Eric "Ice Burn" Burns Burns Beck

Eric Burns, former host of Fox News Watch, wrote a quick article mostly devoted to burning Glenn Beck.  My favorite bit:

Of course, Beck does not call himself a conservative; he is, rather, a libertarian, which may be defined as a conservative-squared, a person who wants the feds to collect no money in taxes, spend no money on programs, but make available all services that the libertarian deems necessary for his own convenience and safety.

Damn. Calls to mind part of George Washington's Farewell Address of 1796, passed on by a friend of the Train:

It is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant.

Well said, G-Dubs. Countdown until Beck and company call Washington a socialist begins... now!

Republican Roadmap To Winning Afghanistan

After reading so much Republican fury directed towards the 18 month departure date, I tried to simulate their solution. It was pretty difficult because, like with the health care reform debate, the right has yet to offer any substantive ideas of its own. Still, the various talking heads and conservative thinkers have given me a lot to work with over the last few days. Behold the Republican Plan:


Continue this cycle until everyone in the Middle East is dead, or until the Taliban gets bored and takes up knitting as an alternative to fighting the great satan. Note that this isn't their appraisal of the current situation- this is what they see as the optimal decision. They're mad at Obama for not doing this.  There are plenty of godawful politicians in the Democratic party, but the right is still an entirely unreasonable entity right now.

"This Is The Opposition?" Afghanistan Edition

JJ wrote an excellent post yesterday about the decision to escalate the Vie- er, Afghanistan war. The only upside is that there's now a definitive date for when Americans start to leave Afghanistan, as long as Obama doesn't pull an Obama and weasel out of the 18 month limit. Like JJ noted, Obama never said he would end our Afghan debacle immediately.

If the left is unhappy about this, the right must be ecstatic, right? More sacrifices for their blood god, more opportunities for military contractors to rake it in, more time to continue the "Support Our Troops!" car magnet contest. Oh wait:





Conservative pundits on FOX complained that he didn't sound sufficiently enthusiastic about throwing more Americans into the meat grinder, Limbaugh wailed about how Obama "surrendered" Afghanistan, and O'Reilly said some more dumb stuff.

Conservatives aren't unhappy about seeing more Americans put in harms way in a war their president left to rot for 8 years- they're mad because 18 months from now the war is going to end. They're beyond parody. If anyone has ever jokingly used a bit of exaggeration and referred to the Republicans as the party of endless war, well, your joke just became obsolete. For these guys, Americans needlessly killing and being killed by various foreigners across the world isn't a side effect of foreign policy- it's the goal.

A History of Teabagging

One of the most storied magazines in the conservative movement, the National Review has finally weighed in on the crazies within their own party. No they haven't run away from them screaming like most sane people, they've engaged in a much more important debate: The origins of the movement being crudely described as "teabaggers", and what should be done to stop this. Not only is this not parody, but the article actually starts like this:

To “teabag” or not to “teabag”: That is not the most pressing question of these times, but it is a question to consider.

THE GREAT DILLEMA:

Routinely, conservative protesters in the “tea party” movement are called “teabaggers,” and those calling them that do not mean it in a nice way. Many conservatives are mulling what to do about this term: fight it, embrace it, what?

Maybe just sit back and accept it... CRAP! Another teabagging joke! It's a vicious cycle!

First, a little history. After Barack Obama was sworn in as president, with his big majorities in Congress, the Democrats launched quite a bit of federal spending: particularly with the “stimulus” package. Some Americans were determined to counter this. And, before you knew it, we had the “tea party” movement. What protesters were doing, of course, was invoking the spirit of the American Revolutionaries, and their Boston Tea Party. According to the website of the Tea Party Patriots, the movement is committed to three “core values”: fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets.

And Racism. They seem to have forgotten that one. Having been to a teabagging event myself, I can pretty firmly say that anger at black people and muslims was somewhere in that founding charter. Oh yeah, and the fact that it's a "movement" funded and propped up entirely by corporate lobbyists and Fox News. That should also probably be in there somewhere.

