I felt compelled to create 2 new tags for this post. It's been a while coming, nonetheless. This will be mostly an opinion piece. If you're expecting links or narcissistic mention then you will likely be disappointed.
One has not been able to read the blogs or the Twitters, or FaceofEvilBook for months now without encountering the dire stories of drone strikes, Kill Lists, the maniacal psychopath Obama and his blood lust or tales of innocence destroyed by the Skynet machines ... Drones! The righteous wrath is coming from the right and the left, though I would be remiss in failing to point out that most of the outrage is coming from the left, and much of the 'America, FUCK YEAH!' is coming from the right. To many on the left, unmanned drones are the horror that spies on us as we plot a new government, as well as the devices that kill entire wedding parties in WhoGivesAFuckistan. To many on the right, drones are the crushing fist of Obama that will spy on our crops for the EPA, and force us into the FEMA camps.
Where the hell have these people been for the last 20 years? Or more to the point, where have they been for the last century? For over a hundred years science fiction writers have been scribbling about unmanned war machines. If one needs to go further than that, then the jewish tale of the Golem is about the good and evil of an inhuman killer controlled by those with agenda. These dread devices are not a new outrage; they were fricking inevitable. It was going to happen, people. The only question was "when". 'Walky-talky' wristwatches? Inevitable. Social networks based on world-wide communication? Yes, actually inevitable. Unmanned machines that fly through the air? Yep, you got it. Inevitable. These are machines, devices. They have no moral will. The question concerning those has never been whether we would have them, but how we would use them. Based on that alone, I find most of the outrage silly.
Every new technology faces opposition based on moral value. Some passed that test, like cel-phones. Some fail that test, like Nukes. Consider how long it took us to get over that fear ... Oh wait, we haven''t yet. Drones are no different than cel-phones. We see the bad use they can be turned to, but fail to recognize that these technologies exist, and there isn't a damned thing we can do to stop their use.
But wait! Obama has a kill list! Obama wants to spy on farmers! Obama, blah blah, blah. Every President since Clinton has had this technology at his disposal. I grew up in the Bitterroot valley, where the fly over of SR-71s was frequent. Screw black helicopters. Anything that needed to be seen could be from those. It was the technology of the time. Drones have replaced the SR-71. Just as we needed to learn how to deal with ultimate spy plane, we need to learn how to deal with the next ultimate spy plane, which doesn't have a human on board. And it really doesn't matter which man sits in the White House; the technology will be used. I'm kinda thinken' that we have a job to make certain that the man (or woman) in the White House uses this technology for good.
Drones aren't going away, anymore than nuclear weapons did back when this same argument was being made about them. They're not going anywhere. The choice in every election going forward from this has nothing to do with whether this technological clock can be turned back. It obviously can't. It's time to buck up and admit. Who do you want to use it? Mitt Rmoney? The future Mitt Rmoney? It's time to adapt, people.
2011 probably wasn't the best year for most folks, though there was considerable improvement for many. Politically speaking, it's been one of the most polarizing years I can think of. Here's hoping for a better 2012.
We can make that happen. Many individuals, smart and otherwise, have argued loud and long that America has a two-party problem. We have a center right party and a far right party. I'm not going to argue that; I never would or have. Here's the thing, though. Our challenge, which should be clear, remains muddied. How do we get a left party in control of our governance?
If 2010, an awful year, is any indication, then the path would be to kill off the center right party. How'd that work out? Not well, obviously. Since handing the US House back to the Republicans, the 99%ers have been held hostage at least 5 times. I'm certainly glad we got rid of those Blue-Dog Dems in favor of truly partisan tea-baggers. After all, partisanship is the problem and getting rid of partisans for more strongly partisan folks is surely the answer.
Or not. How about this? If the country has moved to the right because we have a center-right party and a far-right party, maybe the solution in defending the left isn't to attack the anchor in the middle. Just saying ... Maybe, just maybe, if we destroy the far right, utterly obliterate them, then maybe we might have vision left to support the left. Just maybe. It's easy to see that destroying the far right would leave us with a center right party in control, and doesn't that suck. Maybe it does, except ...
