The Patriarchy Whines Back

Yesterday much of the leftie blogosphere came down on James Taranto for dismissing efforts to curb sexual assault in the military as a “war on men” and an “effort to criminalize male sexuality.” I mentioned this at the end of this post. Now Taranto whines that the feminazis are picking on him.

Taranto had expressed approval of a clemency granted to an officer who was convicted of aggravated sexual assault. Today he writes,

Our argument infuriated feminists, yielding hundreds of tweets and perhaps a dozen posts on various leftist websites. Particularly noteworthy was a tweet from @Invisible_War, which promotes a documentary described as “a groundbreaking investigation into the epidemic of rape in the US military.” The tweet read: “Appalling: @WSJ’s @jamestaranto thinks we’re criminalizing male sexuality by prosecuting military rape.”

That is an utter falsehood. Our column discussed sexual assault but made no specific mention of rape, a distinct and more serious offense under military law. Herrera was not accused of rape.

It was aggravated sexual assault, which sounds a whole lot like rape to me. If military law doesn’t consider aggravated sexual assault to be that big a deal, then there’s a problem with military law.

Taranto also complains that some of the comments made about him were “abusive.” Seriously. Saying unkind things about him on the Twitter is “abusive.” But aggravated sexual assault is just boys being boys.

I feel an urge to demonstrate to Taranto what “abusive” means. But he’s not worth the effort, frankly.

Update: It gets worse. See Digby and also Think Progress —

Taranto followed up his op-ed with an appearance on Wall Street Journal’s video channel, where he argued that “female sexual freedom” is responsible for a “war on men,” and that war is embodied in allegations of sexual assault. During that interview, he also said that a woman alleging assault and a man denying it “differed… on whether she consented.” Taranto also cast doubt on the report because someone present “didn’t even hear this going on.”

“What does female sexual freedom mean?” Taranto added, “It means, for this woman, that she had the freedom to get drunk and get in the back seat of a car with this guy.”

I feel like declaring war on James Taranto. This monster needs to be out of a job.

Why Texans Are Sheep

Texas governor Rick Perry is to the welfare of Texas citizens what a black hole is to matter. Yesterday I linked to an article that explained how Perry, and conservatives in the Texas legislature, are allowing construction companies to get around existing law so that workers have no insurance, no workman’s comp, no safety net whatsoever.

Not only do these workers lack health insurance – in Texas, workers’ comp is optional – they’re also not paid by the hour, don’t receive overtime pay, lack safety training and, of course, get no retirement plan. If you venture out to one of the many subdivisions being built just about anywhere in Texas, you’ll see row upon row of houses under construction. The workers, mainly Latinos, are one serious injury away from needing the volunteers of the Living Hope Wheelchair Association or other faith-based groups. They’re toiling in the hot Texas sun with no safety net. If they’re hurt, they’ll be patched up at the emergency room. Their employer will not get a bill. You and I will pick up the tab through our property taxes. Socialized medicine at its best, I suppose.

Perry also just vetoed a bill that would have prevented wage discrimination against women. And last week the “Merry Christmas” bill was signed into law.

The measure allows schools to display religious symbols such as nativity scenes and Christmas trees so long as at least one other religious image or secular icon is also included. …

…“It’s a shame that a bill like this one I’m signing today is even required, but I’m proud that we’re standing up for religious freedom in this state,” Perry said at a “Religious freedom does not mean freedom from religion.” …

… At the Thursday signing ceremony for the new law, cheerleaders from Kountze High School wore t-shirts that read “I cheer for Christ.”

In May, a Texas judge ruled that the cheerleaders could continue to display signs at football games emblazoned with Bible verses.

Since this is Texas, in effect this means the public school system will revert to being a recruiting arm for evangelical Christianity. Let’s see what happens when a kid shows up at school with a yab-yum T-shirt. Freedom from religion will start to make sense to them then, I suspect.

Texans vote for these clowns. Texans are sheep.

Faux News at Its Worst

I’m returning to the world of people who can breathe through their noses. I have a lot of catching up to do, but do see Jonathan Chait’s “The Fox News–iest Segment in Fox News History.” It’s a clip of Bill O’Reilly in full Bullying Purveyor of Ignorance mode that is horribly fascinating. It’s like animated road kill — ghastly, but try not to watch.

