Monthly Archives: November 2013
Nothing. And I mean nothing makes me despise humanity more than the wanton killing of animals. Not politics, not religion not anything. I can only fantasize that this smiling fucking cunt could meet the same horrific fate. I saw this a few days ago and I was so repulsed by it that I forced it from my memory. However today I came across this.
The previous thread had as it’s topic an academic exercise in debating whether or not the Constitution should undergo some updating. I say yes. In my opinion it’s a foregone conclusion. The evidence for being ameanable is glaring, most of us have eyes and any reasonable person; educated, elected or not should agree. Except southerners. Ghosts of the Civil War. Calling Ken Burns.
The history of behavior, intention and outcome should be a sign post of warning. Death (figuratively or not) comes suddenly and it’s the easily beguiled who don’t pay attention. And thus their time is cut short. There has never been a human construct; in any sense of the word that has remained impervious, static or otherwise fantastically impenetrable to the unknowable and unfathomable forces in the universe. In that sense, we are alone. With each other. Big boats. So make room for the stink and the sweat.
The filibuster came about because of the death of Alexander Hamilton. No mention of it in the sacred paper.
So what do you all think? I think “we” are the foregone conclusion and thus are looking back on the past and are so beyond it.
So with that I say the word god, bible and filibuster are absent in the constitution.
Many of you wondered why I posted the video of Cruz with Leno the other day and part of it was to dispel the misconceptions many of you have of him. I also want to dispel the myth that Reagan would not be welcome amongst many current conservatives. Reagan was actually a Tea Partier before there was a Tea Party. Reagan challenged the status quo of the day, and an incumbent Republican President. I think you will notice many similarities with current conservative positions from this video of Reagan with Carson:
It’s been a while since we’ve devoted a post to the Freak Show, but a couple of items this week were too, um, freaky to pass up.
First, Ron Paul. Kevin Drum writes, “Way back in 2012, when he was running for president, Ron Paul seemed to some people like a breath of fresh air. Sure, maybe he was a bit of a crank, but at least he didn’t sanitize his beliefs in order to avoid offending people. He said what he meant, and he meant what he said.”
Well, maybe not. Earlier this week we got the unfiltered Ron Paul stumping on behalf of Ken Cuccinelli’s failed campaign for governor of Virginia. From Drum’s article:
“Jefferson obviously was a clear leader on the principle of nullification,” the former Texas congressman said of the third president. “I’ve been working on the assumption that nullification is going to come. It’s going to be a de facto nullification. It’s ugly, but pretty soon things are going to get so bad that we’re just going to ignore the feds and live our own lives in our own states.”
….He tore into the Constitution’s 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it’s the one that allows for the direct election of U.S. senators by popular vote. “That undermined the principle importance of the states,” said Paul.
He criticized the 16th Amendment, which allowed the federal income tax. After the crowd chanted “End the Fed,” Paul decried the printing of more money by the Federal Reserve.“We need someone to stand up to the authoritarians,” he said. “They’re dictators.”
….He stressed that the constitutional “right to keep and bear arms” was not for hunting, but to allow rebellion against tyrannical governments. “The Second Amendment was not there so you could shoot rabbits,” he said. “Right now today, we have a great threat to our liberties internally.”
To sane Americans, this Ron Paul does indeed sound like a kook. As Drum says, “[T]he most remarkable part of all this is that the rest of us–centrists, liberals, non-insane Republicans, the press, etc.–are expected to shrug off this kind of thing as nothing more than a sort of boys-will-be-boys stemwinder, not to be taken seriously. Remarkable indeed.” Ed Kilgore asks, “can you imagine a statewide Democratic candidate anywhere, much less in a ‘purple state,’ associating himself or herself so conspicuously with such ravings? No, you can’t.” Exactly.
Now on to Ted Cruz. Andrew Sullivan had a post yesterday that was perfectly titled: Ted Cruz’s Jeremiah Wright. Who’s that? Why, it’s Ted’s father, Rafael Cruz. David Corns has a rundown of many of the incendiary things the elder Cruz has said, including the videos. In response to Corn’s reporting, Ted dismisses his father’s rants as “a joke”. Good luck with that! Corns followed up his original reporting by asking, “Does Ted Cruz Believe His Critics Will be Condemned by God?”
There might be a much bigger issue regarding Ted Cruz’s response to the article about his father. In July, the senator, with his father by his side, accepted the blessings of fundamentalist pastors in Iowa (see above) who are adherents of Christian Reconstructionism, a view that holds that God anoints individuals to be “kings” who strive to influence or control key institutions of society (say, the government) as a prelude to the second coming of Christ. The blessing of Ted Cruz contained this line: “Father, we believe that no weapon formed against [Cruz] will prosper and every tongue that rises up against him in judgment will be condemned.”