You've all taken high school math, right? If you want a function to move in a desired direction, you don't remove a moderating variable. You remove the extremes. It is that simple. Remove the far right and you have a median that resembles more the country in representation. The center right party already contains those who are of the left. Destroy the far right, and you can't help but have a policy forwarded that better favors the middle and lower classes. More to the point, you have a starting position for moving policy and politics towards the left. This isn't that goddamned difficult. Remove people like Skees, Burnett and Rehberg and you are left with people who are more pliant to your needs. Start from the center right, and you're one helluva lot closer to where you want to go than giving the game away to the far right, as we liberals did in 2010.
Here's to a happy New Year, one in which liberals finally decide to fight back rather than let the right take our apathy as acquiescence.
Maybe if the obvious is pointed out by someone else, there won't so much angst over it.
Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, writes this:
Seven months after raising the specter of Republicans trying to hurt the economy on purpose, I can’t help but notice the “sabotage” question appears to be picking up some steam.
Yesterday, Michael Tomasky went even further, arguing that Democrats should start “saying openly what has been clear for months or even years now — that as long as economic recovery would work to the political benefit of Barack Obama, the Republicans have been, are, and will be in favor of sabotaging the economy.” Tomasky added this is “obvious.”
The point isn’t to question Republicans’ bizarre priorities or values; the point is to make economic argument clear to the public. Too many bemoan a vague “lack of political will” or “absence of leadership” as the reason so little gets done. Those people are wrong.
The Tomasky article is a must read. Benen quotes this from Tomasky:
Washington is a city of conspiracies, but far and away the most pernicious one is the fiction, in which one must participate if one wants to be regarded as a “serious” person, that both parties are more or less equally to blame for the present malfunctioning of our democracy. […]
Nonsense. There’s nothing vague about it. It’s crystal clear. We can’t do these things because of the extreme nature of the Republican Party and the right-wing noise machine that enforces such rigid ideological purity. Period and end of story.
Tomasky also gives concrete examples of how the Washington dysfunctions play out as regards concrete policy important to liberals and progressives. In almost every case, he shows how Republicans were for many of these policies, until they were offered by Democrats and/or the President. And as SteveM of NMMNB pointed out in the link from my previous post, they get away with such egregious flip-flopping and obstruction because the accepted narrative is that *both* parties share the blame equally. That is a fiction, an untruth that SteveM, Steve Benen, Michael Tomasky and myself have pointed out should be obvious.
For whatever reason, there are those who are deeply invested in that illusion. The Republicans most certainly are; that's the very point behind their campaign of willful destruction. For some, like Jane Hamsher, maintaining that illusion is a clear path to importance and profit. The Greens do it because the only way they can gain any relevance at all is to take down the Democrats such that we turn to them when Republicans crush us even more than they have already. Regardless of why any support that lie (Tomasky suggest that it's misplaced 'courtesy', and recent events convince me that he is in part correct), the illusion, the fairy tail, maintains it's strength on both sides of ideological spectrum. This is Monster Making, 101. Notice that this narrative doesn't have the finger pointing at hippies, liberals or progressives. This illusory accusation of weak will/both parties are equally at fault, contradictory statements held as if both can be true, is focused squarely at Democrats.
The consequence of supporting that illusion are clear. The Republicans regain power, having shown for half a century that they can't govern anything. The recent Montana legislature is clearest proof of that consequence. Another consequence is a built in feature of the fairy tail itself. Anyone who points out that it's a fantasy, an illusion, is only supporting the Monster. That one must be 'in the bag' for Democrats, or angling for a DNC position, or insulting those who have embraced the lie, or crying 'with us or against us', when in fact the one's parroting George Bush are the ones supporting the illusion. Again, Monster Making 101.
