The Kids Are Alright

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Gaywatch - Peter Vadala & William Phillips
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Just watch the whole thing. That kid is awesome.

Station Identification

It's a gloomy Friday morning here in Oberlin. Wilder Voice begins layout in earnest. I've got my senior recital in about two weeks. My seminar paper gets discussed by my class on Tuesday, and I have no idea what to write about yet. So, it's pretty much an average week for me.

This is Ich Bin Ein Obeliner.

And Now, For Something Completely Crazy

Ezra Klein has a question:

"If you look at the campaign last year, presidential, you can’t find a mention of public option,” Joe Lieberman said. “It was added after the election as a part of what we normally consider health insurance reform." That's not true, of course. Much like Lieberman's belief that the public option will increase the deficit, which has been rejected by the CBO, and has never been explained by Lieberman (requests to his office for comment or clarification were not returned).

But why go to all this trouble? Lieberman doesn't have to support the public option. He can oppose it on philosophical grounds, or on personal principles. Instead, he keeps raising verifiably untrue objections. It's baffling.

The strand in Republican and rightist politics that is most disturbing I have termed "political Pentecostalism": essentially that belief is more important than the facts on which belief is based--that knowledge is based on belief and conviction, not belief and justification. So, is it that Lieberman is making statements that are simply and explicitly false? Because all that matters is that he show his devotion--that grants him salvation. Works--and things like "facts"--simply don't matter.

(Incidentally, it seems that I wasn't the first to think of political Pentecostalism, some blogger uses it as an epithet, too--this one, though, manages to completely misrepresent atheism and lob it it Obama.)

If you want further evidence of the utter strangeness of today's rightist movement, here's this from PPP (via digby at Hullabaloo:

Losing NY-23 candidate Doug Hoffman became the latest in an increasingly long line of conservative politicians to blame his problems on ACORN yesterday despite the complete lack of evidence the organization played any role in his defeat.

The Republican base is with him though. PPP's newest national survey finds that a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately. Clearly the ACORN card really is an effective one to play with the voters who will decide whether Hoffman gets to be the Republican nominee in a possible repeat bid in 2010.

Belief in the ACORN conspiracy theory is even higher among GOP partisans than the birther one, which only 42% of Republicans expressed agreement with on our national survey in September.

Overall 62% of Americans think Obama legitimately won the election to only 26% who think ACORN stole it for him, as few Democrats or independents buy into that line of thinking.

I really hope that's wrong, and not that many people are utterly disconnected with reality.

On a somewhat lighter note, though, here's a textbook definition of a bad inference to the best explanation. Indeed, you might call it an inference to a really poor explanation.

Mincemeat and Its Malcontents

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Well, when Jon Stewart is on, he's on.

Watch the interview (and, if you have time, go and watch the whole thing online, here). I almost feel bad for Dobbs (almost); Stewart opens in the interview with a Mariachi band (literally), and then spends the rest of the time coolly beating the crap out of Dobbs. And, after the Mariachi band, Stewart didn't have to use one cheap shot (speaking of cheap shots, Lou, you may want to look up 'disinterested' and 'uninterested,' because I'm pretty sure 'disinterested' doesn't mean what you think it means...). Here's a representative sample (Transcribed, perhaps poorly, by yours truly):

DOBBS: a[n] aspect of the Obama months is a continued disinterest in representing the American people. [...] What is different this time is an Attorney General who actually started speaking about a few changes to the second amendment, not reflecting the majority view--whether it be health care or cap and trade. I'm not arguing with the principle of the decision, but--
STEWART:--I would even argue those facts: I think a lot of people in this country--some of the polls say a majority, or a large majority--want a public option. There has been no attempt, really, to restrict Second Amendment rights. And if you want to talk about fundamentally changing the character of the country, David Addington--who was in Cheney's office, who advocated the unitary executive, advocated that we could torture--is a more fundamental change in our country's fabric that expanding medicare.

