If The Right Wants To Legislate Video Games, They Might Ought To Consider "Freedom of Speech"

     After Newtown, like after any great tragedy where lives are lost in a mass-shooting, you automatically know that the Modern American Right will blame everything but the weapon used - especially "violent video games".

     That later catagory has always intrigued me when the nation as a whole tries to pin the blame for the actions of another on some object, action, disposition, or even attempting to sweep the whole issue under the metaphorical rug.  And the reason it has intrigued me is twofold:  who(m) decides what level of violence to address and what is to be done with the game(s) - meaning will they be summarily removed from the individual store inventory and returned to the manufacturer or will they be taxed.

     Seems that the former isn't being addressed in an honest manner and the latter will most certainly be taxation.  But this whole process posses a threat to one thing the Modern American Right aren't considering: The First Amendment - Freedom of Speech and Expression Thereof:

     I never hasten to reference the ideas of an author from HotAir, as they are generally misleading, patently false to such a degree as to be obscene, and of such a sophist nature that one can't but laugh that people take them even modestly serious.  However, it appears that Patrick Ishmael has got the right idea :

.....I think there will be significant interest in a piece of legislation filed yesterday that would levy “upon sales of all violent video games an excise tax based on the gross receipts or gross proceeds of each sale at a rate of one percent.” Last year in Oklahoma, legislator William Fourkiller (yes, that is his real name) introduced a similar piece of legislation, and it appears the Missouri legislation uses a fair amount of that bill’s language. For instance, a “violent video game” in the Missouri bill is defined as “a video or computer game that has received a rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board of Teen, Mature, or Adult Only” — identical to the Oklahoma proposal.

Of course, as most video game players know, E.S.R.B. ratings do not deal only with “violence” but with language, sexual matter, content dealing with drugs and alcohol, gambling and many other factors.

     And while Congress cannot legislate your freedom of speech or expression thereof, the language within the First Amendment - dependant on the "type" of speech used - does have the ability to be interpreted by the Supreme Court:

 The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. For more on unprotected and less protected categories of speech see advocacy of illegal action, fighting words, commercial speech and obscenity. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicate a message.  The level of protection speech receives also depends on the forum in which it takes place.

     So let's take two things into account here:  What type of speech is a video game?  Since personal moneis are being used - and in light of the Citizen's United - money is now considered "speech" by the US Supreme Court.  Things could get dicey at this point.

     We'll start with what "type of speech" a video game is.

     Does the playing of a particular game - violent or not - interfere to threaten the "right" of another?  Is it "hate speech"?  And who(m) decides either of these or the extention or addition to which this portion of the First Amendment applies. 

     Most people I know - unless they are lucky enough to attend a gaming convention where a new game is released - at this point I'm reminded of the initial commercial for Black Ops II which consisted of joyous gamers reveling at the gameplay and the moment they got to buy their copy - most people play at home and don't have contact with others unless they are playing online in a team format or someone is in the room with them.

     Have you ever come across a person(s) that complained about a video game being played within their immediate proximity and claimed that is removed their right to freedom of religion, the press, assembly, et. al.?  Neither have I.

     So what about the second piece of the puzzle that I don't think many are going to consider - money is new considered speech.

     In the Supreme Court's ruling in the still controversial Citizen's United case, money can be "donated" privately and it is now considered speech.  But, does that extend to money being "donated" to gaming stores and traditional retail outlets - which a set percentage is given to the game's producers - and it still be considered speech?

     I would have to say yes, though there may be just enough gray-area there to have a debate that could drag on endlessly.   Let's take a look.

"If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associates of citizens,  for simply engaging in political speech"

     Uh, oh.  "Political Speech".  That could untmately be the downfall here.  But let's look on.

" The majority argued that the First Amendment protects associations of individuals in addition to individual speakers, and further that the First Amendment does not allow prohibitions of speech based on the identity of the speaker. Corporations, as associations of individuals, therefore have speech rights under the First Amendment. Because spending money is essential to disseminating speech, as established in Buckley v. Valeo, limiting a corporation's ability to spend money is unconstitutional because it limits the ability of its members to associate effectively and to speak on political issues."