I'm not supporting or defending 'Democrats' as an entity, despite what so many feel a need to accuse me of doing. I will support individual Democrats, just as I will disagree with them. But I've spent too many years online exposing the lies of the right, discussing their Monster Making, to simply join in holding Democrats accountable for Republican attempts to hurt the country. They aren't responsible for it, and that should be obvious.
I originally started writing this post as a comment at 4 & 20 Blackbirds. But the Askimet commenting software they use tends to see a comment with multiple links as spam. So, if'n none y'all mind, I'll post it here instead.
John Cole notices what I have written about at length. Glenn Greenwald, progressive icon, asks the question that was mandatory as a patriot oath for the wargarblers several years ago. Whose side are you on? I have a better question. Do you understand what you're doing?
jhwygirl wrote a post remarkably hopeful that the GOP might be willing to move on revenue increases to solve our economic woes in the face of extreme austerity measures. She even refers to these efforts as "refreshing honesty", though in fairness her quote of honesty refers to a GOoPer no longer in any power. I doubted it would be believed among the GOoP faithful, and indeed it wasn't, and my response was very direct and also honest. "Don't believe a word of it." The Republicants currently in power don't care about the deficit or deficit reduction. They care about garnering power, and they are willing to destroy this country to get it. They sure as hell don't want to actually raise revenue, no matter how much ear-play they give it on the talkies. In the comments responding to my brother, Lizard posits the same tired trope that I only see such because I am a blind partisan who can't see beyond the label divide.
the problem with how “the established left” responds to the fractured right is that the left needs a monochromatic boogeyman as badly as the right does. just look at your brother, moorcat. don’t believe a word of it, he says. he says that because his ideology appears to render him incapable of thoughtfully considering different strains of conservatism.
And with pompous pontifications such as this, the so called 'reality-based' community jumps the shark. What Lizard appears clueless about is that this very issue is being played out in the debt ceiling negotiations. Republicants don't care about the deficit, and they will not accept raising revenue.
The president and his party may want a debt limit increase that includes tax hikes, but such a proposal cannot pass the House.
Should one think the Senate more amenable, this is Mitch McConnell:
"So there’s one of two things going on here: Either someone on the other side has forgotten that there’s strong, bipartisan opposition in Congress to raising taxes. Or someone involved is acting in bad faith," McConnell said. “We’ve known from the beginning that tax hikes would be a poison pill to any debt reduction proposal." he said.
SteveM, from NoMoreMrNiceBlog, notes what should be obvious:
I think the walkouts on budget talks by Eric Cantor and Jon Kyl, taken in isolation, make Republicans look intransigent, in a way that generally polls very, very badly. In isolation, it’s a bad political move. Voters, especially swing voters, regularly tell pollsters they want the parties to compromise and negotiate like grown-ups, not act like stubborn children. The problem is, those same voters also think that if Democrats can’t somehow persuade Republicans to negotiate like grown-ups, then they’re equally at fault. So it’s a wash. And Republicans know it’s a wash. So there’s no downside for them in acting like stubborn children. Now, if the mainstream media would even occasionally float the theory that perhaps, just perhaps, the Republican Party is sometimes a tad extreme and irrational, maybe the truth of what’s going on here would have a chance of sinking in with average voters.
I submit that when liberal and/or progressive blogs join that media narrative of how the Democrats should be able to *do* something about the Republicant intransigence, they reinforce the voter idea that 'might makes right'. It's a twist such that Republicants, instead of looking like the saboteurs of the American dream that they are, end up looking like the strong leaders, and Democrats are again punished for not joining in the right-wing pogrom against the common folk. 4 & 20 is certainly not the only website to join in that insane chorus. But insane it is. jhwygirl's post and many comments to it paint the same picture. Republicans said things we like so Democrats should be responsible for "jumping on" this opportunity that is, was and will remain an illusion. And when Republicans do exactly what they've been doing, we can blame the Democrats and the President for not altering the behavior this bunch of tantrum-driven children have exhibited since Ronald Reagan. Lizard says:
both sides of the isle (sic) work behind the smoke screen when it comes to perpetuating this insane downward spiral of austerity, squeezed productivity, stagnant wages, and obscene corporate profit, but Obama groveling before wall street is suppose to be somehow better than the scary looming alternative. what the hell does it matter when the results are the same?
