The handwringing over at RedState.com is really fun to watch right now. This post is classic. And there's quite a little spat that breaks out in the comments. It gets to be a real hoot about 1/3 of the way down when the poster (Neil Stevens) gets into it with a reader AKA'd as eastbaylarry.
It could be interesting - especially so if Erick Erickson continues what looks like an attempt to widen the Republicans' appeal (I assume to attract the ever-elusive Independent Voter), while at the some time narrowing the party's identity by chasing out The Birthers and The Nullifiers, etc.
Monday, March 22, 2010
David Frum
The guy pretzles himself in a big way. From his blog.
This is a guy who's done his share of throwing fuel on the partisan fire - going as far towards the logical extreme as anybody else - and here he is saying, "Gosh, why's everybody so pissed off all the time?"
But just when I think he's gonna say something reasonable (like, maybe this won't be so bad - maybe we should wait and see), he goes back over the top and jumps straight into Blame-The-Media-No-Matter-What mode. Except, now, he's blaming the Conservative Bias of The Media(?) WTF? I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I heard any of these guys even acknowledge the existence of Conservative Media.
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
This is a guy who's done his share of throwing fuel on the partisan fire - going as far towards the logical extreme as anybody else - and here he is saying, "Gosh, why's everybody so pissed off all the time?"
But just when I think he's gonna say something reasonable (like, maybe this won't be so bad - maybe we should wait and see), he goes back over the top and jumps straight into Blame-The-Media-No-Matter-What mode. Except, now, he's blaming the Conservative Bias of The Media(?) WTF? I'm having a hard time remembering the last time I heard any of these guys even acknowledge the existence of Conservative Media.
I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters – but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say – but what is equally true – is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed – if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office – Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.
I'd sure like to see somebody pick up on this. It's just possible we're seeing a Bill Buckley moment here.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Break Free
The more we spend on oil, the more money the bad guys get to spend on attacking us.
If you oppose efforts to move away from fossil fuels (ie: clean energy legislation, carbon tax/cap-and-trade, etc), then you're supporting a status quo that makes it more probable that we will be attacked.
If we take more steps that dry up some more of their sources of funding (like NOT sending so much money to the Saudis), then assholes like al-Qaeda get fewer dollars they can use to buy things to blow shit up. Get it?
If you oppose efforts to move away from fossil fuels (ie: clean energy legislation, carbon tax/cap-and-trade, etc), then you're supporting a status quo that makes it more probable that we will be attacked.
If we take more steps that dry up some more of their sources of funding (like NOT sending so much money to the Saudis), then assholes like al-Qaeda get fewer dollars they can use to buy things to blow shit up. Get it?
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Happy Vernal Equinox, Everybody!
Just a great tune for any random Saturday, but on a day when the year seems to teeter between falling back into winter or stumbling forward into spring, there's a nice bitter sweet vibe to this.
Gaming The System
It's hard for me to imagine they're not teaching this in Business School now. This looks like a near-classic example of a 'turnaround' - taking a negative and selling it as a positive; or in this case, defining your competitor's action as a negative and using it to bolster your own image by portraying yourself as the underdog.
This really looks like UPS is trying to level out the playing field by lobbying for a change in regulations so that all the package delivery entities come under the same set of labor laws. But we've got this website (brownbailout.com) complete with a parody of UPS's white board guy using all the negative buzzwords - bailout, monopoly, etc - trying to whip up a little counter-frenzy against UPS's efforts. BTW: who owns brownbailout.com? Why, FedX of course.
They all talk about healthy competition and fairness, but when it comes time to nut up or shut up, they're looking for cover behind whatever politician they can get at a discount.
These people have no soul and no honor.
Xspot by Mixpo
This really looks like UPS is trying to level out the playing field by lobbying for a change in regulations so that all the package delivery entities come under the same set of labor laws. But we've got this website (brownbailout.com) complete with a parody of UPS's white board guy using all the negative buzzwords - bailout, monopoly, etc - trying to whip up a little counter-frenzy against UPS's efforts. BTW: who owns brownbailout.com? Why, FedX of course.
They all talk about healthy competition and fairness, but when it comes time to nut up or shut up, they're looking for cover behind whatever politician they can get at a discount.
These people have no soul and no honor.
Xspot by Mixpo
Friday, March 19, 2010
Majority Now
Caveat: It's a little semantic, but I've never liked the popular notion of "Majority Rules". In a democracy the majority decides the question at hand; the decision of the majority carries the day. But in a democracy, nobody 'rules' anything or anybody at any time.
Also, I think it's important to remember that we've seen some bad shit going on because of Majority Rules. Jim Crow for one example. And let's not forget that the most popular car in the world in 1971 was the Ford Pinto.
Just because you can get 51% to go along with your idea doesn't necessarily mean your idea is a good one.
That said, here's a pretty good one from Mark Fiore:
Also, I think it's important to remember that we've seen some bad shit going on because of Majority Rules. Jim Crow for one example. And let's not forget that the most popular car in the world in 1971 was the Ford Pinto.
Just because you can get 51% to go along with your idea doesn't necessarily mean your idea is a good one.
That said, here's a pretty good one from Mark Fiore:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)