The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was “Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.” A protester was spotted with a sign saying, “Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You.” So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

Yeah, and with signs like that I can't imagine why you were universally mocked. No clue whatsoever.

I have no doubt you are sexually hip, but just in case you’re not, please know that “teabag” has a particular meaning in certain circles. In order to have a discussion of our general topic, we must be aware of that meaning, and I call on the Source of All Knowledge, Wikipedia: “‘Teabagging’ is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea.” I could quote you more, but you have had enough.

I'm really glad he used the "The practice resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea" quote before he thought the readers had had enough.

The liberal media, to use a convenient tag, went after the protesters with glee. Take Anderson Cooper, the acclaimed anchorman for CNN. He was interviewing David Gergen, the political pundit. And Gergen was saying that, after two very bad elections, conservatives and Republicans were “searching for their voice.” Cooper responded, “It’s hard to talk when you’re teabagging.” He said this with a smirk.

MSNBC had an outright field day. Rachel Maddow and a guest of hers, Ana Marie Cox, made teabag jokes to each other for minutes on end: having great, chortling fun at the conservatives’ expense. And here is the performance of another host, David Shuster:

“For most Americans, Wednesday, April 15, will be Tax Day, but . . . it’s going to be Teabagging Day for the right wing, and they’re going nuts for it. Thousands of them whipped out the festivities early this past weekend, and while the parties are officially toothless, the teabaggers are full-throated about their goals. They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending.”

Shuster went on to say that Fox News personalities were “looking forward to an up-close-and-personal taste of teabagging.” Etc., etc., etc. All the while, MSNBC was picturing Republican figures, and the following words were on the screen: “TEABAG MOUTHPIECES.”

This just in... David Shuster is awesome.

Some on the right are using “teabagger,” but mainly the word is a putdown from the left. Conservatives realize that nothing friendly is meant by it. You can tell by tone and context, for one thing. (Or is that two things?) Of course, some people use “teabagger” in innocence — unaware of any vulgar connotation.

Let's see, are you talking about putting your balls in someone's mouth, or are you angry that we elected a black president? The tone and context of the response is always a dead giveaway when you discuss these things.

Now to the question of what to do. How should conservatives handle this matter? Should we challenge the language, let it slide, adopt it? Many conservatives — most, I would say — are of a mind to fight. According to this point of view, people who use “teabagger” and such should be called on it, especially if they smirk. “What do you mean by that?” one might ask. “What do you mean by ‘teabagger,’ and why do you smirk?” In other words, conservatives want to introduce a little shame. And the responses of liberals could be kind of interesting.

I myself have enjoyed “calling out” opponents in debate — not on “teabagger” (no opportunity yet), but on other words. “Neocon,” for example. “What do you mean by ‘neocon’?” I’ll say. “What’s a ‘neocon’?” Also “Zionist”: “What do you mean by ‘Zionist’? What’s a Zionist, in your mind?” These words have real meanings, but often people don’t know them. They just mean them as putdowns.

Somehow I just don't think the shame angle will work when he "calls someone out" for using the term teabaggers.

Jay Nordlinger: "What do you mean by calling me a teabagger?" (Assumes self satisfied smirk)

Guy Mocking him: "I mean you like to put your balls in the mouth of another man." (Scuffle Ensues)

Some conservatives are happy to embrace “teabagger,” or are at least willing to do so. They are “owning the insult,” which is to say, taking what is intended as a slur and wearing it proudly.

Oh no, I hope this isn't going where I think it's going...

There are many words and names in our vocabulary that started out as slurs and became something else. Several of these words and names are found in religion — “Christian,” for example. According to a Bible dictionary, this was “the name given by the Greeks or Romans, probably in reproach, to the followers of Jesus.” Soon enough, it “was universally accepted.” “Jesuit” had a defamatory beginning. Same with “Methodist,” “Unitarian,” “Quaker,” and “Shaker.” (You can sort of tell with those last two, can’t you?)

Just stop now, National Review, you know your history with race...

What about a special case — the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don’t believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family.

Well it was only a matter of time. With three paragraphs left, the article reaches peak stupidity.