Also don’t miss Alan Colmes, playing the role of useful idiot/alleged liberal foil, whose “defense” of President Obama is just mushy enough to give O’Reilly’s tirade a veneer of plausibility. As PM Carpenter says,

Yet to me the most captivating character on the “Factor”‘s set is not Bill O’Reilly, but Alan Colmes, Fox News’ “feeble” and “sniveling” token of liberalism who appears regularly on the network only to be abused, interrupted, and humiliated. Colmes is all too happy to oblige, hence his regular appearances; plus, he routinely delivers some of the weakest intellectual arguments for and wimpish defenses of liberalism, or the left, or the center-left, or whatever you care to call it. Fox calls it delightful, since it’s so poorly represented.

Is Holmes real, or is he a CGI?

First Amendment Primer (for Righties)

Righties do love their First Amendment rights, but they don’t understand them very well. For example, on the Right it is commonly believed the right to freedom of speech includes a right to not be disagreed with. (This is something I’ve written about before, so for examples, see “This Is Rich,” and “America Has Lost Its Mind.”)

But no, dear ones, it does not. The free speech part of the First Amendment protects you from government interference of your speech. For example, if you own a newspaper, and a government agent drops by every day to decide what stories and editorials you can or cannot print, that would be infringing on your rights. However, if the mayor of your town publicly complains about your news coverage, but doesn’t try to stop you from covering news as you see fit, that is not an infringement on your rights.

By the same token, government cannot tell you what to say. If a government agent came to you with propaganda and demanded you print it in your newspaper, you would be within your rights to say no, I won’t. But this is another point often lost on righties. For example, for years conservatives in several states have been passing laws that determine what a physician must say to a woman seeking an abortion, even if the physician thinks the speech is garbage and doesn’t want to say it. This, my lovelies, is an obvious infringement on the physicians’ right to free speech, but so far several red states have gotten away with it.

U.S. case law has long recognized that “speech” is sometimes non-verbal, so that opinions expressed in gestures or art, for example, enjoy the same protection as editorials and speeches. For this reason, courts have long recognized that burning a U.S. flag in protest of some federal government policy, as offensive as that might be, is protected speech. Even so, conservatives have wanted to make flag burning illegal or unconstitutional for years. By the same token, you can count on conservatives to be first in line to stop the display of art they don’t like. Conservatives have issues with academic freedom, also, and want to control what is said in classrooms. (Note to rightie readers: forcing children to recite prayers in a public school classroom is an infringement of their right to their own free exercise of religion, never mind an infringement of the establishment clause.)

Freedom of speech is not absolute. You cannot drive around in your neighborhood at 2 a.m. blasting your political opinions through a megaphone, for example. There are limitations on the display of pornography. Graffiti and naughty words may get you fined. But on the whole, speech is pretty much a free-for-all here in the U.S., as it should be. Expect to take what you dish out.

I bring this up because of a couple of recent episodes involving free speech rights.

Paul Guaschino was driving with an “impeach Obama” bumper sticker on his car, when another driver flipped him the bird. We assume that the other driver was objecting to the bumper sticker, which is not necessarily true, but that’s how Guaschino took it. Guaschino followed the other driver to a traffic light, and while both vehicles were stopped, Guaschino got out of his car and began to pound the other vehicle with a baseball bat. The other motorist, recognizing unhinged craziness when he saw it, fled. Police apprehended Guaschino and filed criminal charges against him.

As Digby said,

But you have to love the irony of somebody exercising his freedom of speech, as he has every right to do, but gets enraged and violent when someone exercises theirs in response. I suppose it’s just intense frustration that, after all they’ve been told, the majority of the country doesn’t agree with them and actually thinks they’re jerks.

But of course, the usual righties are cheering for Guaschino, whereas if a leftie so much as looks at a conservative cross-eyed, all lefties are goons and thugs.