Let's quick put something to rest: it wouldn't matter if the Attorney General wanted to "make a few changes to the Second Amendment," because it's not in his power to change. What's more, gun rights have been upheld consistently by the Supreme Court for years, so I don't really know what that's about. Hell, I wouldn't mind making a few changes to the Second Amendment, but, unfortunately, I hangin' with the framers, so I wasn't given the option. But even with that said, the Second Amendment, in full, reads like this:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The point wasn't that everyone should have a gun so that they can go hunting or even everyone should have a gun so that they can shoot the bad people who are coming after them.

Gun rights were meant to allow for the existence of citizen militias, in a time before large standing armies. Why it is, then, that the originalists are so hell-bent on preserving this is beyond me. At least liberal jurisprudence is honest--it accepts the fact that its "interpretations" can--and should--have policy motivations.

Back to Dobbs: he's a tool.

Station Identification

Work, work, work, work, work, work, work, work...

This is Ich Bin Ein Oberliner.

Put Down What You're Doing

And make sure there's nothing in your mouth. This is The Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti writing in The Washington Post (via va Whiskey Fire):

Like a lot of people, as soon as I got my copy of Sarah Palin's "Going Rogue," I immediately thought of the German literary critic Hans Robert Jauss.

I mean, I know that's what I thought.

Just Incoherent

I know I've already written about this, but, this from Media Matters has me baffled:

Despite the fear-mongering of many conservatives, the Obama administration's decision to prosecute five alleged 9/11 conspirators in New York City has the backing of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. "It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered," Bloomberg said last week, noting that the city has "hosted terrorism trials before."

However, a far-right congressman from the other side of the country doesn't appreciate Bloomberg's confidence in New Yorkers. Speaking on the House floor last night, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) went after Bloomberg personally, suggesting that the mayor's daughter could be "kidnapped at school by a terrorist" because of the trial:

SHADEGG: I saw the Mayor of New York said today, "We're tough. We can do it." Well, Mayor, how are you going to feel when it's your daughter that's kidnapped at school by a terrorist? How are you going to feel when it's some clerk -- some innocent clerk of the court -- whose daughter or son is kidnapped? Or the jailer's little brother or little sister? This is political correctness run amok.

I can't even parse the stupidity of Rep. Shadegg. Why would KSM's presence in NYC lead to the kidnapping of Mayor Bloomberg's daughter? So that he would free him? I'm pretty sure that this is a federal case, so kidnapping Bloomberg's daughter would do about as much as it would if KSM were still in Gitmo. As for kidnapping the kid of the "clerk of the court," why? Will the clerk then free him--even in the presence of massive security and ? And how is it that the terrorists are so amazing that they can go around kidnapping people's kids (even though they haven't yet)? And if they're that good, then why haven't they been able to kidnap, say, the child of the commander of Gitmo?

And then, when did charging criminals in court become "political correctness." Honestly, I have no idea what Shadegg means. Maybe anything Republicans don't like is now political correctness.

Normally, when Republicans are saying weird shit, I'm able to at least find an argument. The premises are almost always wrong, and occasionally there are deductive errors--but there's an argument.

Is Shadegg making an argument? If he is, I can neither discern the premises nor the logical connections between thoughts. I can project some thoughts:

(1) The terrorists are super-villains
(2) They will appear in any city where we put other terrorists on trial
(3) They will then indiscriminately kidnap children in an attempt to get the incarcerated terrorists freed.
(4) Or something.

Maybe I just don't speak stupid as well as I used to. Let me say this, though: Rep. Shadegg, if these guys represent an existential threat to the United States, then they want to destroy our civic institutions--like the rule of law. If we give up on that rule because of the terrorists, then that's a victory for them.

Sad Day

It is indeed a sad day when Giraldo Rivera is the voice of reason. But that's Fox News for you.

