Lots of really loud yelling broke out on various cable news shows last week. Not that that's unusual, but last week's subject of controversy was the Million Muslim March organized by AMPAC (American Muslim Political Action Committee) and planned for the twelfth anniversary of the September 11 attacks. AMPAC is apparently chock full of Truthers and Anti-Semites. A fringe, nut group. In other words, they're like the Muslim equivalent of Occupy or Anonymous.
Conservatives are outraged. I'm sure plenty of others are outraged too, but conservatives are less restrained by the shackles of political correctness, so they can be louder and get away with it. And I understand the outrage. But if AMPAC actually pulled this off, it would truly be fantastic. No, really. I realize this seems like madness (and most of the things I post on my blog are), but what I'm referring to is one of the silver linings of hate speech.
One adage that is often repeated in free speech arguments is that the first amendment doesn't protect speech we like, it protects speech we don't like. I don't know who said that. I also don't care, and don't feel like looking up. But this is why even hateful ideas like the ones spewed forth by AMPAC nuts are protected. And as infuriating as that can be, it is also comforting. Because the advantage of letting extremists spew nonsense is that they marginalize themselves. Silencing or censoring a nut can actually give him credibility, as he can claim he's being oppressed. But if a nut is allowed to shout his wacky theories, people start seeing him for the loon that he is. Nutty people ultimately will self destruct (See: Alex Jones), as long as we just let them.
It's important to keep in mind that the rest of us need to help nuts marginalize themselves. The onus is on the sane among us to identify them, call them out when spout their lunacy, and expose their nuttiness to the world. Since the number of people voicing opinions is ever increasing, we need convenient ways to identify the stupid and the screwy. This way we can summarily ignore them.
There are several ways to identify nut groups already. For example, any protester in America who burns the American flag can be dismissed as irrelevant. Flag burners exercise their right to free speech by burning the symbol of their free speech. This is probably not someone inclined to think things through rationally. Also, anyone wearing a Guy Fawkes mask can be discounted. Unless they were in "V for Vendetta." Those people were just doing a job. Guy Fawkes mask aficionados are frequently Occupiers and Anonymous members, two groups with more than their fair share of Truthers, False Flaggers, Anarchists, and Neo-Marxists. None of these ideas is worth the time it takes to write this paragraph.
Like these two examples, the AMPAC march is a convenient mechanism for crazy identification. Anyone who shows up will be someone we can assume isn't worth including in a rational debate. An attendee will not be the type of Muslim we should take seriously or expect any reasoned debate from. Once we've identified them, we can disregard them and spend our time talking to those Muslims that aren't crazy. And despite what some anti-Muslim extremists say, non-crazy Muslims do exist. All someone needs to do is go have a beer in Turkey to see what I'm talking about.
A loon who spews hateful nonsense is offensive, but is also a labor saving device. My making themselves readily identifiable, crazy people help the rest of us. Those of us with brains and sanity can figure out who's not worth talking to. Separating non-crazy Muslims from the crazy is worthwhile. Non-Crazy Muslims want these nuts marginalized, because extremists make other Muslims look bad.
Sadly, though, the latest reports suggest that the turnout might be slightly less than a million (more like several dozen). All of the outrage may have put a damper on the entire affair. This isn't a good thing, I think. I'd rather have all of the nutjobs out in the open. Once I know who they are, I can make sure I don't waste my time on them.
Showing posts with label crazy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crazy. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Thursday, May 2, 2013
The Greatest Conspiracy Ever!
Given the amount of time I spend goofing around on the Internet and social media (which is what I do when I should be working), it's only a matter of time until I start bumping into the loonier side of cyberspace. Every nutty conspiracy theory there is is out on the web. I've been inundated with this kind of crazy for hours every day, except for the moments where my boss walks by my desk and I have to pretend I'm working. And I finally noticed a common pattern.
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.
There it is. The one true conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.