But this brings me back to my original point, which is that conservatives believe freedom of speech includes protection from being disagreed with (sorry about the dangling participle). I ran into this post the other day (featuring a shout out to our own c u n d gulag!) written by a rightie blogger who believes criticism of Faux Snooze amounts to an infringement of Faux’s right to free speech, i.e., pretending to be a news organization while really being a mouthpiece for whatever agenda Rupert Murdoch is pushing this week. And the blogger thinks it is just OUTRAGEOUS that people — including President Obama — trample on Faux’s First Amendment rights by saying such things as I just said, because it’s the truth. But as gulag pointed out in the comments,

that he continues to allow FUX Noise the use of the PUBLIC AIRWAVES, to spread their stupid, ignorant, racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and/or homophobic, propaganda!

Just like Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and Saddam Hussein, did in their Totalitarian states!

Snark. It’s a beautiful thing. And protected by the First Amendment!

What Does the GOP Want?

In our last episode, we learned that Republicans want to change the rules so that corporations and empty land count as people, but actual voters are only 3/5ths of a person.

Today the New York Times editorial page is getting downright shrill, and not just because of the vote rigging thing (Charles Blow, “Rig the Vote“). Get a load of the lead editorial:

For most of President Obama’s first term, Republicans used legislative trickery to try to prevent the functioning of two federal agencies they hate, the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. First they would filibuster the president’s nominees to the agencies, knowing that neither agency could operate without board members or a director. Then they would create fake legislative sessions for the Senate during its recess, intended solely to prevent Mr. Obama from making recess appointments as an end run.

Astonishingly, a federal appeals court upheld this strategy on Friday. Mr. Obama had declared that Congress was not really open for business during its one-minute, lights-on-lights-off sessions intended only to thwart him, and he made recess appointments. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said his N.L.R.B. appointments were unconstitutional, buying the argument of Republicans that the Senate was really in session.

The court even broke with the presidential practice of 150 years by ruling that only vacancies arising during a narrow recess period qualify for recess appointments.

See also “Yet More GOP Obstruction.”

Steve M notes the SCOTUS will review the Voting Rights Act this year, also — “I think it’s safe to say that the fix is in.” Nice republic you had there, while it lasted.

Meanwhile, Jennifer Rubin snarks about Democratic Party totalitarianism; Peggy Noonan warns that President Obama is out to crush the Republican Party; the Ace of Spades thinks “we must do something about the media” because its been allowed to say nice things about Hillary Clinton; and some guy at World Nut Daily asks, “Is Obama Biblical Lord of the Flies?” You can’t make that up. Well, WND can, but I couldn’t.

Hitler and the Gun Nuts

You’ve probably noticed that whenever someone talks about gun control, the wingnuts shriek that Hitler confiscated the guns! I’ve long been skeptical of that claim, but I never bothered to check it out. Well, there’s a historian named Bernard Harcourt who fact-checked the Hitler confiscated guns claim, and he says it’s bogus.

As it turns out, the Weimar Republic, the German government that immediately preceded Hitler’s, actually had tougher gun laws than the Nazi regime. After its defeat in World War I, and agreeing to the harsh surrender terms laid out in the Treaty of Versailles, the German legislature in 1919 passed a law that effectively banned all private firearm possession, leading the government to confiscate guns already in circulation. In 1928, the Reichstag relaxed the regulation a bit, but put in place a strict registration regime that required citizens to acquire separate permits to own guns, sell them or carry them.

The 1938 law signed by Hitler that LaPierre mentions in his book basically does the opposite of what he says it did. “The 1938 revisions completely deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as ammunition,” Harcourt wrote. Meanwhile, many more categories of people, including Nazi party members, were exempted from gun ownership regulations altogether, while the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18, and permit lengths were extended from one year to three years.

You mean, Wayne LaPierre lied? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you … For more, see ON GUN REGISTRATION, THE NRA, ADOLF HITLER, AND NAZI GUN LAWS: EXLPODING THE GUN CULTURE WARS by Bernard Harcourt.

It’s true that Jews and other people identified by the Reich as “problems” were not allowed to own guns. But another historian, Omer Bartov, pooh-poohs the idea that if the Jews had been armed they could have avoided the Holocaust. “Just imagine the Jews of Germany exercising the right to bear arms and fighting the SA, SS and the Wehrmacht. The [Russian] Red Army lost 7 million men fighting the Wehrmacht, despite its tanks and planes and artillery. The Jews with pistols and shotguns would have done better?”