     It's these two particular sections of Justice Kennedy's Majority Opinion.  So again, what is considered "political" speech since not every game created that has a particular ESRB rating that includes violent content of a pre-determined level, think of all the games that do.  These would likely include games such as the afformentioned Call of Duty: Black Ops series and many other "first person shooters", but also some that have content that is expressly of a political nature - such as themes and character arcs that include a socio-political bent. 

     No, we aren't going to see this in even semi-violent games like the  Need For Speed series, but would it extend to the Grand Theft Auto series?  Would even a minimal of socio-political content warrant referencing Citizen's United?  Certainly something to consider.

     And while there are systemic risks to consider - the phrase "job killing legislation" certainly springs to mind - how is this going to benefit our country, if at all?  Will banning or limiting the sale of "violent" video content prevent tragedies like what happened at Newtown?  At Tuscon?  At Portland?  In the next city?  I have to be blunt and say that this line of attack from the Modern American Right is a complete waste of our legislators ( at the local, state, and federal levels ) time and our tax dollars - since we are paying their respective salaries. 

     As an aside - is there a definative study that shows that a specific game or games causes a person to act or react in a particular way? 





     

What Is A "Friend Of Isreal'?

I've thought of what this really means within the landscape of our modern socio-political culture for quite a few years. The Modern American Right can never clearly define it, but do they really have to? For me, personally, this stems more from a religiously extreme point of view rather than from anything that will truly benefit the Jewish State. But I could be wrong - hence the question. This morning, I noticed that mouth agape Breitbart worshipper Jim Hoft over at Gateway Pundit had launched one of the first misleading salvos in the attack against Hagel for Defense Secretary. And hyper-partisan hack Ed Morrissey followed suit - only with less bloodthirsty fervor. Links follow accordingly: Iranian Regime Supports Hagel Nomiation For Sec. Of Defense

Iran on Tuesday expressed the hope that Washington’s foreign policy will witness practical changes after US officials announced that President Barack Obama will nominate Chuck Hagel as his next defense secretary. “We hope that practical changes will be created in the US foreign policy and the US officials’ approach will change to respect the nations’ rights,” Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehman-Parast told reporters in Tehran on Tuesday. “We hope that the US officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries’ internal affairs,” he said. “If such a trend is adopted (by the American officials), hatred for the US hostile policies will decrease, although assessment can be made in action,” the spokesman said. Tehran has been under Washington sanctions after the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled a US-backed monarch in the country.

Iran Strangely Cheered By US Secdef Nomination And while Morrissey links to the same article, the title alone shows that he is more concerned with disceminating blatant misinformation. After all, being "hopeful" is completely disparate from "support" and "strangely cheerful". To read these headlines, you'd think Iranian leaders would be celebrating - but they aren't. The reason that the Modern American Right utilize such tactics, why they continually point to Iran as to a defining factor, and why they use the Jewish population ( yes, USE THEM - not befriend them ) is to push the wedge in just a little further. They don't want to face the realities of the world around us. They don't want to be honest with their constituents. They want to seem "caring", "holy", or any other adjective that could distort the five seconds in front of someone's face so they won't pay attention to tomorrow, next week, or even next year. So again, here's the question - what does it mean to be a friend of Isreal? Certainly it's not just attending an AIPAC convention, but there's a great deal of that. And I'm not so ignorant to see that politicians have to save face when election time comes around, but what does your support truly mean? This could, in all reality, extend beyond the Jewish State. And it's not even the "original borders" - something that is strictly off-limits to the Modern American Right in terms of foreign policy discussion. While Chuck Hagel wouldn't have been my personal first choice for Sec. Of Defense, he's lightyears away from people like John McCain - one of his loudest detractors - or just about anyone, save John Kerry. And since we are talking about McCain, let's not he was an ardent supporter of James "Fuck The Jews" Baker. Guess he conveniently forgot those years. Suppose it can be said for most, if not all, of us that the past comes back to haunt you. And Israelis have a past that many of them won't immediately recognize. I'm not talking about biblical or even verifiable historic text, but their history of being treated as metaphorical chess pieces in the foreign policy of this country. Do we endanger them as, if one were to say, showing pictures of the coffins of fallen American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would put more troops in harms way? Do we assist them in fighting Palestinians in such a way that would ensure a more productive, a more fruitful life? From how I, and many others, see it - No. Who Is A "Friend Of Isreal"? Certainly not those that would continually boast how they are.