All of these conspiracy theories were created by communists. Commies. Oh, yes. That is the only explanation that makes sense. All of the greatest conspiracy theories are obviously created by communists. The faking of the moon landing, aliens at Area 51, the assassination of JFK, the various Rothschild, Illuminati, New World Order conspiracies, and the worst, 9/11 truther conspiracies, are all created by communists to advance a communist agenda.
They do this because the truth makes communists look bad. The moon landing was an early indication that American capitalism would blow right past Soviet communism. Communists thought they had the edge in the space race, but suddenly America was back in the game. When America successfully completed the first moon landing, communists couldn't let people believe that capitalism was actually superior. So they invented the myth that the moon landing was faked. A pack of communist lies that claimed the moon landing was a pack of capitalist lies. Irony, anyone?
The aliens at Area 51 is a similar example. Area 51 is a real place. It's a part of Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada. The truth is that there was (and probably still is) Air Force research being conducted at Area 51. Crazy, mad scientist, ARPA/DARPA stuff. American enterprise was rapidly making Soviet communism obsolete. The Soviets couldn't let the world believe that the innovations that we made were the product of capitalism. So they cobbled together a half-assed theory that we were actually stealing the ideas from aliens. Damn Commies. Couldn't handle the fact that we were just way more innovative than them.
This isn't the only thing they thought we stole. All of Illuminati, New World Order, Rothschild conspiracies have a similar theme. A shadowy cabal of businessmen, bankers, and whatever controls the entire world's wealth. America is apparently controlled by a few families, like the Rockefellers. Uh-huh. One look at the Forbes 400 disproves this. 70% of the 400 wealthiest Americans are self made billionaires. Many are household names on the list, such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Charles Schwab, George Lucas, and Donald Trump just to name a few. There is a Rockefeller on the list. He's tied for 151. Less than the five I just mentioned. How can a few families control all of the wealth, when so many self made billionaires are richer than one of the supposed conspirators? The answer is simple. Commies. They can't handle the fact that capitalism allows people to thrive and be successful in a single lifetime. So they claim that some rich people must have stolen it. The old "behind every great fortune is a great crime" canard.
The last conspiracy led to another goofball theory that was apparently manufactured by the Politburo. When faced with happy people enjoying the fruits of capitalism, communists swung into damage control mode. Western society is "decadent" according to the commies of the world. This was raw denial on the part of the USSR. The commies couldn't admit that things were just better here. They didn't want people to look around at the bread lines and start dreaming of a life in America. So instead, they pushed the idea that we were weakening ourselves. Slowly poisoning ourselves with debauchery. We stole all the money and were living frivolously. Anything to prevent the people living under communism from seeing the obvious truth: communism was a failure waiting to happen.
The JFK assassination theories are a little different. They're a deflection of guilt. The guy who actually killed JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a member of the communist party. The party couldn't have people believing that a communist murdered the American president. So the commies acted like it was a shadowy conspiracy, a convoluted, Byzantine intrigue produced by American capitalism. Anything to avoid having people realize that the actual murderer was just another naive chump duped by communism.
The 9/11 truther conspiracies are a product of the even more naive neo-communists. Communism rightly became extinct. It's political Darwinism; the unfit system perished and the fittest system survived and thrived. But a few leftover douches from the 60's occasionally con some young people into pushing the various quaint and archaic notions of communism. We see this today with Anonymous and the Occupy movement. And it should come as no surprise that plenty of these nuts are in love with the 9/11 Truth idea. Youtube is full of the Truthers at Occupy rallies and Anonymopes demanding an investigation of the 9/11 "false flag" attack.