With that said, it wouldn't be right if I didn't end with the National Review's plea for a more family friendly discourse:

It could well be that liberals at large are recognizing this too. In a discussion at Slate, the online magazine, Sam Tanenhaus wrote, “Even today the right insists it is driven by ideas, even if the leading thinkers are now Limbaugh and Beck, and the shock troops are tea-baggers and anti-tax demonstrators.” As he told me, he subsequently learned that “teabagger” had this vulgar meaning, and was used as a pejorative. So he changed his text to “tea-partiers”: “tea-partiers and anti-tax demonstrators.” Much better, don’t you think?

No, not really. Now it sounds like people reenacting a protest against taxation without representation, rather than a group of people putting their balls in each others mouths. Sometimes the context just isn't enough.

Only the National Review would discuss why "teabaggers" is an offensive way to describe a movement driven by racism and bigotry. Then again, they've never cared about racism in the conservative movement before, so why start worrying now?

30,000 More To Afghanistan...

Tuesday night:

Obama laid out his plan for the buildup of U.S. troops in Afghanistan Tuesday night in a speech at the United States Military Academy, saying that "our security is at stake." Obama used the speech to announce the ordering of an additional 30,000 troops to the region, as well as his intention to begin drawing down U.S forces within the next three years.

So like he promised during his campaign, Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan much to the disappointment of the Obama-is-a-closet-progressive theorists. I can have a bit of sympathy for Michael Moore's argument about the scale of the escalation, but I still think Obama made it pretty clear during the campaign that he was planning this type of thing. I strongly disagreed with it then, I strongly disagree with it now, but I definitely don't feel "betrayed" or anything like that. He is who we though he was. And that's perfectly fine as long as you didn't make up progressive positions that he didn't take and convince yourself that he was somehow the second coming of FDR.

As for the plan itself, I oppose it for countless reasons starting with a basic belief that an increase in violence is not a way to achieve peace. This is not world powers duking it out, this is the worlds strongest military occupying a third world country where we're already fairly unpopular. An increase in troops will lead to an increase in killing not only for Taliban members but of civilians as well. I simply don't see how our presence there and the inevitable death and destruction of an occupation won't produce more enemies than we already have now.

One of the more common arguments in favor of the escalation came from Oliver Willis, who thinks we should finish the job that Bush fucked up:

We were attacked on 9/11 by the Al Qaeda network, who had safe haven under the Taliban in Afghanistan. Unlike so much of what swirls around in our world is not in dispute. At that time we demanded that Afghanistan turn over Al Qaeda. They refused. We invaded.

Again, these things are clear. Not a single characterization of them by President Obama deviated from what we all saw.

I supported Obama for many reasons, but for me, personally, the primary reason was that George W. Bush failed to fight the war against terrorism – specifically the Al Qaeda network – in any competent manner. Al Qaeda’s stated desire to hurt and cripple the country – stated time and again by Bin Laden and his lieutenants – demands a strong and clear response from us. Basically from the standoff at Tora Bora until now, the response to this challenge has been mush.

Yes, Bush fucked up the war in Afganistan. Yes, Bush fucked up the fight against Al Qaeda.

But what does that have to do with Afghanistan in 2009? Because the Taliban once sheltered him, and they're still there? Cause if we want to go going after Al Qaeda, everyone basically agrees they're not in Afghanistan anymore.

Another point about the "because of 9/11" argument: It's not 2001 anymore.

Regardless of what Obama says, the world is NOT behind this effort. Sure they might say nice things and not actively oppose us, but they sure as hell aren't sending many of their own troops to help this cause. Even if you thought an invasion of Afghanistan with a broad coalition in 2001 was a good idea that doesn't mean you can turn back time and escalate the war 8 years later with positive results.

Ok, now that we're through dealing with sane arguments, let's look at what a large portion of what the dailykos community believes. The first diary that topped the Recommended list on Tuesday morning can be summarized as follows:

Title: I've got Barack's back today, who's with me?