Leave Her Alone: The Culture Of Victimhood Marches On

The Modern American Right are the perpetual victims in our socio-political society. It is with this in mind that we should not be surprised that Sarah Palin

has revealed that she is what the Right have called "thin skinned" in relation to a book about her written by one Joe McGinniss.

Sarah Palin’s family attorney John Tiemessen has written a letter to Maya Mavjee, the publisher of the Crown Publishing Group, a division of Random House, that Palin may sue her, the company, and the book’s author Joe McGinniss “for knowingly publishing false statements” in his book released last week, “The Rogue,” ABC News has learned.

The use of "unnamed sources" really isn't going to hold water. But so long as Palin's handlers can continue to convince people in America that she has been maliciously attacked any and every time someone even whispers her name, then that's what counts.

Fringe Right bloggers are already on the case since their best gal has been "hurt" over what is on par with what they have to say about Obama. But it's a poor defense to say that sloppy investigations that lead to equally sloppy tirades about Obama ( see every Right Wing book written about the Obama administration since Jan. 20th 2009 ) excuse McGinniss' sloppy investigations - if that's really what they are.

So is this what we should come to expect from a Palin presidency should she finally admitted she was in the race and actually won? Would she spend precious time in the White House complaining about everything anyone published about her and then threaten to sue? Considering how her handlers reacted to claims leveled at her during her brief stint as Alaska's Governor it's equally likely that she would either sue or just quit - like she did before.

Pouring Out The Hubris Of The Right

Not long ago I was flipping through a magazine at work and happened to stop on an article critical of Obama's handling of the so called "War On Terror". A woman next to me looked at the picture of Barack at the head of the article and proclaimed in a rather casual manner - as if she felt she was within a circle of like-minded friends - that "there's mister arrogant".

I will defer from speaking about the "dog-whistle racism" in modern socio-political conversation here in Western Kentucky in favor of pointing out that what Sarah Palin has done has run contrary to what the Modern American Right alleged stand for.

As Tina Korbe highlights over at HotAir, such arrogant to self-aggrandizement posturing is more than welcome within the Modern American Right:

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin hasn’t yet revealed whether she plans to run for the GOP presidential nomination, but she’s confident she could win if she really wanted.

In-so-much that she hasn't announced she as an "exploritory committee", anyone with even the most limited bone-marrow intelligence knows that she is going to run. And those of us that have listened to and followed Palin's base instincts know that she will draw her announcement out as long as possible.

Tina Korbe knows this, but prefers to play coy in order to deal her "I'm so shocked" card at a later date.

And as much as Korbe knows this, this next piece from Palin should show her how Palin's own arrogant nature that has been fostered and encouraged:

“I believe that I can win a national election,” Palin said recently in a conversation with Newsweek’s Peter J. Boyer. “I’m not so egotistical as to believe that it has to be me, or it can only be me, to turn things around. But I do believe that I can win.”

But then, Korbe starts to muddy her initial claim.

Perhaps her popularity among Republicans and conservatives warrants that pretty impressive confidence (after all, a countless many continue to clamor for her entrance into the presidential race), but, for whatever the polls are worth, Palin hasn’t yet bested President Barack Obama in a hypothetical presidential match-up (at least that I’ve seen). But, then, of the present GOP candidates, only former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has fared favorably against the incumbent, anyway, so maybe Palin has a point. If anything, the utter lack of cockiness among the current Republican contenders (with, again, the possible exception of Romney, who was cool and confident recently to suggest the firing of an Obama economic adviser) might be just what has caused so many to describe this year’s field as “dullsville.” Maybe the Palin presumption is what this race needs. Maybe, with Palin competing for the nomination, the other Republicans would kick it into even higher gear.