For the commies, it was absolutely critical that the United States not appear in any way sympathetic after 9/11. The neo-commies would have us believe that 9/11 was a giant conspiracy by the corrupt shadowy cabals that rule the United States and stole the world's wealth devised it as an elaborate power grab. Of course, they already control the world's wealth, according to various other communist theories. So I'm not sure how much power they could grab for. That is irrelevant, though, since logic and reason are not things Occupunks and Anonymopes concern themselves with. America overreached when it responded to 9/11. The simple explanations are that this was political opportunism or, far more likely, a natural reaction that came from fear. But if the world believed that, it would disrupt the commie narrative that capitalism is evil. So they threw together a theory about planned demolitions.
There it is. The one true conspiracy. Communists invent all other conspiracy theories to advance their discredited ideology. All of their conspiracy theories about capitalism and the New World Order are actually an elaborate conspiracy to install a communist New World Order. Of course now that I think about it, does it make sense to assume there is an conspiracy every time I hear something that doesn't fit what I believe? Could this belief that communists are behind everything be the product of paranoia; another Red Scare? Maybe these conspiracy theories exist because there are lots of disaffected nuts in the world who jump on every screwy theory, especially the Anti-American ones, that they can find. That's a much simpler explanation. Nah, screw it. Occam's Razor is for pussies. Commies are behind everything. Damn commies.
Friday, April 26, 2013
Every State Needs Two Senators Because I Like Maple Syrup
Last week, I saw Bill Maher repeat one of his frequent pet peeves. He dislikes the fact that even states with tiny populations have the same number of senators as huge ones like California. This is an outgrowth of the filibuster debate. Because so many of those tiny population states are red states, they can prevent Democrats from moving legislation through the Senate. Never mind the fact that it wasn't too long ago that Republicans had a majority, but not a super majority, and were clamoring for filibuster reform. He wants proportional representation in the Senate. But he assumes that the only thing of value that a state has is the people there. Some of the tiny population states provide valuable resources that the larger states could not live without.
One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup. One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup. I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits. In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup. And butter. And bacon on the side. Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.
The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont. Vermont's population is approximately 600,000. In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that. Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million. But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being. Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.
Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont. The large states would call all of the shots. A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold. Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup. Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices. Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated. Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience. Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup. Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff. Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined. Making me even grouchier in the morning.
At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives. Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes. But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia. Also known as tequila. This would cause brawls in the streets. Kind of like the brawls we see when people drink tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.
There is one other option, but it's problematic. Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character. But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice. We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known. Canada. I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty. And don't get me started about hockey (shudder).
This is all about principle for me. I'm not a small state guy. The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states. I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state. I'm taking this stand for the greater good. Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate. Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.
Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup. The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended. Ultimately, it's about justice. Pancake justice. And waffles, too, I guess. Nah, to hell with that. I hate Belgians.
One of the most critical resources provided to me by a small state is maple syrup. One cannot have pancakes without maple syrup. I may live in the South and have ready access to cane syrup, but that's only good for biscuits. In order to have proper pancakes, one must have maple syrup. And butter. And bacon on the side. Butter and bacon are readily available in the South, but not maple syrup.
The only place to get good maple syrup is Vermont. Vermont's population is approximately 600,000. In Manhattan, there are probably zip codes that have more people than that. Vermont has one senator for every 300,000 people and California has one senator for every 19 million. But Vermont is equally critical to the national well being. Only Vermont can can provide the critical resource that transforms simple fried batter into decadent breakfast bliss.
Utter chaos would result if larger states had more votes than little states like Vermont. The large states would call all of the shots. A small state like Vermont would have no power and just be forced to supply the large states with its precious tree sap/liquid gold. Vermont would be little more than a colony supplying syrup. Big states could push through regulations requiring higher quantities at lower prices. Now I find it unlikely that Vermont would revolt, but there is the "Ah, screw it" effect that results from being under-appreciated. Smarty pants people call this civil disobedience. Because of big state mandates on supply and price, Vermont maple syrup producers would simply not bother creating the same quality of syrup. Instead of high quality liquid breakfast orgasm sauce, we'd have the cheap, runny stuff. Suddenly, breakfast would be ruined. Making me even grouchier in the morning.
