Friday, March 30, 2012

Mega Millions Mania

If my facebook and twitter feeds are any indication, the nation has been hit with lottery fever. The 44 state Mega Millions jackpot has grown to a staggering 640 million dollars and everyone is playing. I called a deli last night to ask if they were still selling Lotto tickets and the reply I got was “640 million dollars baby, we’re selling tickets all night.”

Of course, the lottery is problematic. It often functions as a regressive tax. It offers poor folks an aspirational and unlikely chance to change their lives, but in reality it reifies the cycle of poverty. Walking into any bodega, you’re likely to be forced to wait in a long line of people buying umpteen scratch tickets. The lotto seems like free money, but really it’s a money pit, a form of gambling, where the house always wins.

People recite apocryphal stats about the unlikelihood of winning the lottery. It’s less likely than being abducted by aliens, or being by struck by lightening twice, or finding a refreshing diet drink. The number I’ve seen cited on twitter is that winning this mega millions is a 1 in 174 million shot. This math got me think; doesn’t a 1 in 174 million chance mean that there are 174 million combinations, and don’t lotto tickets cost a dollar? According to my amateur arithmetic that means one could buy every possible combination for 174 million dollars, far less than the 640 million dollar jackpot, even when you ask for it in a lump sum and taxes are subtracted from the total. It seems like free money to me. But you know what they say, you’ve got to have money to make money.

My last thought about the lottery is that I think it’s funny that the lotto is just an update of the “numbers” racket. I’m not well versed on mafia crime, but from my understanding a “numbers” racket was essentially an illicit lottery. I’m constantly watching movies were gangsters are running “numbers” rackets, or schlemiels are getting in over their head in debt, or someone strikes it rich. It’s funny that the government just adopted what used to be the domain of gangsters and uses it as an extra way to generate revenue. But this idea of legitimate government control of otherwise illicit activity is central to civilized society. I think it was either Weber or Durkheim, two pillars of modern sociology, who said that what gave the state power was the legitimate use of violence. This allowed the state to enforce laws and implicitly create social mores that the citizenry were forced to accept. The lottery is just another example of that concept.

Anyway, God knows I bought 6 dollars worth of tickets, and at this point I’m sort of cautiously optimistic. Even if I don’t win I’m pretty confident one of my friends will, and then they can be my benefactors; the Medici’s to my Da Vinci. Yahoo is running an article on its front page about the downside of winning the lottery. Most of the points are that people will try and take advantage of you, but I think that’s what’s called a good problem, I mean you’ve just hundreds of millions of dollars. Another point that’s constantly proclaimed is that many lottery winners file for bankruptcy. But whatever, easy come easy go right? Good luck to any followers of The Redel Traub Report who are invested in tonight’s 11 pm drawing, and if any of you win: don’t forget about you’re favorite blogger.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Trayvon Martin Attacked Again

Well, the inevitable Trayvon Martin backlash has begun. Instead of the ubiquitous picture of Martin as a young kid in a football uniform, we’ve begun to see pictures of Martin in gold fronts and doo-rags. Martin was reportedly suspended for smoking weed and getting into fights. Further, George Zimmerman’s statement to the police that Martin had jumped, broken his nose, and was slamming his head into the ground has been leaked and corroborated by a witness. A black friend of Zimmerman’s has also taken to the airwaves to vouch for his character. The subtext is clear: Zimmerman isn’t a racist hothead out hunting for juvenile black males, but a brave Samaritan forced to “stand his ground” against an aggressive black teen.

Trayvon Martin’s hoodie was always a source of contention. Many folks pointed to the ludicrousness of profiling based on a hoodie, and it became a rallying point for Martin’s supporters. Geraldo Rivera, on the other hand, argued that Martin’s hoodie played an equal role in Martin’s death as George Zimmerman. Rivera’s comments were widely mocked and he was forced to apologize. It seemed to be agreed that Martin’s hoodie was not evidence that he’s a bad kid, but new pictures of him in wife beaters, gold fronts, and other getups common amongst today’s youth, are enough to call his character into question.

It was always a little weird that the media wasn’t showing contemporary pictures of Martin. The implicit sentiment in shying away from presenting Martin as he was seemed to be that black teenagers are scary but younger black children aren’t. I think this reinforces racist tropes. Martin didn’t deserve to be killed even if he wasn’t out buying Skittles for his brother, but smoking weed in a doorag, goldfronts, a wife beater and baggy jeans. The fact that images like these new ones circulating of Martin are seen as a knock against his character is ridiculous, he was a teenager dressing in the popular style of the day.