So, if the Democrats capitulate to the Republicans, they lose. Wall Street wants the debt ceiling lifted, so if Democrats attempt to do what needs to be done to get that and fail or win, then they are just serving their plutocratic overlords. There are only three ways to increase revenue and lower the deficit load in any significant fashion. Support terrorism (with an immediate and complete withdrawal of support to Afghanistan, and yes the "support terrorism" part was a sarcastic poke at what will be the public media narrative), raising taxes, and/or passing a stimulus significant enough to fully employ half of those unemployed and underemployed. All of those efforts have enough Republicant opposition that they would fail. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. That is the Republicant agenda. Many in the progressive community seem to have missed Mitch McConnell saying that very thing a year ago. They will burn this nation to the ground if it gives them the Senate and the White House back. The media are helping them do that very thing. I'm curious as to why so many progressives seem willing to assist that effort.
They don't care about deficit reduction. They care about keeping voters interested in deficit reduction, where the rhetoric serves them. They don't care about increasing revenue and will fight that tooth and nail. They have so many folks twisted in knots that anyone liberal loses either way. I'm not partisan for pointing that out. I'm realistic. I simply wish more progressives were.
For many years, I have prided myself, perhaps wrongfully, for reading and understanding the right wing websites that many of my leftward brethren have ignored. But, simply put, the Montana online right is getting to the point that even I can't read them any more. That's a sad admission coming on a sad afternoon after many such sad afternoons. It's also very true. The same old lies, the same old ignorance. It's kinda pointless.
Regarding Wisconsin: We have posts concerning the meanie union thugs. This is the same trope that has existed since the Pinkertons were hired to bust union efforts in Butte, and a street war ensued because workers were tired of being beaten and shot for standing for their rights. Yup, it was bloody, but the "Unionists" (what a dumbass fucking term that is) never did run around killing grandma the way they were claimed to have done. If any know the story of Butte's union organizing, then you know that the Pinkertons pretty much got their asses handed to them, after inciting and carrying forward increasing violence. The lie of the union thug is just that, a lie. At the end of the day, it's just one more pronouncement that capitalists have the right to defend their claim, and workers have no right to defend their role. It's a lie.
What's even more sad is the pathetic individual claiming that we should pony up to pay for education vouchers because the unionist teachers are only demanding more! That's one of the biggest lines of bullshit ever. The unions didn't start this fight by demanding more. They have offered concessions regarding their "entitlements". But Walker is having none of it. He wants the public employees union gone so that he can give Wisconsin's power provision over to the Koch brothers. Notice how the facts concerning that are totally and completely absent from any of the bullshit spewed on the rightwing Montana blogs.
And then there is my favorite. People are saying mean and violent things about Scott Walker on the Twitter. And this is supposed to matter while people are watching their power to organize and demand fair treatment get deliberately ripped from them by Scott Walker to benefit the billionaire Koch brothers. Oh for fuck's sake and boo hoo. When the assistant AG of Indiana twits (appropriate term) that union protesters should be shot, the reaction from the Montana right is ~crickets~. These dumbasses actually expect the Montana left to condemn what they find heinous, when they completely ignore what is truly horrific. Here's an open and very direct message to Montana online right:
Fuck you and your expectations, you bunch of hypocrites. The average person isn't as stupid as you. Quit expecting us to be.