At that point, innocent pancake eaters would be forced to search for alternatives. Some of my Whole Foodsy, Fresh Markety food snob friends like to put agave nectar on their pancakes. But if we all did this, there would be fewer agave plants available to make Agave Ambrosia. Also known as tequila. This would cause brawls in the streets. Kind of like the brawls we see when people drink tequila, but worse because the combatants would be sober enough to hit their targets.
There is one other option, but it's problematic. Nobody likes to obtain resources from countries with questionable moral character. But if Vermont has been beaten down so hard by big state bullies that syrup producers can't produce the good stuff, we would have no choice. We would have to turn to the most evil and hideous nation the planet Earth has ever known. Canada. I mean seriously, no decent country would produce beer that nasty. And don't get me started about hockey (shudder).
This is all about principle for me. I'm not a small state guy. The states I grew up in are Virginia and Georgia, the 12th and 8th most populous states. I live in Florida, the 4th most populous state. I'm taking this stand for the greater good. Preserving the availability of high quality maple syrup (and various other lesser resources provided by small states, like grain and meat and timber and minerals) can only be done if small states have equal representation in the Senate. Two Vermont senators could could face down the big state bullies and prevent any oppressive regulations, because a big state would also only have two senators.
Weakening small states in the Senate would reduce breakfast quality nationwide, or empower rogue nations who seek to destroy us by making us dependent on their syrup. The only way to preserve our breakfast independence is to ensure that the makeup of the Senate remains as our founding fathers intended. Ultimately, it's about justice. Pancake justice. And waffles, too, I guess. Nah, to hell with that. I hate Belgians.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Trolling the American Randstand
On March 6th, in response to a wishy-washy position posed by Attorney General Holder, Senator Rand Paul threw down an old school move. An actual filibuster. Not the half-assed "don't have sixty votes" filibuster. He hit the floor and said he'd talk until the president responded. The point was simple. Eric Holder wouldn't commit to saying that we would not use predators to kill Americans on American soil. Rand Paul took a stand saying he should commit. Demanding answers from the president. He went on for hours lecturing about due process, the constitution, and any number of entirely relevant things. Not the cheap type of filibustering where some douche just reads from the phone book.
Republican senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, John Thune, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, and showed up. Also, Senators Marco Rubio (MINE!), Saxby Chambliss (from my home state), and Tim Scott (my home state's neighbor to the north) participated. One of the old guard, Mitch McConnell, also made an appearance. And I've heard a lot of people call him Johnny-Come-Lately, but that's better than the twelve Johnny-Would-Rather-Let-The-President-Buy-Him(And One Her)-Dinner senators. And Mark Kirk didn't participate (he is recovering from a stroke, after all), but showed up and deserves a shoutout for bringing a care package.
Even some Democrats were there. Ron Wyden (D) participated in the filibuster. Dick Durbin (Heavy D) was there too. Granted, he wasn't participating, just asking questions, but he was Involved In The Democratic Process. Not something that seems to happen very often these days. And the questions he asked (confrontational, but not discourteously so), added to Paul's credibility. Paul knocked his first two questions out of the park. The last one (towards the end), was more of a single.
For the most part, when the senators broke in for questions, they did so with pertinent questions that added to the debate, Dems and Reps alike. But there was also a bit of fun. Ted Cruz took some time to quote everything from Shakespeare to Patton. Marco Rubio followed up by quoting Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z. It was all still relevant, though, as they tied the artistic references into the debate.
But the most epic part was when Ted Cruz carpet bombed the Senate with tweets from everyone who was supporting Rand Paul. The twitterverse was alive with all things Rand Paul. Around the world. He did this twice, bringing thousands who were glued to C-Span (when's the last time that happened, ever) into the process. Ted Cruz gets the Best Supporting Actor award for that. But the MVP was still Rand Paul, because he suddenly energized the public about politics, for the first time in years.