I’ll also take issue with the idea that Martin fighting Zimmerman somehow justifies Zimmerman’s actions. Zimmerman created the conflict: he stalked Martin as he walked home, and even pursued him after the cops told him not to. Zimmerman had a gun and knew full well how the confrontation would end. Either Zimmerman would whoop this young man’s ass or he’d shoot him and justify it as standing his ground.

No one points out that Martin may have been terrified of Zimmerman; he seemed to indicate that to a girl he was on the phone with. If you notice someone aggressively stalking you, it makes sense to respond with aggression. In other words, it was Martin standing his ground. I just don’t believe that Zimmerman’s only recourse was to shoot to kill Trayvon. It seems fishy to me that the Police didn’t take photos of Zimmerman’s injuries at the scene of the crime, and that he refused to be treated for his broken nose, based on my limited knowledge of crime scenes(mostly gleaned from COPS) both seem to be compulsory.

Another fact that goes unmentioned by the media is that Martin didn’t live in Sanford. He was visiting his father. He was a stranger in Zimmerman’s community. I don’t mention this to try and absolve Zimmerman, but rather point to a culture of fear that is prevalent in America. Gated communities, like the one Zimmerman was guarding, are an indication of a fear of fellow citizens. They are exclusionary and the whole concept just smacks of intolerance. There’s a culture of fear in America, and it causes paranoid delusions and itchy trigger fingers. Let’s not get distracted from the tragedy of Trayvon Martin because of this blatant character assassination.

Lastly, let’s mention the utter stupidity of these “stand your ground” laws. What is this the Wild Wild West? Why not just have duels? These kind of laws invite vigilantism as evidenced by Zimmerman. “Concealed Carry” and these kind of laws encourage violence, and make society a scarier place. What’s more threatening, a teenager in a hoodie or a man with a gun?

Monday, March 26, 2012

Obamacare at the Supreme Court

I’ve always had a love hate relationship with the Supreme Court. Some of the things I love are its rulings in Roe V. Wade, Brown V. Board of Ed, and all of the other rulings the courts have made that expanded constitutional protections and tried to create a more equitable and better America. Some of the strikes against the court are Bush V. Gore, Plessy V. Ferguson, and an extremely boring Constitutional Law class I took during my senior year of high school. Ironically, this class was taught by the brother of current justice Elena Kagan but that’s neither here nor there. I’ve always thought there was something a little screwy with the system of lifetime appointments. Think about the fact that Reagan appointees Justices Kennedy and Scalia literally outlived the man who appointed them, and you can see how Supreme Court nominees are one of the most lasting legacies a president can have. I understand that the framers thought that life time appointments would protect justices from political pressures, but in reality it’s just allowed them to stick with their own politics regardless of how out of touch they are. Consider Citizens United, the 5 conservative justices, spearheaded by Bush appointees Roberts and Alito, essentially stripped all limits on the influence money can play in political elections. The ruling is wildly unpopular and has been slammed by both Republicans and Democrats, and yet the dogmatic justices were able to impose this law with impunity.

Today the Supreme Court is the focus of a legal challenge to strike down “Obamacare”. “Obamacare”, of course, is the Health Care reform law passed by Obama in 2010. The law was the subject of great debate at the time, with Republicans shrieking about “death panels” and decrying the law as putting us on the path to socialism. These critiques ignore the fact that the law, which does some good things, was a fairly tepid measure. While it allows kids to stay on their parent’s healthcare until they are 26, ends lifetime caps, and protects against discrimination against people with “pre-existing conditions,” it doesn’t do much to change the paradigm of American health care. That health care is considered to be big business in America, as opposed to something that should be thought as a human right is evidence of the debased nature of American capitalism, though I suppose that sentiment makes me more radical than Karl Marx. Perhaps the best evidence of the modesty of “Obamacare” is that it’s based on a blue print drawn up by Mitt Romney during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts, a point that has been brought up at least once during the GOP primary.

