Way back in 2006 during the Page scandal I wrote that the Republican Party had become a parody of itself. The farce continued over this week as the Conservatrons dished up hyperbole about Sotomayor’s ballyhooed “reverse racism.” What is incredible about this how ably the Conservatrons inserted this “controversy” into the media. Even as former representative Heather Wilson (R-NM) rejects the junior varsity fascism of skatmunchers like Rush Limbaugh on “Real Time”, she still bloviates about how “the question is, will Sotomayor apply the law equally to everyone” thereby keeping alive Limbaugh’s reactionary hooey in a way that is appropriate for respectable company. Because this equals conflict, the superfluous filer feeders in the mainstream media report on it breathlessly.
Thus the Conservatrons win the meme war, but for the rest of us actual Americans, the idea that an accomplished Latina might once have made a jocose statement appropriating broad stereotypes about her ethnicity/culture by stating that a person with her background might reach a better conclusion on an issue than a white man without her life experiences is boring. That’s because we know a variety of people and and get how a person celebrating their own culture does not equate to them hating everyone else. Duh! I know this because I am a wily Jew.
In short, while the Conservatrons are still decent tacticians, their resentment mongering is so impertinent and ugly that no reasonable person takes it seriously. Sadly, this is where the Conservatron tragedy comes in.
Generalissimo Bush and the Conservatrons coup d’etated and fearmongered the reactionary Nixonian/Reaganite conservative ideology well beyond the expiration dates of its ideas. During Conservatisms long nadir (2005-2008) Team Bush used their official power to stall and delay popular positions on the economy, health care, environment, foreign wars etc. etc. Once power finally returned to the Democrats, the vast majority of America’s polity had progressed far beyond the Conservatrons’ politics. The ensuing era of rapid but orderly change is still at the start of its beginnings.
It is no surprise that the shrinking minority of Conservatron dead enders are feeling bewildered as their countrymen lap them in the great 8000 km steeplechase towards modernity. It is doubly no surprise that some of these encrustations turn to violence when the majoritorian political process leaves them so greatly outnumbered. The purposeful inciting of these “left behinds” is the disturbing place where the stressed out hyperbole from the Conservatron echo chamber meets the attacks on Democratic lawmakers in Arkansas or the murder of Dr. Tiller or the creepy venom of last fall’s McPalin rallies that sought to tar the current President of the United States as a terrorist ally. Conservatron commentators are not directly at fault for the violence, but violence is the logical extreme of soft-serve racism that has been the engine of their ideology. That’s how it shook out forty-one years ago when the Conservatrons first attained power.
First there was Newt and Rush attacking John Cornyn of all people (like he’s some kind of RINO)… now we have Freepers and Michelle Malkin attacking BillO the Clown as being too liberal for not wishing Sotomayor dead.
There’s nothing to analyze here. They are just imploding. Pass the popcorn.
I know nothing ever seems like it will happen until it happens, but as much as North Korea has stamped its feet to get concessions in the past, the latest signs are very aggressive and are in the context of Kim Jong Il apparently being almost dead. So, the pretenders to the throne have to show they haaard.
The Koreas, along with Kashmir, are the two most important danger zones in the world. Whatever you think of the war in Afghanistan (I have always supported it), it at least gives us a footprint in the latter zone. We’ve, of course, long been present in Korea and have substantial forces nearby in Japan and other Pacific islands.
But what would we do in the case of total war between the North and South? Would we be more likely to go nuclear because we have fewer troops there than we used to, with so many in Iraq? I don’t know.
But I don’t think you can question that the burden on the military in Iraq—which was never any kind of threat to us—ongoing to this day has made it very hard for us to deal with other more dangerous places, Afghanistan included.
This is what happens when you get into a war/peace dichotomy. Saying you should fight no wars isn’t real. Saying that every war makes sense is stupid. We elect our leaders to be smart… Bush’s failures will be a problem for a long time yet.
Sotomayor = Bush (and this is bad).
Remember, Bush was the basis for Bluto Blutarsky. Zero. Point. Zero.
How many times have I said this?
Over at the Washington Monthly, Jonathan Gruber writes that universal healthcare would create more fluid job markets and spur entrepreneurship:
Is it just me, or have the Republicans been leveling a lot of criticism against Obama by saying what he’s doing is somehow the same as what Bush did.
Such as when Cheney criticizes his war policies, or, as at that link when they compare Sotomayor to Harriet Myers. I’m not sure this is such a good strategy..
6-1 upholding the Prop, 7-0 upholding existing marriages. My prediction was pretty good:
There are basically two questions before the Court. First, should the court strike Prop 8. For that, my final on the record prediction is, no, they won’t strike Prop 8, and I’m going to say the vote will be 5-2. Second, Prop 8 apply retroactively to the gay marriages that occurred between the earlier Cal Supreme case and Prop 8. They will say no, those marriages are valid 4-3, the same that ruled previously. There’s a chance this is 7-0 since the law on retroactivity is clear: it must be explicit in the law, and it’s not explicit.
Now I need to read the opinion to see what else it says.
Update I: I think we need to take a look back through some of the older voter initiative constitutional amendments and see if this new decision might revive them.
The petitioners in the Marriage Cases asserted that this language was intended and should be interpreted to apply only to marriages entered into in a jurisdiction other than California, but this court unanimously rejected that contention, concluding that the statutory language in question reasonably must be interpreted to apply to marriages performed in California as well as to those performed in other jurisdictions. (43 Cal.4th at pp. 796-801.) In light of that holding, and the background and “legislative” history of Proposition 8 contained in the ballot pamphlet materials relating to that measure, it is clear that the section added to the California Constitution by Proposition 8 — which contains language identical to that found in Family Code section 308.5 — applies both to marriages performed in California and to those performed in other jurisdictions.
* * *
First, as we already have noted, in light of the interpretation of the language of Proposition 22 in the Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal.4th at pages 796-800, as well as the history of Proposition 8 itself, there is no question but that article I, section 7.5 ― the section added by Proposition 8 to the California Constitution ― properly must be interpreted to apply both to marriages performed in California and to marriages performed in other jurisdictions.
This would seem to suggest that out of state marriages are invalid. But when? What if they occurred before Prop 8?
The opinion goes out of its way to say that the only thing taken away here is the word “marriage” not its substantive rights. In other words, separate but equal.
Werdegar’s concurrence is interesting, but I’m a bit disappointed—I thought she would be the 2nd vote to strike.