This blessing seems to suggest that the pastors believe that those who criticize Ted Cruz will be condemned by God. This certainly seems in sync with Rafael Cruz’s remarks and his preaching at religious gatherings of fellow evangelicals. But a serious question is raised: does Ted Cruz himself see his detractors as being on the wrong side of God? Can those who raise inconvenient questions about him or his father expect to receive a mighty smiting from above?
This is no joke. Such a mindset—my detractors are destined for hell—could certainly affect how Cruz would govern, should he reach the pinnacle of power. Given that he willingly accepted this blessing, it would hardly be inappropriate to ask Cruz what he thought of it. Actually, I did. Along with those queries noted above, I asked his office whether Senator Cruz believes that his critics will be condemned by God? No answer yet on that, either. I suppose those who report unflattering facts about the senator may have to wait until Judgment Day to see if those Cruz-courted pastors have it right.
This is the kind of mindset I was thinking of back when I said anyone who truly believes we are in the Biblical End Times is not fit to hold public office. I’m not against religion or Christianity per se; I just don’t think people who believe they are about to usher in the End Times should be running the country for the rest of us.
And lest you think the two Cruz’s don’t have much of relationship, let’s remember that unlike Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, Ted Cruz routinely trots out his father as his spokesman. As Corns points out, “According to campaign disclosure records, Cruz’s Senate campaign paid Rafael Cruz about $10,000 in traveling expenses in 2012 and 2013. And in August the conservative National Review noted that the father-son duo had forged a ‘political partnership,’ reporting: ‘Cruz has kept his father, a 74-year-old pastor, involved with his political shop, using him not merely as a confidant and stand-in, but as a special envoy. He is Cruz’s preferred introductory speaker, his best messenger with evangelicals, and his favorite on-air sidekick.’ Put it this way: Rafael Cruz is far closer to Ted Cruz and his political endeavors than Jeremiah Wright was to Obama and his campaigns.”
An update on a couple of stories from the past week…
You will recall the story about the “next Fox News Obamacare poster victim,” Dianne Barrette. She was the woman who received a notice from her insurance company that her health care insurance premium was going up by a factor of ten, which was made an issue by CBS News. She did make it onto the Greta Van Susteren show on Fox, but by then her story was rapidly deflating, leaving Van Susteren with an awkward interview. Sadly, Ms. Barrette didn’t pass the this-is-a-good-story-for-Fox-News test, so her planned subsequent network appearances were canceled.
Meanwhile, a number of actual reporters followed up on her story, and now Ms. Barrette has changed her tune. Aside from the fact that her so-called insurance is not what most people would even consider to be insurance, she can get coverage via the exchanges for as little as about $100 a month — about $50 more than she pays for her non-insurance.
Jonathan Cohn goes into considerably more detail about Ms. Barrette’s options, including the types of trade-offs people face when weighing various health care options. He summarizes:
Even so, Barrette’s take is a reminder that people can have a longer-view perspective about medical bills than pundits frequently assume. When I gave her a broad description of the plans available, she seemed interested. I noted that she’d be paying $100 or $150 extra a month for policies that still had high cost-sharing, so that she would still be a lot of money out of her own pocket. (I also made very clear that I’m not an insurance agent or broker—that, when she finally goes shopping for insurance, she should talk to a real expert for advice.) Here was her response: “I would jump at it,” she said. “With my age, things can happen. I don’t want to have bills that could make me bankrupt. I don’t want to lose my house.”
Barrette can’t be sure until she sees the numbers for herself. And so far she hasn’t been able to do so, thanks to the technological problems at healthcare.gov. But as she’s become more aware of her options, she said, she’s no longer aghast at losing her plan—and curious to see what alternatives are available. “Maybe,” she told me, “it’s a blessing in disguise.”
Saturday’s Tweet Of The Day was about the the propensity of Rand Paul and/or his staff to plagiarize the work of others in his writing and speeches. Having this pointed out has made Rand angry. He wishes he could challenge people like Rachel Maddow to a duel. Meanwhile, the instances of plagiarism continue to pile up.
Today, the New York Times published an article after interviewing Paul, who “offered a mix of contrition and defiance. He said that he was not certain whether it would affect his prospects should he decide to run for president in 2016 — he said he would happily return to his Kentucky doctor’s practice — and he asserted that he was being unfairly targeted.” Promising that “that there would be an office ‘restructuring’ to prevent future occurrences,” he told the Times:
“What we are going to do from here forward, if it will make people leave me the hell alone, is we’re going to do them like college papers,” he said. “We’re going to try to put out footnotes. We’re going to have them available. If people want to request the footnoted version, we’re going to have it available.”
This comes on the heels of him whining on “This Week” that “I think I’m being unfairly targeted by a bunch of hacks and haters.”
Meanwhile, The Washington Times has ended Paul’s weekly column. “We expect our columnists to submit original work and to properly attribute material, and we appreciate that the senator and his staff have taken responsibility for an oversight in one column,” Times Editor John Solomon said.
I’ve got a deal for you, Rand. How about if we leave you the hell alone and you leave us the hell alone.