The crux of the argument of those who claim “Obamacare” is unconstitutional is that the mandate that everyone must have healthcare is an overreach by the federal government. Ironically, mandates were a Republican idea during the 1990s. One of the key questions is whether the mandate is a tax or a penalty. The reasoning behind the mandate is that older and sicker insurance consumers will be subsidized by everyone else’s insurance premiums or the penalty they’ll be forced to pay. For what it’s worth, polls seem to indicate that the majority of Americans think the mandates are unconstitutional, and that only a slim majority support “Obamacare.” In recent weeks, the Obama administration has been more stridently defending the Health Care law. Last Friday, I got an email from David Axelrod, (I get more spam email soliciting me to donate to Obama than to check out nudie pix) which said he was “proud as hell about Obamacare.” I don’t want to relive the agony of the original healthcare debate, but suffice it to say I think Obama did a fairly good job given the political reality he faced.

The decision will likely be a 5-4 ruling, with Justice Kennedy casting the decisive vote. The courts liberal and conservative blocs are so entrenched that it would take an act of God to swing any of those justices. The quality of arguments in the Supreme Court don’t seem to make a dimes worth of difference, justices have their political opinions and follow them pretty rigidly. The Supreme Court was supposed to be a non-partisan entity, but it seems it’s become just as partisan as the rest of government with no accountability to the public.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Tim Tebow Resurrected With The Jets

When I first began blogging, I set out to not write about sports. The sports-blogosphere is cluttered with amateur analysts. Some of it is quite well written and some of it is not, but it’s all kind of ridiculous. I didn’t think I could add anything to the public narrative about sports, better to just shut up and write about Donald Trump or something.

It was Tim Tebow and his miraculous run of unconventional wins that forced me to begin writing about sports. Last fall, Tim Tebow captivated the nation with his unorthodox quarterbacking style and orthodox religious beliefs. It seemed all he knew how to do was win football games and love Jesus. Tebow was a cultural touchstone. With each passing win he converted non-believers, and he did so with a humility that made him endearing. He led his Broncos into an improbable playoff birth, and upset the Steelers in what was his finest game of the season.

But the one person who seemed unswayed by Tebow’s heroics was the one man who really mattered. The Bronco’s president, and former legendary Quarterback, John Elway seemed to view Tebow with incredulity and only tepidly supported him. Despite his proclamations that Tebow was ‘his guy’ he never seemed to really believe it. When Peyton Manning was released by the Colts, Elway swooped in and signed the star Quarterback. Now Elway was in a tough position. The Denver faithful had led a coup of sorts to get Tebow to start in the first place, and it seemed improbable that they would accept Tebow as a back up again. Any mistake Manning made would bring howls from the crowd to bring back Tebow. So Elway decided to shop him.

At first it seemed only a few teams had just a passing interest in him. The Jacksonville Jaguars made the most sense and were the odds on favorites to land Tebow’s services. Jacksonville struggles to attract fans and the hometown Tebow was sure to drive attendance up. Then all of a sudden the New York Jets swooped in and landed Tebow for a couple of draft picks.

I have been fairly clear in my admiration for Tim Tebow, but now that he’s on the Jets, my team, I’ve been forced to reconsider. I admired Tebow from afar, but do I really want any part of the circus that is the Tim Tebow experience? The Jets’ blogs seem to be universally against this deal, and I’ve got to admit it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

The Jets had just extended Mark Sanchez’s contract, and wouldn’t Tim Tebow undermine that? After any mistake Sanchez made, and he certainly seems to make a lot, wouldn’t the fans demand that Tebow plays? Do the Jets really want to risk their future for a quarterback who struggles to play the position the proper way? Is this merely a ploy to sell tickets and generate publicity?

Well, let me take the contrarian stance, I like this move. The Jets new offensive coordinator, Tony Sparano, pioneered the Wildcat and Tebow should be able to add interesting, and potentially effective, wrinkles to that formation. In my optimistic scenario, Tebow will be an unconventional running back who happens to have a good arm. He will prove effective in short yardage situations, and will provide a good change of pace when Sanchez struggles.

As far as Sanchez’s fragile confidence, if he can’t take the pressure of being backed up by a popular quarterback, then can I really pencil him in as the QB of the future? I think Jets fans will bring a healthy skepticism about Tebow’s game and thus won’t call for Sanchez’s head at the drop of a dime. In fact, in comparison to Tebow’s erratic play, Jet’s fans might start to gain an appreciation of Tebow. I have no evidence to back this up, but I suspect that Jets fans are more secular than their Denver counterparts and less susceptible to blind faith in Tebow.

The biggest story in all of this is Tim Tebow in the land of secular humanists. Colorado is home to Focus on the Family, and New York is home to Jews, gays, liberals, and Planned Parenthood. Tebow is now positioned as the crusading Christian here to bring religion to the masses. New York is also the media capital of the world. If Tebow has any kind of success with the Jets, it will make Twitter, ESPN, and talk radio explode.