Point 1: It's incredible that we elected a black man as President of the United States. (It's true)

Point 2: I mean, it's really absurd that we elected a black man president (Again no argument here, still pretty amazing)

Point 3: Obama cares a lot about this decision, and the cost will weigh on him (No doubt that it will)

Point 4: He really, really cares about this (Again, I'm sure he does, with his presidency riding on how it turns out and all)

Point 5: Based on these reasons, you should support Obama no matter what he does, whether you agree or not (Whaaaaa?)

Update: I'm not advocating blindly supporting Obama! I just think that he shouldn't be criticized and you should have his back no matter what! There's a difference!

So that's one. I thought it might have been the worst diary I'd seen on the kos rec list until this one took it's place at the top:

I say to all of you, right now.

STFU and listen.

Listen to the President, tonight at 8:00 Eastern. He is smart enough guy to make the right decisions.

I remember doing one of those "what type of government do you prefer" type quizzes in a poli-sci class once, and a yes answer to the "My country/leader, right or wrong" gave you about 1000 points towards Authoritarianism/Fascism. Not to say that those quizzes mean anything, but I think you get my point.

Look, Afghanistan is in terrible shape. The Taliban are terrible people. I just don't think increasing our military occupation of that country will do anything to make us safer or make life better for the people of Afghanistan.

It's possible to have worked for Obama and voted for Obama knowing he had plenty of policies I disagreed with. It's also possible to support Obama on issues where you agree and oppose him on issues where you disagree. Obama is not a yes or no question. I thought this is how most sane people approached politics but I'm increasingly not so sure.

FCC releases official Net Neutrality Notice

I apologize for the brief post.  It certainly merits far more discussion and time, but with Finals approaching this is all you get!

The FCC has finally published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for Net Neutrality.

Here an excerpt from the Summary:

In this NPRM, the Commission proposes draft language to codify the four principles the Commission articulated in the Internet Policy Statement; a fifth principle that would require a broadband Internet access service provider to treat lawful content, applications, and services in a nondiscriminatory manner; and a sixth principle that would require a broadband Internet access service provider to disclose such information concerning network management and other practices as is reasonably required for users and content, application, and service providers to enjoy the protections specified in this rulemaking.

What do you think?  The official Notice is 26 pages; and the public’s opportunity to submit comments lasts until January 14th, with a second opportunity scheduled to last until March 5th.

For some more information, check out NextGov’s Tech Insider, it has some interesting links and columns on Federal Technology.

America's Minister...

My biggest objection to Obama asking Rick Warren to give the benediction at his inauguration was not that he'd do an extremely crappy job (which he did), but that it gave him the stature of "the new Billy Graham" who gets to go on Meet The Press and other places as the voice of organized religion in the United States.

And then there's the stuff like this:

Rick Warren, the pastor who delivered the invocation at President Obama's inauguration, is once again on the defensive -- this time for his work with a Ugandan pastor who would like homosexuality to be punishable by death.

Newsweek tried to get Warren's reaction to the anti-gay work of Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan pastor who has come to his Saddleback Church multiple times. (Warren has distanced himself from Ssempa in general terms, saying the Ugandan minister does not represent him or his church.) Warren wouldn't reject the idea:

But Warren won't go so far as to condemn the legislation itself. A request for a broader reaction to the proposed Ugandan anti-homosexual laws generated this response: "The fundamental dignity of every person, our right to be free, and the freedom to make moral choices are gifts endowed by God, our creator. However, it is not my personal calling as a pastor in America to comment or interfere in the political process of other nations." On Meet the Press this morning, he reiterated this neutral stance in a different context: "As a pastor, my job is to encourage, to support. I never take sides." Warren did say he believed that abortion was "a holocaust." He knows as well as anyone that in a case of great wrong, taking sides is an important thing to do.

Ssempa has also burned condoms "in the name of Jesus," helping roll back a highly successful anti-AIDS campaign in Uganda.

Someone should probably remind him that he'd didn't really adhere to his noble "not taking sides" doctrine when he strongly supported prop 8 last year. And while we're at it, someone should tell him that not opposing a law that would execute people for being gay IS in fact taking the position that you're cool with that sort of thing.