustrations, charts, diagrams that communicate information particularly well; however, we should consider this as a study in contrasts. It pains me though to realize that these ridiculously poor-quality, partisan and propagandist diagrams continue to receive more validation and exposure than many of the more credible, factual ones out there. Its like the Republicans lame attempt at satire when they created that diagram of the health care legislation – do they really think this is helping their cause, to exhibit exactly how they’ve been spending their time and effort, making charts that communicate nothing while distorting the facts that were used to create said chart?

Well, I guess I answered my own question – of course distorting the facts surrounding health care helps Republicans!

Every so often, school districts face budget shortfalls. They either decide then, to hold a referendum or bond measure, or to cut back in order to work with their revenues.  But in this recession, a budget shortfall is no matter of small consequence.

In Utah, the latest attempt to rectify the state’s budgetary woes comes at the apparent expense of students attending public high school. The latest proposal, seeking to lessen the pain of a 700$ million budget shortfall, calls for the elimination of the 12th grade. Rather, it toys with the idea of eliminating the 12th grade, either fully or through an opt-out sort of arrangement.

Sidenote : the legislator who proposed this is none other than State Sen. Chris Buttars, who so callously opined that he considers gays and lesbians “the greatest threat to America going down,”. But moving on from that…

His proposal also calls for the elimination of bus service for high school students.

Seems to me, as a former public high school 12th grade, bus-riding student, that this proposal is impulsive and short-sighted. If Utah sets the precedent that budget shortfalls can be met by hacking away at the public school system, our country will be in trouble. Public school is not an entitlement, not a spending program, not social welfare and not expendable. Proposals such as this one should be called out for what they are – opportunist and disinterested.

I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes the whole-sale cutting of an entire grade has any interest in improving the public school system. Further, I highly doubt that any legislator who proposes this as a means to rectify a budget gap caused by a nationwide recession should be taken seriously as anything but an ideologue.

But then again, it may be too early to see if anyone actually takes this seriously. Things like this make for great controversy and really stir up the pot, but will it solve any problems? No. It will create a whole new slew of problems, the so-called slippery slope of selling-out Utah’s students. Because if 12th grade is dispensable, why not 11th? Why not just do away with free school lunch programs then too? Or what is to stop these partisans from just cutting all funding for school districts in time of budget shortfalls?

One thing is for sure though. I take pride in my state, Oregon’s, ability to prioritize its public schools above their corporate benefactors. We passed a tax increase, the largest one in Oregon’s history, to ensure that our budget shortfalls do not hurt the public school system and its benefactors (ie, children, students everywhere). Our state legislature passed the tax increase last year, as our 2011 budget was hinging upon the increased revenues from this increase, but it was forced to undergo a ballot referendum because of the anti-tax, Nike lobby. Even within that narrative though, common sense and the common good prevailed when a majority of Oregon voters chose their public schools over their measly 10$ minimum corporate tax rate.

0 comments

8:03 AM

Snow fuels debate?

News is that the east coast, which includes Washington DC, which is where our national politicians live, is getting some snow. Oh wait, scratch that, not really news, because it is February. Despite that little fact of life (winter tends to mean snow, sometimes lots of it), the NYTimes decided to run an article in their Science/Environment section titled, “Climate-change debate is heating up in deep freeze,”. This article basically provides an outlet for all the shenanigans pulled by climate-change skeptics who like to take advantage of the average American’s shaky grasp on science, with seemingly anecdotal rebuttals by “scientists” provided as the factual context to this debate (which is heating up, but wait it’s cold outside – leave it to the NYTimes to spend more time coming up with a witty headline than writing a worth-while article).

Sorry, but it isn’t debate that is heating up. It is opportunism. The Republicans pulling these stunts, like building an igloo and declaring it “Mr. Gore’s new home”, don’t care what the factual basis for climate change is. They care that they have an opportunity to reinforce the conclusion that they and their constituents have already come to, science be damned. Rachel Maddow covered this last night, eviscerating those climate-change deniers with the help of Bill Nye, but she did so in an entirely appropriate way – by condescendingly mocking the shallow logic that these Republicans are subscribing to. But the NY Times has decided that all this agitation on the right, completely devoid of evidence-based arguments to buffer their case, constitutes debate.

If you want to know what is wrong with Washington, look no further than what constitutes debate in the media. I had more conclusive, heated debates in high school.

0 comments

10:37 AM

Indicting

Why does the precedent set by Bush in classifying copious amounts of international criminals as enemy combatants somehow make the conviction of an open-shut case like the Christmas Underwear bomber less likely?

The Washington press pool seems to consider this decision to indict Abdulmutallab on criminal charges and try him in civilian courts as very contentious… Do they really think that this is such a contentious issue – I mean, there is no way this person is going to be “let off” or that justice will be better served if he is declared an ‘enemy combatant’. What a waste of breath for Robert Gibbs to have to say to the press pool that yes, all those who should have been consulted over this decision were properly consulted before the decision was made.