From a football perspective, I think this move may work out well for the Jets. If Tebow plays the Brad Smith role, he could provide the Jets with a bit of unpredictability and excitement. He’ll be effective in their refound commitment to “ground and pound.” If the Jets, however, think that he may be the QB of the future than I want no part of it. In all of the hype over Tim Tebow, the fact that he does have real skills has been diminished. If the Jets had acquired some random running first QB with the 4th round selection they traded for him, I doubt it would’ve been nearly as controversial.

As it stands, Tim Tebow is a New York Jet and I almost can’t believe it. Tebow had been a sideshow for my football fandom, but now he becomes an integral part of it. The choirboy steps into a locker room led by the foul mouthed Rex Ryan. One thing I’ll say is that I like that the Jets seem unafraid to make daring moves. They went out and acquired Brett Favre when he became available, and they just did the same thing with Tebow. It might work out or it might not, but I can almost guarantee that Tebow won’t text dick pics to anyone. And if he does, then it will probably break the internet, perhaps irrevocably.

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Romney's Waterloo?

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. I refer, of course, to the Republicans, who have had just about the most entertaining primary season in recent memory. Sure Clinton vs. Obama was a fierce drama, but this Republican race has been pure black comedy. Not in the Tyler Perry sense, but in the sort of macabre, masochistic sense. It’s been like watching an awkward blind date or an arranged marriage. Mitt Romney is the overeager suitor who sees his conquest as assured; and the Republican base is the demure courted, unable to believe they are stuck with this jerk. They’ve flirted with everyone, even absurd candidates like Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and Michelle Bachman, because they are unwilling to accept that they are stuck with this milquetoast stiff. Finally, it seemed they had decided to settle down. Romney had parlayed his decent showing in Super Tuesday into even more talk about his inevitability, and he seemed to be picking up momentum. The Drudge Report published some exit polling at about 6 PM that made it seem like Romney was going to win two unlikely victories, put to bed consternation over his inability to win in the south, and finally, at long last, seal the deal.

But that’s not the Romney way. He’s an albatross on his own back; he’s the Titanic, the Hindenberg, the Spruce Goose. His spectacular failings owe themselves to his lack of structural integrity, and a knack for compounding his own errors. Romney, of course, didn’t win in Mississippi or Alabama. Instead he came in a fairly close 3rd in both states. Ironically, the only reason he still seems inevitable is because his sworn enemy, Newt Gingrich, has served as his protector. Newt’s presence masks the fact that he can’t garner more than about a 1/3 of the vote in many states.

Romney has peaked. In almost every contest the exit polling reveals that the vast majority of Romney voters point to his electability as the reason they vote for him as opposed to his views on foreign, fiscal, or social policy. Think about that for a second. If, say, half of his voters are voting for him because of the theory that he will make the best candidate against Obama, then what is his true level of support? 15-20% of the Republican base in any given state? Is there anyone in the Republican Party who is excited by Romney? Rick Santorum is a joke. He’s an outdated social conservative bested by 20% in his home state, albeit in a tough year for Republicans. Newt Gingrich is a joke as well. He’s an open egomaniac who wore out his welcome on the national stage in about 1998. And Mitt Romney can’t decisively beat these guys, even as he exponentially outspends his opponents.

It was always going to be tough sledding for Romney in the south. He’s a Yankee, and a Mormon to boot. His losses last night weren’t necessarily surprising, I predicted them in my column after Super Tuesday, but Romney was a victim of heightened expectations. I guess he’s been a victim of high expectations the whole race in a certainsense, but when you’re a well coiffed millionaire running against this amateurish bunch, you probably should be able to meet them.

The big story the past couple days was how Romney joked that he had “begun to eat grits and say ya’ll” developments that Romney called “strange” . He was affecting a slight southern drawl. But it was almost painful to watch. Romney tries to be slick, but he is so clearly pandering. It seems he doesn’t even believe himself. When one tries to pander to voters they shouldn’t express the fact that they know they are pandering, and Romney does. You don’t point out that your affectations are strange.

And what do we make of Rick Santorum? After his strong showing in Iowa I compared him to Tim Tebow, and the comparison has held true. Just like Tim Tebow his successes seem like dumb luck. They seem attributable to the failings of his opponents just as much as any display of his own skill. But you have to applaud him for positioning himself to take advantage. I’ll point out that the Denver Broncos seem poised to dump Tim Tebow for Peyton Manning, and maybe something analogous will happen to Santorum at the Republican Convention.