Of course, it was only a matter of time until detracty detractors who detract started detracting. The first salvo was the typical opening move of the radical left. Articles, blog posts, and tweets starting referring to his RAAAACISM! This was in reference to a series of interviews in 2010 where Rand Paul failed to properly bless and sprinkle and show proper deference to the Civil Rights Act. Instead, he had the incredibly bad taste to note that other fundamental rights, like free speech and property ownership, are occasionally at odds with the CRA. Instead of bowing and scraping before the almighty CRA, he actually had the temerity to suggest that the CRA and other fundamental rights might occasionally conflict with each other and need to be reconciled. This is an obscure legal concept also known as: The Reason Judges Have Jobs.
Race baiting is all too common these days. But it's a waste of time to obsess over this sort of thing. Someone who fails to have even this rudimentary understanding of how the Constitution works is the posterchild for low information voters. What this episode does is show two key things about Rand Paul. He's willing to explore and debate the Constitution in a nuanced way, and he's willing to go where few dare to tread.
So when "Racist" doesn't work, go for "Irrelevant". Various writers and journalists have decided that he was wasting time. Debating a question that was already answered. For example, I read a piece by Tommy Christopher on Mediaite pushing this point. He believed that Eric Holder actually did answer the question. But the fact is, Holder left the question open. He used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of unusual circumstances where this might happen, but did not clarify explicitly what defines a circumstance where using a drone is allowed.
Of course, when "Irrelevant" fails, "Crazy" is always an option. I saw Krystal Ball and Toure on the Cycle pushing this. Apparently, Rand Paul was just a nut ginning up a silly, non-issue to pander to conspiracy theorists, anti-government nuts, and "savages" (Toure's word. Stay Classy). Notably, just as liberal Steve Kornacki took a different position (Not sure where S.E. Cupp was) from his two colleagues and upheld the need for exploring these points. The relative newness of the drone program means there are lots of unanswered questions.
It's good that he did. The attorney general's response was a tad vague, saying that use of drones on Americans on American soil would only happen in extreme circumstances, but not clarifying what criteria would be used to determine what those circumstances are. And exploring unlikely hypotheticals is not something a crazy person does. It's common practice in politics.
I'm reminded of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. In one debate, the various candidates were asked by Brit Hume about a highly unlikely, ticking time-bomb, Jack-Baueresque scenario. Would they, in the wake of several damaging attacks against the US, torture someone who potentially had knowledge of another attack that was imminent? Mitt Romney danced around it (shocking, I know. Kind of like an Eric Holder). Rand's father Ron Paul was strongly against it. So was John McCain. Of course, McCain comes to that position honestly, and from personal experience.
Brit Hume asked a pertinent question about an unlikely, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-we scenario. This is because these highly unlikely scenarios are the ones where people and governments take the most extreme action and are at great risk for overreach. To a libertarian type of guy like Rand Paul, government overreach is to be avoided at all costs. So I find it odd that John McCain, who was happy to answer the question about the unlikely scenario related to torture, was so willing to dismiss the unlikely scenario that was proposed by Rand Paul.
Paul admits it's unlikely that Obama would ever do this. And it's unlikely that anyone would do this. But one unfortunate election could result in a nut who would consider droning Americans without due process of law. So defining the laws clearly now prevents this scenario from happening. Just as defining torture ensures we don't cross the line there. I'm surprised that McCain would be willing to deal in hypotheticals in one case, but spurn the same thing in another. Especially when the one he spurned is the one more likely to result in dead bodies, if it did ever happen.
Eric Holder did respond. The answer was that we can't use drones against "non-combatant" Americans. Plenty of Paul critics claim that the simplicity of this response (including two out of three Cycle liberals) makes Paul look ridiculous. But it doesn't. Paul got some additional clarification (his goal from the start), which isn't ridiculous. The response also leaves questions open, suggesting that Paul is on to something. What is a "combatant" American? Holder's still missing a few details. And if we don't define it, and we elect some nutjob in the future, that guy may decide to define it for us with executive orders.