"Utter lack of cockiness"?

Where the fuck as Tina been living since 2009?

Considering the randomness of the initial GOP Presidential field of hopefuls, I would say that Palin either doesn't understand what's going on within the Modern American Right or is more concerned with her own visibility and financial gains.

I don't think I would be out of line by saying the later and the former have both evaded her and have more of a baring on what will happen in 2012 than she is willing to admit.

But lets continue with Korbe's meandering post:

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

Of course the GOP isn't set, and it won't be this year, as the Modern American Right are so concerned with removed Barack Obama from office that they are more than willing to ignore their own alleged "beliefs" in favor of casting him and his family in the roll of "extremists".

However, the Modern American Right is attempting to set the field already with the players at hand. And at best, they are all trying to use the same fear-mongering talking points. Have they worked? Well, considering that Palin hasn't officially announced and that perhaps those that once ( and perhaps still ) saw her as a religious figure are beginning to realize that she is either ineffective as a true leader or that she works better as a talking-point machine are tilting to polling.

Fortunately for Palin (as she herself recognizes) and probably for the GOP, it’s still very early and the field is far from set.

“Thank goodness the field is not yet set,” Palin said in the interview with Newsweek. “I think that there does need to be more vigorous debate. There needs to be a larger field. And there’s still time. There’s still months ahead, where more folks can jump in and start articulating their positions.”

But, if she’s going to get in, I wish she’d get in now, so folks would stop evaluating her non-campaign-campaign tactics and start talking again about her policy positions (which, at least as she laid them out in the Newsweek article, are as solid as ever).

I'm not entirely sure how large the field needs to be before Palin finally admits that she's running, as it's already so unofficially large that it's starting to get obscene, but she is running.

So what is Korbe wanting to hear once Palin makes an official announcement? Is she expecting people to conform to her own framing? I would wager so. What she is upset about is that people have been questioning her positions since John McCain tapped her as the ultimate VP gimmick of the 21st Century.

So why is Palin so sure that she could win?

Well, it's because she's been told that she can. Moreover, she's convinced herself that she is so much of a celebrity within the Modern American Right that she almost feels entitled to it.

And while most sane people won't go all-in for someone like Palin - based on what she has said and done - we are in a time where marketing trumps reality. This is one of the primary factors that separates the Modern American Right from true Liberals/Progressives.

Is Palin going to run?

Of course.

Will she win?

Perhaps the GOP nomination, but that is it.............

The Obama WH, Twitter, And Right Wing Pity Party Antics

The Modern American Right doesn't seem to understand that social networking is just that - social networking. You see someone or something you find interesting, you comment on it, link to it, remix it with some "keyboard cat", or simply just ignore it. And the one element that really sticks in their craw is that responding to them is apparently tantamount to taking a greasy, soft-serve, shit on the American Flag and then wiping your ass with no less than four pages of King James "scripture".

You think I'm kidding? Check these out:

When the White House named Jesse Lee as its Director of Progressive Media and Online Response to rebut criticisms on social-networking media, some people argued that the Obama administration had taken a big step toward becoming Big Brother. At the time, I argued that this was nonsense, and that the White House had a right to respond to criticism — but that Lee’s job was a task better left to the DNC, which traditionally served the role of political response. Instead of looking hip and timely, attacking Twitter users would make the Obama administration look petty and thin-skinned, and would diminish the seriousness and dignity of the Presidency. Punching below one’s weight is a strategy that never pays off.

Little did I know just how far below their weight the White House would punch. Heritage Foundation’s Rob Bluey analyzes Lee’s feed and discovers that 15% of all his rebuttals in the month since he took the job have been directed at one user, and it’s not Jake Tapper, Bret Baier, Chuck Todd, or even Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. Instead, Lee has spent almost one-sixth of his twitter time rebutting … Kevin Eder.