Santorum is the perfect candidate for the current Republican base, which seems to be growing more and more hysterical. They claim to be Tea Partiers, but like Santorum, it seems fiscal conservatism is more important in theory than in practice for them. Santorum is the candidate who stands most fiercely against the tide of modernity, and isn’t that what being conservative is all about.

I saw an exit poll on CNN that said Santorum won a plurality of college graduates in Alabama; this after he seemed to assert that going to college was “snobbish”. This is a perfect illustration about southern Republican voters; they love to vote against their own self-interest.

Now lets be clear: Romney will likely be the candidate. The math just doesn’t work for Santorum to catch him. We’re in the part of the season when perception starts to matter less than hard math. When a victory in Guam or the Northern Marianas is as important as a victory in Kansas. When the full results were tabulated, which included Romney wins in Hawaii and American Samoa, he actually won the most delegates last night. Romney’s lead is simply too big and he’ll likely win California and New York and put himself near the magic number of delegates needed for nomination. But at this point does anyone feel good about him winning the nomination? Even his electability argument is starting to be undermined by polling showing Santorum competitive with him against Obama. Romney’s been bolstered by support from the so-called “Republican Elite,” but this support is an inch deep and a mile wide. When do the people who call the shots decide that it’s not a good idea to nominate a guy who can’t get more than a 1/3 of the vote seemingly anywhere? Perhaps Romney’s a smarter politician than I give him credit for because he made at least one good decision last night: He didn’t give a speech. The sight of him frozen faced offering his banal platitudes would’ve been almost too depressing to watch.

Thursday, March 8, 2012

Breitbart's Obama Bombshells

When Andrew Breitbart died last week, conspiracy theorists took to Twitter almost instantly to allege that he was killed by Obama. This stemmed from Andrew Breitbart's speech during CPAC in which he promised that he had videos that would expose the President. The underlying conservative theory is that Obama is some kind of charlatan who swept America off it's feet in 2008, and thus wasn't subjected to the same kind of media scrutiny other candidates are. Breitbart would remedy this he claimed, he would "vet" the President; to wit: “I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him,” Breitbart exclaimed to raucous applause. “We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008.”

After Breitbart's death, the videos were left in a state of flux. Had the Obama administration silenced Breitbart the old fashioned way? Well, this week brought about the first two pieces of Breitbarts theoretically damaging cache. After seeing them, I can pretty unequivocally say that the Obama administration didn't have Breitbart killed.

The first piece of evidence was a poster for a play "The Love Song of Saul Alinksy." On the poster it stated that Obama, then a state senator, would speak as part of a panel discussion after the show. The Republicans love to make hay about Obama's ties to Saul Alinsky, the author of "Rules for Radicals," but this is something that was brought up almost ad nauseam during the 2008 campaign. Alinksy is a boogeyman for the right, but the fact that Obama appeared on a panel discussion about him just isn't damning. This was merely the first piece of evidence, the folks at Breitbart said.

Yesterday, came the second piece. First, Drudge announced on his banner that a video would be released at 9pm on the Hannity show. Conservatives were hyping the heck out of the video, so surely it had to be good. Well, 9pm came and the video was released. It showed Obama, then the President of Harvard Law, speaking kindly about Prof. Derrick Bell at a rally for faculty diversity. Derrick Bell is a well respected professor, and one of the pioneers of "critical race theory."As an academic Bell was critical about the lack of radicalness in the civil rights movement, and here was Obama openly praising him. Clearly, this is a shocking development and one that illustrates Obama's radical roots, right? Well actually, the video had already been released and the only new piece of information it shared was that Obama and Bell hugged while Obama was giving his speech. Obama is celebrating Harvard Law's first black professor at a rally for diversity. The video is interesting, but not for conservative reasons. It shows Obama as a young man, speaking with almost the exact same rhetorical style.

In my opinion, the issue is a nonstarter. College is a place where the status quo ought to be challenged and new ideas should be embraced and considered. This is part of what Rick Santorum is raging against when he calls college elitist. What makes Breitbart's, and conservatives', thesis about Obama not being vetted so loony, is that Obama has governed as a moderate. I'm not a psychotherapist, though my father is, and he would likely say that they are experiencing paranoid delusions. In the face of all the evidence that Obama is a loyal American, a moderate with mainstream views, they still see him as an outsider and dangerous. Regardless of what Breitbart's people continue to reveal, you can't argue with the evidence from Obama's presidency that he is not a dangerous radical.