But, seriously folks, if the goal of terrorism is to inspire terror, then it seems to be working--at least over at Fox. Putting aside the most clearly irrational fear that, if terrorists are in NYC under lock and key, attending trial, they will somehow be able to cause--from sheer force of will--more terrorist attacks, let's focus on what I think is the more disturbing question: what if they're acquitted? It's nice to know that Fox has so little faith in the American system of justice that they believe it isn't capable of dealing with people as clearly guilty as KSM. It's almost funny (or at least it would be if it weren't so serious); after all, Fox and the rest of the Village's obsession with legal-political relativism is probably, in part, responsible for the undermining of faith in our legal institutions. They have, in effect, politicized the law.

All their hand-wringing over the mere possibility of legal proceedings against government officials who--it would seem--broke the law stems from their mistaken notion that to uphold the law (and prosecute tortures) is a political act on par with filibustering a bill or going on a talk show. The notion that a court makes findings of fact or tries to discover "the fact of the matter" seems utterly lost on them.

So, is it surprising that now, when there is a clear cut case of a crime and a remedy (judicial action), they treat it like political fodder, not an actual legal proceeding?

I'm not sure I'm articulating this part of my revulsion that well...

I'll let Glenzilla take you through the great irony of Republican manly-man-ness:

the Right's reaction to yesterday's announcement -- we're too afraid to allow trials and due process in our country -- is the textbook definition of "surrendering to terrorists." It's the same fear they've been spewing for years. As always, the Right's tough-guy leaders wallow in a combination of pitiful fear and cynical manipulation of the fear of their followers. Indeed, it's hard to find any group of people on the globe who exude this sort of weakness and fear more than the American Right.

People in capitals all over the world have hosted trials of high-level terrorist suspects using their normal justice system. They didn't allow fear to drive them to build island-prisons or create special commissions to depart from their rules of justice. Spain held an open trial in Madrid for the individuals accused of that country's 2004 train bombings. The British put those accused of perpetrating the London subway bombings on trial right in their normal courthouse in London. Indonesia gave public trials using standard court procedures to the individuals who bombed a nightclub in Bali. India used a Mumbai courtroom to try the sole surviving terrorist who participated in the 2008 massacre of hundreds of residents. In Argentina, the Israelis captured Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, and brought him to Jerusalem to stand trial for his crimes.

It's only America's Right that is too scared of the Terrorists -- or which exploits the fears of their followers -- to insist that no regular trials can be held and that "the safety and security of the American people" mean that we cannot even have them in our country to give them trials. As usual, it's the weakest and most frightened among us who rely on the most flamboyant, theatrical displays of "strength" and "courage" to hide what they really are. Then again, this is the same political movement whose "leaders" -- people like John Cornyn and Pat Roberts -- cowardly insisted that we must ignore the Constitution in order to stay alive: the exact antithesis of the core value on which the nation was founded. Given that, it's hardly surprising that they exude a level of fear of Terrorists that is unmatched virtually anywhere in the world. It is, however, noteworthy that the position they advocate -- it's too scary to have normal trials in our country of Terrorists -- is as pure a surrender to the Terrorists as it gets.

Yes, but liberals hate America, because we don't have any faith in the goodness of its institutions... or something.

Station Identification

The View From My Desk

The sky is blue! The sun is shining! The folks at Fox are freaking out! It's a beautiful Tuesday morning here in Oberlin, and things are looking up.

This is Ich Bin Ein Oberliner.

On the docket: (1) a new post at Oberlin Blogs, (2) what do the terrorists want? (3) Wilder Voice updates.

Too Dumb to Refute

Little known fact: not only is Obama a secret Kenyan, he's also an agent of Japanese Emperor. Sure, the Emperor has no real power now, but as we all know, Kenya has long been a major source of support for the erstwhile Japanese Emperor. Surely, it isn't too much of a stretch to think that the Kenyans--on behalf of the Japanese--sneaked birth announcements into Hawaiian newspapers so it would seem that Obama--who was chosen by a secret ACORN lottery--was eligible to be president.

Here is the easily-deducible meaning of this bow. As Japan-expert Karl Rove said, bowing is an act of weakness. Here, Obama bowed in order to let the Emperor know that he was ready to give Hawaii and California to the Japanese.

Or something.