President Obama's director of progressive media is obsessed with one particular conservative provocateur. Jesse Lee's duties at the White House include "online response" - and there has been no shortage of responses to one person who routinely communicates with him on Twitter.

Of the 267 tweets written by Lee in just over a month, a stunning 40 of them have been directed at Kevin Eder, a prolific Twitter user with more than 83,000 tweets to his credit. That means 15 percent of Lee's tweets - from an official White House account no less - have been with Eder.

One such example happened last week in a dispute over the budget.

Eder posted this tweet: "Hmm ... it can't be true that @SenateDems haven't passed a budget in 790 days and the only plan Obama has is a speech. Right, @jesseclee44?"

To which Lee responded: "@keder @SenateDems Plan is keep negotiating w/ Rs & Ds, not default & trash economy, not voucherize Medicare to fund more tax cuts for rich."

Lee's obsession has impressed Eder, even if he's a bit baffled by the White House's decision to engage with him so aggressively. (Obama to meet with congressional leadership to discuss debt ceiling)

The later screed is from none-other than a favorite "source" of Fox"Nation", the DailyCaller - the fringe Right online publication of none other than Tucker Carlson.

The source of the "story" aside, it's interesting to note that both Fox and Ed Morrissey are simultaneously panting Kevin Eder ( @keder as both a "no one" and a "powerhouse socio-political giant" all at once. After all, they have to keep their bases covered once they realize that this hack that happens to have internet access really isn't as bright as he boasts to be.

I've have had a few and witnessed many Twitter altercations with him before, so I can attest to his rank amateur status on several issues. But we'll save the fun stuff for later.

The question stands, really, as such: should Jesse Lee respond to or even marginally "call out" the obvious "trolling tactics" of a kid that displays about as much talking-point skill as Bernie Goldberg? I would actually offer yes, considering how the Modern American Right are want to "educate" the Left on their followers. What's good for the goose, you know.........

This, like a plurality of stories propagated by the likes of Morrissey and Fox"News", comes down to the concept of "framing". If the Obama White House doesn't respond, they are therefore scared of one random kid from the D.C. area. If they respond, they are "bullying". And the Left should respond to neither allegation, but focus purely on the so-called "merit" of what is presented to them - which they have.

As I tweeted to Eder earlier today, I'm starting to wonder when his first appearance as an "analyst" on Fox"News" will happen. After all, they do love to employ the unqualified.

What Is July 4th For - A Progressive Perspective

The more I look around the blogosphere today, the more I see how The Modern American Right is making this day about themselves and not about the country we live in. I wrote about this yesterday, but I thought that it would be nice to parallel what progressives ( like myself ) and liberals have to say about the day versus those that are against us.

First, let me tell you what we - libs/progs - are not doing today:

- We are not out to deify a president.

- We are not out to prove we know that little known final verse in the National Anthem

- We don't care to worship someone who cares more about celebrity than country using July 4th as the backdrop

- It's not about claiming how only one type of music matters.

And there's so much more that the Modern Liberal/Progressive Movement believes shouldn't use July 4th as an anchor point.

But what do we believe?

- Celebrating the diversity of community rather than telling our socio-politicals that they have no right to do so

- Enjoying time with family and friends in a non-partisan atmosphere ( and some good BBQ would be nice too )

- Acknowledging that our Founding Fathers had no clue where we would be at this point in history while reflecting on what they managed to accomplish while the country was so young

- And finally, understanding that July 4th is not a religious holiday, but a day of reflection, introspection, and remembrance.

Whatever you do today' be safe, be happy, and appreciate what you have - regardless of socio-political stripe.

And now, let's have some fireworks:



As an aside, Kentucky recently allowed "the good shit" to be sold and my neighborhood - and those around me - took advantage of that fact. It was like a fucking war-zone last night up around the cul de sac. I can still smell the smoke.