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Requiem for Kucinich

I wrote at length about the Republican "Super Tuesday" primary on the Faster Times, which I encourage you to check out here: http://www.thefastertimes.com/politics/2012/03/07/3053/

But while it was a night chock full of laughs for progressives, who can hardly contain their glee at the Republican infighting, a sad story got drowned out by the insipid noise from the Republican primary. Representative Dennis Kucinich was defeated in a primary. Rep. Kucinich, perhaps best known for his quixotic presidential runs, was the most progressive voice in Congress. In a Democratic party that seemed to be drifting ever rightward, Kucinich was proud of his liberal roots. He voted against the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War; He's been a strong voice on many subjects: against increasing militarism towards Iran, for a quick withdrawal from Afghanistan, against NAFTA and CAFTA, against nuclear weapons, against Israeli aggression towards Palestinians, against intervention and Libya. On the domestic front he was perhaps the strongest Democratic supporter of Single Payer Health Care, he proposed a bill that would establish it and had to be coaxed by Obama to vote for Obamacare without the Single Payer. He railed against bailing out the banks and not the homeowners. In other words he was on the wrong side of a lot of 425-5 votes, but on the right side of many issues.

Kucinich lost in the Democratic primary not because he was unpopular, but because he was gerrymandered out of office. Perhaps the most significant lasting impact of the Republicans massive electoral gains in the 2010 election was that they controlled Governorships and Legislatures during the redistricting that occurs after the Census. With Ohio losing a representative, the Republicans firmly entrenched in the Ohio State House drew up a map that essentially combined the districts of two Democrats. Kucinich and Marcy Kaptur. The district had about 40% of Kaptur's old district and 30% of Kucinich's, so Kucinich faced an uphill battle. Kaptur isn't a bad congresswoman. She speaks movingly in the Michael Moore doc Capitalism: A love Story, but she's no Kucinich.

One of my favorite things to watch on youtube is Kucinich singing 16 Tons, which you should check out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGmYhTYLbno . The video of Kucinich singing the old labor standard is classic Kucinich. He comes off as almost humorously earnest as progressives are sometimes wont to do. At the same time, it's moving. Kucinich has fought for the rights of workers and Americans of all stripes. He is a true believer, a man who dedicated his life to fighting for progressive values. His presence in Democratic Primaries shifted the debate to the left, if even one iota. Kucinich also gave a particularly moving speech at the DNC convention in 2008, which you can check out here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvzcLgx14G0. It was titled "Wake Up America," he was referring to an American Public that had been systematically anesthetized and robbed blind by the George W. Bush administration. Kucinich was a strong voice against that blight on American history, he woke up America. There is some talk that Kucinich may file to run for a seat in Washington State, though the logistics of establishing a residency there may be difficult in the short time he has. While it seems like a carpetbagger move, this is a carpetbagger America needs. America is a better place with Kucinich's voice in Congress.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Obama, Politics, and Israel

Over the noise of the noxious comments by Rush Limbaugh, and the inane race between these Republican hopefuls, it was refreshing to hear Barack Obama speak today. It was a clever bit of stage business in the theater of politics, schedule your first news conference the day of the Republican "Super Tuesday." Obama offered harsh comments about Republican saber rattling over Iran, slightly shaking my belief that we are headed down an inevitable path of war. Republicans have blasted Obama, calling him a Chamberlain-like appeaser and each trying to outflank each other to the right in calling for a war, with the notable exception of Ron Paul. In a recent fundraiser Obama answered a protester, who shouted "No war with Iran," that "no war had been declared yet." Contradictorily, yesterday Obama told Israel "he had their back."

Obama is under immense political pressure and, perhaps, that may be part of Israel's strategy. The Israel lobby is amongst the most powerful in Washington, and protecting Israel seems to be a cause that is popular throughout America, particularly in political circles. Israel may be trying to force Obama into a hard decision with reelection hanging over his head. Obama is unpopular in Israel, and the increasingly tough rhetoric puts him in situation in which he's probably going to alienate some segment of his supporters, regardless of the decision he makes.