Rand Paul took a stand to make the administration clarify how far it would go to protect itself. He's seeking to set a standard that, even if it is highly unlikely we'll ever need it, is something that we must be absolutely clear about. Because if we don't figure it out now, we may find ourselves figuring it out the hard way in the future. This is not Rand Paul being an anti-government conspiracy nut. Nor is he pandering to the extreme right. He's a libertarian. That's not a wingnut; libertarians tend to be moderate. And the evidence of that is the support he got from the left. From politicians (Wyden) to actors (John Cusack) to activists (Code Pink and more than a few Anonymous and Occupy supporters, based on tweets I saw) to left wing journalists (Cenk Uygur of Current TV. That happened.), members of the left wing supported him. He was able to unite disparate factions in a common cause. It's been a while since a politician could pull that off. No wonder #StandwithRand is still trending.
Republican senators Ted Cruz, Mike Lee, Pat Toomey, John Thune, John Barrasso, John Cornyn, Jerry Moran, Jeff Flake, Mitch McConnell, and showed up. Also, Senators Marco Rubio (MINE!), Saxby Chambliss (from my home state), and Tim Scott (my home state's neighbor to the north) participated. One of the old guard, Mitch McConnell, also made an appearance. And I've heard a lot of people call him Johnny-Come-Lately, but that's better than the twelve Johnny-Would-Rather-Let-The-President-Buy-Him(And One Her)-Dinner senators. And Mark Kirk didn't participate (he is recovering from a stroke, after all), but showed up and deserves a shoutout for bringing a care package.
Even some Democrats were there. Ron Wyden (D) participated in the filibuster. Dick Durbin (Heavy D) was there too. Granted, he wasn't participating, just asking questions, but he was Involved In The Democratic Process. Not something that seems to happen very often these days. And the questions he asked (confrontational, but not discourteously so), added to Paul's credibility. Paul knocked his first two questions out of the park. The last one (towards the end), was more of a single.
For the most part, when the senators broke in for questions, they did so with pertinent questions that added to the debate, Dems and Reps alike. But there was also a bit of fun. Ted Cruz took some time to quote everything from Shakespeare to Patton. Marco Rubio followed up by quoting Wiz Khalifa and Jay-Z. It was all still relevant, though, as they tied the artistic references into the debate.
But the most epic part was when Ted Cruz carpet bombed the Senate with tweets from everyone who was supporting Rand Paul. The twitterverse was alive with all things Rand Paul. Around the world. He did this twice, bringing thousands who were glued to C-Span (when's the last time that happened, ever) into the process. Ted Cruz gets the Best Supporting Actor award for that. But the MVP was still Rand Paul, because he suddenly energized the public about politics, for the first time in years.
Of course, it was only a matter of time until detracty detractors who detract started detracting. The first salvo was the typical opening move of the radical left. Articles, blog posts, and tweets starting referring to his RAAAACISM! This was in reference to a series of interviews in 2010 where Rand Paul failed to properly bless and sprinkle and show proper deference to the Civil Rights Act. Instead, he had the incredibly bad taste to note that other fundamental rights, like free speech and property ownership, are occasionally at odds with the CRA. Instead of bowing and scraping before the almighty CRA, he actually had the temerity to suggest that the CRA and other fundamental rights might occasionally conflict with each other and need to be reconciled. This is an obscure legal concept also known as: The Reason Judges Have Jobs.
Race baiting is all too common these days. But it's a waste of time to obsess over this sort of thing. Someone who fails to have even this rudimentary understanding of how the Constitution works is the posterchild for low information voters. What this episode does is show two key things about Rand Paul. He's willing to explore and debate the Constitution in a nuanced way, and he's willing to go where few dare to tread.