But wait! There's more. Regarding the Montana legislature, the online Montana right has been ... subdued. They aren't happy with the lack of fiscal constraint. They appear a little miffed that the legislature hasn't cut back on big gubmint more. "What about the Constitution?" they weakly wail. Meanwhile, their representatives, the people they elected into office, have voted to deprive the state of 1.9 BILLION dollars over the next two biennium. Their people have voted to allow poaching to reach extreme proportions, what with silencers and all, and voted to overturn 100 years of Montana tradition of fishing access. Their people while they wail to the high heavens about local control have voted to refuse local control to municipalities in Montana. It's pretty obvious at this point that the Montana GOP doesn't give a flying shit about jobs, or Montana, or even a balanced budget. And the only thing coming from the Montana "Dextra" is the sad soft whine that these people should be more what they want and less what they don't want.
There are no links in this post, because I'm not going to promote the bullshit that currently comes from the online Montana WRONG. The reader can find them themselves easily enough. Just know this. The next time some right wingnut tells you how the state is, you know that they're lying or ignorant or both. In the end, it doesn't matter, save how you react to it.
I hope that you have a taste for reading, because this is some very toothsome fare.
I'm not seeing much that will avoid the future as it can be seen. America will collapse.
Despite the aura of omnipotence most empires project, a look at their history should remind us that they are fragile organisms. So delicate is their ecology of power that, when things start to go truly bad, empires regularly unravel with unholy speed: just a year for Portugal, two years for the Soviet Union, eight years for France, 11 years for the Ottomans, 17 years for Great Britain, and, in all likelihood, 22 years for the United States, counting from the crucial year 2003.
But have no doubt: when Washington's global dominion finally ends, there will be painful daily reminders of what such a loss of power means for Americans in every walk of life. As a half-dozen European nations have discovered, imperial decline tends to have a remarkably demoralizing impact on a society, regularly bringing at least a generation of economic privation. As the economy cools, political temperatures rise, often sparking serious domestic unrest.
America's end as THE world power? Why that's unthinkable! No, it's really not, and in fact is the very message that the right is promoting this very fricking moment. I don't joke when I suggest that the right is employing a "scorched Earth" policy. That is exactly what they are doing, and they are finding large support for such.
The problem that blew a hole in health care reform and the Obama Agenda this year wasn't "death panels": it was that there are millions of Americans who are stupid enough to believe that wingnut fictions like "death panels" are real.
The problem with President Barack Obama is not that he is a socialist or a communist or a secret radical or a Muslim or Kenyan Usurper: it is that there are millions of Americans who are racist enough to swallow this bilge and ask for seconds.
The problem with Fox and Hate Radio and Regnery Press and all the think tanks and all the websites is not that they churn out utterly toxic lies 24 hours a day: it is that there are millions of Americans who are too weak and too cowardly to stop listening to their Siren's song
And the problem with America is not that we have these vast numbers of stupid, frightened and racist people scattered in our midst: the problem with America is that -- at great expense -- they have all been methodically gathered into the same political party, and they are pointed like a gun at our heads.
I love and adore driftglass's parable. I've used his tactic of failure to achieve many times. So has anyone who's worked in technology for any length. I refer to it as parenting. I knew a young man once who kept breaking his glasses (cars, whatever) who was parented by shame. Every loss was met by lesser gift. He now refers to the glases he was forced to wear as "birth control spectacles". Funny. He couldn't break those. Still, we have a broken Presidency, and we have a President that we haven't broken.
Barack Obama is the most hated man in America. He has a wife and two young daughters, and death threats against him are reportedly 400% greater than those faced by his predecessor. If it's all theater and he's just faking it, isn't there an easier, less punishing, less threatening way for him to do that? Couldn't he simply stop arguing for policies that stir up hate in the heartland? Couldn't he become more like Ben Nelson or Harold Ford? Wouldn't that be easier -- and safer -- while leading to similar results?
The argument is that he's the political equivalent of the Washington Generals -- the team that exists solely to lose to the Harlem Globetrotters, while maintaining the illusion that the Trotters have an opponent. But when was the last time you heard of a Washington Generals player being viciously fouled? How much punishment do the Globetrotters dish out to the Generals? How angry does play get? That's theater disguised as competition. If Obama vs. the GOP is all Kabuki, why isn't it like that?