As I've expressed before, a War in Iran would be a catastrophe. I don't believe that Iran wants to commit national suicide, which is what an attack on Israel or the U.S. would be. How the Republicans seem to think that another war is what America needs, while they are apoplectic about the debt, seems antithetical to me. There's no money for rebuilding America, for providing vital services, but there's seemingly an unending warchest for plunging America into unnecessary wars.

Limbaugh's Reign in Ruins

One of my first introductions to politics was reading Al Franken's wonderful book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot." Written in 1996, the book illustrates the hypocritical, and outright despicable nature of several conservative luminaries. The book illustrates how little the times have changed. Franken's two favorite targets are Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, two men who are clearly a major part of the conservative discussion to this day. Franken's work is particularly prescient, he spends a good deal of time talking about limbaugh's problematic relationship with women and Gingrich's grandiosity. Flash forward 16 years, Franken is a U.S. Senator, Gingrich is a flailing and failing Presidential Candidate, and Rush Limbaugh is still the signature shock jock of the hysterical right.

However, it seems like Rush Limbaugh's horrible comments have done the unthinkable. They've finally knocked him down from his exalted position within the Republican Party. For years, Rush has been the kingmaker, the de facto boss, and unofficial spokesman of the party, but now it seems his goose may be cooked. Advertisers are leaving his show in droves, a couple stations have pulled him, and most significantly it seems his exalted, untouchable, position amongst conservatives has been shaken. Rush will still have a healthy career, be it on satellite or terrestrial radio, but Republicans won't be forced to kiss his ring, as they have in the past.

Rush has built a career on being a bully, but in this instance it seems he went a step too far. Why has this incident resonated, whereas his other attacks were greeted with applause? It's not merely because he attacked a young, defenseless woman. After all he referred to Chelsea Clinton as the "White House dog" during Clinton's term, and was met with mostly chuckles from his base. I think it's because there's a large segment of Rush Limbaugh's audience with adolescent to young adult daughters, who are on birth control. Limbaugh wasn't merely taking a shot at this young woman but all young women. Limbaugh has become a conservative icon because he's willing to push the envelope. He's been able to entertainingly articulate the conservative message, and often that's involved taking cheap shots. He's consistently railed against women, feminists became "feminazis", but in attacking birth control he transcended politics. A quick online search seems to show that 99% of women have used some form of contraception. Rush screwed up and it seems his reign, spanning 2 decades, may be over.

Monday, March 5, 2012

The Saint's Bounty System

The latest scandal to rock the sports world is news that New Orleans Saint's had a bounty program. The coaches dictated that players would receive a little extra cash if they knocked players out of the game, and a little more on top of that if the players couldn't leave the field on their own power. The NFL is apoplectic, everyone expects Roger Goodell, the Commissioner of the league, to issue draconian penalties. Gregg Williams, the Defensive Coordinator, who implemented this system is disgraced, and has seen his long and successful coaching career marred by this stain.

Football is essentially a violent sport. Particularly on the defensive side, your primary goal at most times is to hit someone hard. Williams, who was thought of as one of the premier defensive coaches, merely stripped away the veneer. He codified and commodified extreme violence. But part of me wonders if the bounty system had any tangible effect. The relatively small incentive Williams was offering, pales in comparison to the average salary of a defensive player, so it seems to me that the incentive was already there. Making big hits is a way to raise your notoriety as a player, appear on Sports Center, and endear yourself to coaches across the league, you're telling me those benefits are less motivation than a couple thousand bucks. Additionally, players are routinely fined way more money for illegal hits than the Saints doled out for these bounties, so the financial incentive may have been negated.

It reminds me of the controversy over Marines peeing on dead soldiers in Afghanistan. It's a horrible and disgusting thing to do, but think about the context. These were enemy combatants who were literally just killed by these very same Marines. You're fine with these men killing these people, but peeing on them is beyond the pale? You're fine with watching a sport where people routinely dole out bone crushing hits, causing short and long term injuries, but openly acknowledging that reality is uncouth?

Friday, March 2, 2012

Rush Limbaugh's Contraception Controversy

I feel like I've taken a time machine back to the 1950s, because somehow one of the central political debates in recent weeks has been over birth control. The controversy stems from the Obama administrations mandate that Catholic hospitals have to provide birth control. It's been fodder for both sides, with liberals shocked at the seeming backwardness of the right in 2012, and conservatives seeing it as clear evidence of secular society's erosion of religion values. The controversy has been stirred up in recent days, as Rush Limbaugh attacked a young law student who wasn't permitted to speak at a hearing about the matter.