So when "Racist" doesn't work, go for "Irrelevant". Various writers and journalists have decided that he was wasting time. Debating a question that was already answered. For example, I read a piece by Tommy Christopher on Mediaite pushing this point. He believed that Eric Holder actually did answer the question. But the fact is, Holder left the question open. He used 9/11 and Pearl Harbor as examples of unusual circumstances where this might happen, but did not clarify explicitly what defines a circumstance where using a drone is allowed.
Of course, when "Irrelevant" fails, "Crazy" is always an option. I saw Krystal Ball and Toure on the Cycle pushing this. Apparently, Rand Paul was just a nut ginning up a silly, non-issue to pander to conspiracy theorists, anti-government nuts, and "savages" (Toure's word. Stay Classy). Notably, just as liberal Steve Kornacki took a different position (Not sure where S.E. Cupp was) from his two colleagues and upheld the need for exploring these points. The relative newness of the drone program means there are lots of unanswered questions.
It's good that he did. The attorney general's response was a tad vague, saying that use of drones on Americans on American soil would only happen in extreme circumstances, but not clarifying what criteria would be used to determine what those circumstances are. And exploring unlikely hypotheticals is not something a crazy person does. It's common practice in politics.
I'm reminded of the 2008 Republican presidential campaign. In one debate, the various candidates were asked by Brit Hume about a highly unlikely, ticking time-bomb, Jack-Baueresque scenario. Would they, in the wake of several damaging attacks against the US, torture someone who potentially had knowledge of another attack that was imminent? Mitt Romney danced around it (shocking, I know. Kind of like an Eric Holder). Rand's father Ron Paul was strongly against it. So was John McCain. Of course, McCain comes to that position honestly, and from personal experience.
Brit Hume asked a pertinent question about an unlikely, there-but-for-the-grace-of-God-go-we scenario. This is because these highly unlikely scenarios are the ones where people and governments take the most extreme action and are at great risk for overreach. To a libertarian type of guy like Rand Paul, government overreach is to be avoided at all costs. So I find it odd that John McCain, who was happy to answer the question about the unlikely scenario related to torture, was so willing to dismiss the unlikely scenario that was proposed by Rand Paul.
Paul admits it's unlikely that Obama would ever do this. And it's unlikely that anyone would do this. But one unfortunate election could result in a nut who would consider droning Americans without due process of law. So defining the laws clearly now prevents this scenario from happening. Just as defining torture ensures we don't cross the line there. I'm surprised that McCain would be willing to deal in hypotheticals in one case, but spurn the same thing in another. Especially when the one he spurned is the one more likely to result in dead bodies, if it did ever happen.
Eric Holder did respond. The answer was that we can't use drones against "non-combatant" Americans. Plenty of Paul critics claim that the simplicity of this response (including two out of three Cycle liberals) makes Paul look ridiculous. But it doesn't. Paul got some additional clarification (his goal from the start), which isn't ridiculous. The response also leaves questions open, suggesting that Paul is on to something. What is a "combatant" American? Holder's still missing a few details. And if we don't define it, and we elect some nutjob in the future, that guy may decide to define it for us with executive orders.
Rand Paul took a stand to make the administration clarify how far it would go to protect itself. He's seeking to set a standard that, even if it is highly unlikely we'll ever need it, is something that we must be absolutely clear about. Because if we don't figure it out now, we may find ourselves figuring it out the hard way in the future. This is not Rand Paul being an anti-government conspiracy nut. Nor is he pandering to the extreme right. He's a libertarian. That's not a wingnut; libertarians tend to be moderate. And the evidence of that is the support he got from the left. From politicians (Wyden) to actors (John Cusack) to activists (Code Pink and more than a few Anonymous and Occupy supporters, based on tweets I saw) to left wing journalists (Cenk Uygur of Current TV. That happened.), members of the left wing supported him. He was able to unite disparate factions in a common cause. It's been a while since a politician could pull that off. No wonder #StandwithRand is still trending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)