Oh, crap. We haven't forced the issue. Let's disregard that we might not know the issue. Let's just primary this asshole and then things will be better:
♦ Forcing Obama to move to the Left will cause Republicans to lose heart, support Pelosi, abandon the filibuster and resolutely embrace single-payer Medicare-for-All.
Join the “Get Some Unhinged Jackwagon/Human Sacrifice to Primary Obama” (GSUJ/HSPO) bandwagon, today! It’s the New Age Dance Craze that’s sweeping the nation…here, here and here. Plus, if Dick Morris says it’s likely, you know it’s money in the bank!
~sigh~ There are definately times that your friends are not your friends.
It started off with a few oh-so-hilarious references to “Chocolate Carter” and “Mr. Presnint.” It moved on to “Dayum, I thought Obama was gonna be a gangster!” and “we elected a brother so he could bust some caps in whitey’s ass, not sell out to the man.” Now, the left is wholeheartedly embracing right-wing Rovian/Fox News race-baiting tactics:
There may be no point to the continuing struggle. We may have already lost before Obama ever stepped up. But for fuck's sake, people. If you have a suggestion for forward movement then make it. Make it, now! Don't just bitch about what you want. State what you want and tell us how to get there? Some asshole I know keeps talking smack abourt "organizing". How, when, where? This is the end game, folks. We don't get do overs, from this point on. The right has taken their blood and flesh. We have nothing left to give. There isn't a future for 'Murka. What do you propose that we have left in the tank for the future of America?
Snarcasm runs rampant.
I think in the end, this is a pretty good example of where I have to part ways with pretty much all modern conservatives. I just don’t think this it is the job of government to validate people’s feelings. If there’s one thing the free market should be good at by now, it’s validating people’s feelings, especially rich people’s feelings, which are especially lucrative. There’s a big market for products and services that make rich people feel good about themselves and I say we sit back and let it do its job.
I guess I also don’t understand what form our acknowledgment of the sacrifices of the rich is supposed to take. A national holiday? A monument? I’m not kidding here. If erecting a Tomb of the Unknown CEO is all it takes to stop the whining, I’m all for it.
Oh, but I forgot. Robert Gibbs said badly things about the professional left, so this won't be an issue as we give our power back to the Galtian overlords. I sure hope that everybody feels okay when the day is done.
Why the fuck does it matter what Democrats are willing to acknowledge about how hard some rich people work when they’re not proposing a marginal tax rate much over 40%? For God’s sake, isn’t it enough that we don’t tax rich people much, now we have to get down on our knees and tell them how great they are for working so hard? And what would fellating these geniuses accomplish anyway? I guess maybe it would make them feel more appreciated so that they’d be less likely to go Galt. So everybody, drop what you’re doing and send Greg Mankiw an email telling him you appreciate how hard he works so that he doesn’t withhold his productivity.
Maybe this isn’t such a bad idea. If wealthy people are willing to accept higher marginal rates in return for bumper stickers that say “Obama says I’m a hard worker”, then I’m all for it, because we have a government to run and it requires tax money.
This is what happens when you let Neo-Nazis run for political office.
Well, that's kinda right. Any libertarians want to defend Miller's actions? Any body? Anyone? Beuller?
Here's a summary of the two parties:
The Democrats always learn the wrong thing, while the Republicans have never learned a damn thing.
It's hard to argue with that.
So now Republicans, who have made the filibuster, once a measure of last resort, into the way the Senate runs, are saying that they won't be able to pass things if they have the majority because they need 60 votes.
If the Republicans take back the House and (in a Democratic doomsday scenario) the Senate, history will show that it was because of one of the great con jobs ever played in politics. For what is the current political zeitgeist but the result of one long game of three-card monte played for the rubes who actually think they'll know where the queen is? The con is this: Republicans and their media allies have convinced too many voters that Democrats have either accomplished nothing or have only accomplished things that will hurt them. They have done so despite the facts that: 1. a great deal has been accomplished; 2. what hasn't been accomplished is due almost entirely to Republican obstructionism; and 3. what's been passed has been watered down in order to appease Republicans and some of the asshole Democrats. The greatest part of it? That the GOP's refusal to govern is them standing up for "American" values, which, if you think about it, is about right.
