Archive - Mar 2011

March 30th

The Parameters Of The Problem

« March 2011 »

Memo to Newt Gingrich, Scott Walker, and Bill Sammon: I DON'T KNOW.

As you may recall, You Are Dumb Dot Net's current position on why things suck is that there ain't no referee. There is no authority to constrain political behavior. I mean, there's never been MUCH of one, but the press, social opprobrium, and laws kept a certain amount of malfeasance in check. But today, the general attitude seems to be "well, what are you going to do about it?" To which my answer is, I don't know. All I can do is point it out when IDIOTS SAY THE DAMNDEST THINGS!

"It is now my legal responsibility to begin enactment of the law. It's clear that for as many attorneys as you wish to ask you are going to get an opinion on this particular law and the status of it. We have looked at the statutes and are defining them as clearly as we can as it states in the statute as to the requirements that must be met." - Scott Walker's secretary of administration in Wisconsin, Mike Heubsch.

See, here's the deal. Remember Scott Walker's union-busting law? The one that was passed without sufficient notice under Wisconsin's open-meeting laws? Well, a judge told them not to publish the law or put it into effect until a ruling had been made on the legality of passing it. So the Walker administration published it a different way and plans to put it into effect, even though the judge restated and reinforced her order last night. What are you gonna do about it?

And the reasoning that since there are differing opinions, Walker's crew gets to "define the statutes" any way they want? In defiance of a judge's order? That's an open declaration of, essentially, lawless anarchy within the government itself. If Wisconsin is allowed to get away with this, it'll be an even further erosion of the foundation of American society - that courts can hold people accountable and stop them from doing illegal things.

"At that time, I have to admit, that I went on TV on Fox News and publicly engaged in what I guess was some rather mischievous speculation about whether Barack Obama really advocated socialism, a premise that privately I found rather far-fetched." - Fox News exec Bill Sammon, admitting in 2009 to lying on-air during the 2008 campaign in order to propagate a narrative as part of Fox's news (not opinion, mind) coverage.

Everyone knows what Fox is. Fox knows. Other news organizations know. The viewers know. But Fox is allowed to deny it, and it's considered partisan and unfair for anyone to actually say it. Yet Sammon was admitting it two years ago, when he thought he was among friends and wasn't going to get caught. And now, his only defense is that everyone sure was talking about Obama being a socialist after we kept saying he was a socialist, even though we knew he wasn't a socialist.

If Fox is allowed to get away with this, and keep up the pretense of being a valid news organization with a few opinionated commentators in prime time, then it'll be an even further erosion of the press's power to establish objective reality and keep politicians in check.

"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American." - Newt Gingrich, speaking at Cornerstone Church, where they really hate Muslims, atheists, and of course Muslim atheists.

This is the second time in two weeks Newt Gingrich has said something blatantly contradictory. First, he criticized Obama for establishing a no-fly-zone in Libya one week after urging him to establish a no-fly-zone in Libya. Emboldened by this success, he apparently decided to see if he could put two contradictory ideas just TWO WORDS APART and get away with it. You can't have a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists. It's impossible.

It's deliberate counterfactual scare-tactics designed to appeal to the ignorance and bigotry of the Jesus-freak base. I know I've said this about a lot of things in the past, and a lot of things from Newt Fucking Gingrich in the past, but this statement alone should disqualify him from politics. Completely. You cannot be taken seriously as part of the discourse while saying shit like this. You cannot explore running for President and have the media treat you as a serious candidate while saying shit like this.

If Newt gets away with this, it'll be an even further erosion of the minimum standards needed to participate in electoral and presidential politics in America, to such an extent that intellectual lightweights like Michele Bachmann, Rand Paul, and Herman Cain will think they can try for it. Wait. Shit.

OK, maybe some things have been eroded to the point that there's nothing left for Newt's bile to eat away. But still, a secular atheist country dominated by radical Islamists? Shouldn't that at least reduce him to a fucking laughingstock, a punchline even the right can use to make their own lying, reality-denying insanity look better by comparison? For fuck's fucking sake.