By the same token, today’s “patriots” armed with assault weapons quickly could be rendered into a quivering pile of protoplasm by the U.S. military. One would have to be demented to think otherwise.

Bartov, of Brown University, continues,

“Their assertion that they need these guns to protect themselves from the government — as supposedly the Jews would have done against the Hitler regime — means not only that they are innocent of any knowledge and understanding of the past, but also that they are consciously or not imbued with the type of fascist or Bolshevik thinking that they can turn against a democratically elected government, indeed turn their guns on it, just because they don’t like its policies, its ideology, or the color, race and origin of its leaders.”

The fanciful notion that the Second Amendment arms citizens so they are perpetually prepared to overthrow the government (see example) is a gross distortion of history, of course. There is a credible argument to be made that the Second Amendment was written to make sure that the federal government could not deprive the states of their militias. And the reason the early Republic chose to maintain state militias was that some people of the time were nervous about maintaining a large standing regular army. But the Second Amendment obviously is concerned with arming a militia, and the first purpose of the militia was state and national defense.

The very first time state militias were called into federal service was to put down a tax rebellion in Pennsylvania, the Whiskey Rebellion. President George Washington actually put on a military uniform and rode at the head of the troops. If you listen to today’s Gun Nuts, the second amendment was written so that the whiskey rebels could defend themselves against George Washington’s militia. I don’t think so.

The NRA wants to register crazy people instead of guns. Considering this guy, this guy, and these guys

The U.S. Government effectively dissolved, in either the Civil War or 1933, when it went off the gold standard. And because of that, “you don’t have to pay your taxes, pay off your house, you don’t really owe anybody anything, and by the way if you file the right documents, you can get as much as $20 million from the federal government.”

That’s right, the government actually owes you money. See, when it went off the gold standard, in order to maintain this false sense of legitimacy, the illuminati turned us all into “straw men.” Those capital letters on our birth certificates are our straw man names, and our Social Security numbers are just a way to keep track of us. The government then convinced some suckers in China and other countries to fork over their hard-earned Yuan for a stake in Americans’ future earning potential, anywhere from $600,000 to $20 million, per person. The so-called U.S. Government has been cashing in on you since the day you were born, somehow. And all you have to do to collect is file the right paperwork—and in the meantime, refuse to acknowledge the straw man.

I seriously think that gun nut extremism is some kind of mental pathology. So maybe we should take them up on the crazy people registry thing.

Because We Can’t Control Stupid …

Veep Joe Biden says he will have recommendations for gun control measures this Tuesday. The Veep said yesterday that he’s seeing a lot of support for a universal background check law. No more gun show loophole. Limiting magazine capacity also appears to be popular.

You might have heard there was another school shooting yesterday, in California. The shooter, a 16-year-old, had a 12-guage shotgun. One student was severely wounded but is still alive as of this morning. Another student and a science teacher were slightly injured. The science teacher was able to talk the boy into putting down his gun.

There is speculation, but no confirmation that I’ve seen, that the school had an armed guard.

We’ll never know, but it’s possible that if the young man had been carrying an AR-15 semi-auto military rifle with a 30-round magazine instead of the 12-guage, there would have been many more casualties. This is assuming the shooter had a standard or even a pump-action shotgun — meaning he would have to do something between rounds to make the gun work — and not one of the newer auto-loading types.

There’s a push to start using the phrase “gun safety” instead of “gun control,” in an effort to win over some of the second amendment absolutists. The theory is that the absolutists are afraid of the word “control” but are likely to feel all warm and fuzzy about “safety.” I suppose it won’t hurt, but remember who you are dealing with. Don’t expect it to work.

In other wingnut news, we see that algebra is a liberal plot. Fox News host Eric Bolling learned that students are being asked to solve distributive property problems in algebra class and assumed this was some kind of socialism. One does wonder if this crew is bright enough to find their own butts.

Boehner and the Baggers

There are still four days of meetings scheduled, but the big stumbling blocks to a fiscal cliff deal are John Boehner the teabagger bitter enders in the House. Boehner has said he won’t bring any bill to the House unless he can get a majority of the Republican caucus to support it. But the baggers are all about destruction and chaos and monkey wrenches, so there’s no hope for a yes vote unless Boehner is persuaded to introduce a bill that will get all the Dem and a minority of Republican votes.