Republicans use extremist tactics and extremist rhetoric (for, truly, there's not a single thing passed in this Congress that even approaches "socialism"), and, if those fail, they lie outright. And in doing so, they make their mostly reasonable, way-too acquiescent opponents seem like despicable fuckbags who want America to become part Mexico/part Sharialand. That's an awesome con job: shutdown the functioning of part of the government through procedural chicanery that most people won't give a damn about (A hold? What the fuck is that? We don't have time for civics classes anymore) and blame the majority, which is easy to understand: "Oh, Democrats in power. Democrats must naturally suck."
The frustrating part is that, even if polls now show some tightening in races, it's worked. The con job has been successful. The ultimate plan of the GOP is to make governing in DC so impossible, so untenable, that it ceases to function except on the limited terms of a savage conservatism. And we're making it possible. The whiplash-inducing fickleness of the American electorate is part and parcel of a people who are deluded with their sense of individual self-worth and entitlement.
Now, we get Republicans who are pretending to behave honorably. Olympia Snowe said yesterday, "Frankly we haven't done our jobs well here in Washington and that disturbs me. There's all this partisanship and polarization, and ultimately it yields two outcomes: either scorched-earth victory for one side or political stagnation." No shit. And who was it that negotiated in bad faith over the health care bill? Oh, yeah. Olympia Snowe.
You can't unfuck something that you've fucked. Republicans have paid almost no long-term price for the Caligula-like madness of the Bush administration. There's a chance that, now, two-years later, they're gonna get rewarded for refusing to participate in running the country. It's like setting free an arsonist after you've started to rebuild the house and telling him, "Oh, and here's those matches we took from you. Sorry for the inconvenience."Coming soon: Yeah? So what are you gonna do about it?
Dennis Rehberg's heart felt announcement on Rudy Ghouliani day:
Today, we remember not only those who lost their lives to the unprovoked actions of evil, but also the first-responders who didn’t hesitate to put themselves in harm’s way to save them. We also remember the brave men and women who have since given their lives in defense of our freedom. As Thomas Jefferson warned, ‘the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.’ My thoughts and prayers are with those who lost loved ones in the attacks on 9/11, and today we must also honor the soldiers and their families who continue to defend freedom at home and abroad.”
As Pogie noted at the time, it's probable that Dennis meant that we only remember those folk on that one day of the year.
Perhaps Representative Rehberg should have thought about remembering the first responders who risked their lives that morning when he voted, less than two months ago, against providing extended health benefits for them.
Well, obviously yesterday wasn't that day where we remember those fine heroes and honor them. After all, yesterday, which was not 9/11, the House passed the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. And Dennis Rehberg? Of course he voted against it, again.
So here's the score. 9/11 was so tragic and horrible that we all needed to go shopping. 9/11 was so traumatic that we needed to go a trillion dollars in debt to bomb the shit out of country that had nothing to do with it. September 11th, PATRIOT DAY!, is so deeply holy that we must never forget to celebrate getting our national ass kicked by praying to God for our dead heroes, after He let us get our national ass kicked. 'Ground Zero' is so holy and sacred a place that true patriots are willing to skull-fuck the First Amendment to the Constitution if it keeps a mosque from being built several blocks away. Does that about sum it up?
As for Dennis, here's the part I don't get. If he wasn't drunk (kind of a big "if"), then he like most Republicants in the House had to know that the votes were in, and the bill would pass. There was no political downside to voting for it. There doesn't appear to be any political upside to voting nay for a bill that passed handily. Oooohh, spending ... for the very people you've been hailing as heroes, you bunch of jackasses. ~sigh~
Maybe it's just that Dennis Rehberg really really hates firefighters that much.