Limbaugh, perhaps channeling his fallen comrade Breitbart, called the young woman a "slut", a "prostitute", and alleged that the woman was having so much sex that she couldn't pay for all of her contraception. The next day, Limbaugh said "if we're going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch." Today, Limbaugh said that her parents should be embarrassed of her and go into hiding in shame. The whole conversation is classic Limbaugh, he's a polemicist, a shock jock, who's built his career on savagely attacking his enemies. Of course, Limbaugh is a disgusting pig, and an outright misogynist, but I think many already knew that.

What's jarring about this attack is the frank nature with which he's framing the battle over social values. Usual such arguments are shrouded in religious language which is code for patriarchal control over women's bodies, but Limbaugh just went ahead and made the point crystal clear. I'm glad Limbaugh made these comments because they explicitly reveal the base nature of the conservative argument over birth control. They don't care about women's health, or even social values, they are scared of oversexed young women who challenge their patriarchal view.

I've often thought that misogyny, like other forms of bigotry, is based in fear. Men who are misogynistic are intimidated by women. It's a classic overcompensation, they lack self-confidence in dealing with women so they create a schema in which men, by right, dominate women. Limbaugh illustrates this view when he says that we should all be able to watch this young woman have sex. He sees a woman's sexual identity as public domain. Limbaugh, Breitbart, and the whole gang of right wing bullies claim to fight against a society which is being degraded, but it's merely their power as white males that's being degraded.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Andrew Breitbart Dead at 43

If I had to parse what makes me such a marvelous blogger, a blogger whose world view far extends his mere 23 years on God’s green Earth, it would probably be my openness to ideas antithetical to my own. It’s been a strange guilty pleasure, one that’s caused me shame and made me question my liberal bonafides. From a young age I’ve enjoyed watching Fox News, reading the National Review Online, and, most of all, visiting the Drudge Report. I feel that doing this gives me a better perspective on the Conservative opinion of the day rather than merely thinking of conservatives as boogeymen. In his porkpie hat, Matt Drudge, in particular, gives a good feeling for the Conservative zeitgeist of the day; he sets the debate of the day and he’s always quick to link to an unflattering article about liberals no matter how innocuous.

While Drudge has always eschewed the public eye, his crony and prodigy Andrew Breitbart seemed to take particular pleasure when appearing on television. He loved to play provocateur to the liberals he appeared with. With his wild hair and confrontational style, he played the part of conservative iconoclast well. Today comes the sad news that he is dead at the age of 43 of an apparent heart attack.

Breitbart was never shy about controversy. In his galaxy of websites, Breitbart loved to play gotcha politics. He hosted and financed the video that tried to take down the group ACORN, and subsequently hosted several other such efforts. His crowning political moment may have been his role in exposing the Anthony Weiner controversy. Breitbart was the man on the case when Weiner first tweeted his underwear picture, and Breitbart didn’t let the story die in the face of Weiner’s denials. It was a clash of the titans, both Weiner and Breitbart were television regulars, and Breitbart played conquering conservative hero. He was the subject of a great deal of controversy. He got Shirley Sherrod, a USDA higher up, fired from her job when he misleadingly edited and hosted a video that made it seem as if Ms. Sherrod wouldn’t help white farmers who fell under her purview. Recently, outside of the CPAC conference, he screamed at some Occupy protesters “stop raping people.” In his television appearances defending the incident, he looked disheveled, unshaven. I thought it was just an illustration of his unorthodox style, but perhaps it suggests something darker.

Breitbart was the latest to play upon the archetype of liberal turned conservative. As a convert, he seemed well equipped to undercut liberal arguments, and he was a talented TV debater. Breitbart had a seemingly huge future, the voice of the Tea Party and the king of conservative new media. Today, that future is snuffed out at the young age of 43. Breitbart won’t get to see the 2012 election, one in which he undoubtedly would’ve played a fairly large role.

While Breitbart’s politics were horrible and his flamboyant personal style often made him seem like a jerk, I always held a small bit of admiration for the man. As an Internet commentator myself, I have to admire his unfailing ability to break big story, generate a buzz, set the debate, and transcend the medium. I have a distinct memory of watching Breitbart on Real Time with Bill Maher, and while he came across as a tremendous jackass, me and all my friends had to admit that he had “swag”. That’s 2012 for you, your substance doesn’t seem to matter if you have the style, and Breitbart had the style in spades.
share save 171 16 RIP Andrew Breitbart