Boehner and the Baggers — sounds a bit like an early 1960s rock band. I’m thinking surf/bagpipe fusion.

Joan Walsh says the President is holding all the cards. It could be an interesting weekend.

Why the Tea Party Is to Government What Cancer Is to a Body

Yesterday Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner added to the fiscal cliff fiasco by announcing the debt ceiling will be reached by Monday or so, and needs to be raised.

And along with the taxes and budget cuts thing is the little detail that the “doc fix” hasn’t been fixed. The “doc fix” is a legacy of the 1997 Congress that ties physician Medicare reimbursement rates to growth (or not) in the GNP. Since 2003 Congress has voted every year to defer changes, meaning cuts, to physician reimbursement rates. The 2012 fix, which was agreed to in the waning days of 2011, will expire at the end of the year, and when that happens physician Medicare reimbursement will be cut by 27 percent.

There’s also a dairy farm subsidy bill that needs extending to keep the price of milk from going up to $6 a gallon.

All of these things — the farm bill, the debt ceiling, the doc fix — used to be passed pretty much without a burp out of Congress, because most of the lawmakers had the sense to know they really didn’t have a choice about it.

But now we’ve got the Tea Party, and all bets are off. The baggers want to hold every bit of legislation they can hostage so that they can further destroy the government they hate. And there’s enough of them in Congress that Congress is now pretty much dysfunctional.

Steve Kornacki writes that the Tea Party really isn’t much of a movement any more as much as it is a mindset.

Defined as a literal movement, with an active membership pressing a specific set of demands, the Tea Party absolutely is in decline. Tea Party events have become less crowded, less visible, and less relevant to the national political conversation. As the Times story notes, the movement’s die-hards are embracing increasingly niche pet issues. The term “Tea Party” has come to feel very 2010.

But if you think of the Tea Party less as a movement and more as a mindset, it’s as strong and relevant as ever. As I wrote back in ’10, the Tea Party essentially gave a name to a phenomenon we’ve seen before in American politics – fierce, over-the-top resentment of and resistance to Democratic presidents by the right. It happened when Bill Clinton was president, it happened when Lyndon Johnson was president, it happened when John F. Kennedy was president. When a Democrat claims the White House, conservatives invariably convince themselves that he is a dangerous radical intent on destroying the country they know and love and mobilize to thwart him.

And if they destroy the rest of the country along with the Obama Administration, so be it.

The truth is, the baggers are just the latest incarnation of the group Richard Hofstadter called “pseudo-conservatives” back in the 1950s and 1960s. Hofstadter wrote,

The difference between conservatism as a set of doctrines whose validity is established by polemics, and conservatism as a set of rules whose validity is to be established by their usability in government, is not a difference in nuance, but of fundamental substance.

Hofstadter continued, quoting Theodore W. Adorno:

“The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.”

And finally,

Writing in 1954, at the peak of the McCarthyist period, I suggested that the American right wing could best be understood not as a neo-fascist movement girding itself for the conquest of power but as a persistent and effective minority whose main threat was in its power to create “a political climate in which the rational pursuit of our well-being and safety would become impossible.”

Now there are enough of them in Congress that nothing rational can be accomplished without the baggers stepping in to screw it up. As Kornacki says, their influence over the GOP lies in their ability to win primaries. Even big shots like Mitch McConnell are afraid of them.

And, truly, this goes deeper than just undermining Democratic presidents. They really do want to drown the federal government in a bathtub. They’ve got it in their heads that just about everything the federal government does, with the exception of the military, violates some sacred principle established somewhere in the mythic past that lives in their heads and which they mistake for history. And they will continue to eat away at everything workable and functional in government until it is destroyed.

They’ve somehow simultaneously staked claims on both “love it or leave it” super-nationalism and “hate the Gubmint” anarchism. If you don’t want to either destroy the government or secede, you can’t be a true patriot.

And of course, the reason these misfits have so much influence is that they are being financed by deep pocket special interests and industries that can manipulate the crazies into opposing taxes and regulations the hyper-wealthy find inconvenient.

We’re doomed.