The Weekend Blog Round-up

What was fully intended to be a weekly feature on Friday got derailed this past week, but here we are anyway:

- Scott Thill over at WIRED satirized both the Left and Right in his write-up of the Top 10 Patriotic Comic Characters.

- I was reminded of the several counties in Western Kentucky that have food share programs ( as well as those that have amazing private gardens ) while reading this piece from Yellow Dog over at They Gave Us A Republic.

- TinTin at SadlyNo appears to have the same thought as I do after seeing The Internet's Dumbest Man posing for pics with his assault weapons.

- Tengrain at Mock, Paper, Scissors has a running series of "Bad Ads" that is always a pleasure to check out. This installment is not exception.

- Breitbart employee Jeannie DeAngelis simply doesn't understand copyright law and the rights of the songwriter while attempting to cast Tom Petty in the role of pseudo-sexist-anti-american-left-wing-loon-that-approves-of-affairs-democrats-have.

- The so-called Media Research Center's Geoffrey Dickens seized the opportunity presented by Mark Halperin's suspension from MSNBC to claim that; Yes, Virginia, There Is A Liberal Media Bias at MSNBC. One glaring problem with Dickens' seemingly endless preamble is that Keith Olbermann lost his job because of whom he was and what he said.

- The newly minted "blog diva" - Tina Korbe - at HotAir continues tradition by showing how a "flip-flop" by a Republican really isn't one. Not only that, but she continues the meme regarding the EFCA, which her ill-informed ideological compatriots have dubbed "card-check".

- Over at Fox"Nation", they have a poll asking what the "Most Patriotic Film" is. Granted, they only listed 9 films ( one of which is Independence Day.......LOL ) it's interesting to note that Red Dawn is in 6th place at the moment while the Mel Gibson film "The Patriot" is in first. I'm guessing that more of a Pavlovian response rather than honest consideration.

Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. V - We Own This Day

As it's been a rather rough week at the Airon Later compound, I figured that since it's the July 4th Holiday weekend we should jump right into part five of my continuing series on Right Wing Entitlement Culture.

The Modern American Right have seized on a variety of July 4th narratives to show that they hold sway over the entire day and that anyone with even modest Left-leaning thoughts is decidedly anti-American.

The problem with this is that the Modern American Right see July 4th through the lens of "marketing" rather than a day of honest reflection on how America came to the point where she is today. And this should be readily apparent to anyone with the most minimal of socio-political reflection.

The most popular of these narratives is from a study done by Harvard that shows the marketing vs. pure patriotism standpoint of Modern American Right regarding July 4th parades is a reality. Too bad that those within the Right that are reporting on this completely missed the point that they have been called out on their "faux-patriotic" machinations and that flashy marketing tactics do work on the very impressionable.

The political right has been more successful in appropriating American patriotism and its symbols during the 20th century. Survey evidence also confirms that Republicans consider themselves more patriotic than Democrats. According to this interpretation, there is a political congruence between the patriotism promoted on Fourth of July and the values associated with the Republican party. Fourth of July celebrations in Republican dominated counties may thus be more politically biased events that socialize children into Republicans

The three key findings of those attending July 4th celebrations:

- When done before the age of 18, it increases the likelihood of a youth identifying as a Republican by at least 2 percent.

- It raises the likelihood that parade watchers will vote for a Republican candidate by 4 percent.

- It boosts the likelihood a reveler will vote by about 1 percent and increases the chances they'll make a political contribution by 3 percent.

What's more, the impact isn't fleeting. "Surprisingly, the estimates show that the impact on political preferences is permanent, with no evidence of the effects depreciating as individuals become older,"said the Harvard report.

And while these "key findings" are not guarantees for gains within the roles of the Modern American Right, the study is quite clear that these "likelihoods" increase in more Republican-leaning towns. Also, being from a VERY Republican country in Western Kentucky, the final statement that effects are "permanent" makes me want to take a look at the raw data of the study, as this was certainly not the case for myself and many of my close acquaintances that still live here.

Was is true regarding the minds of the younger generation is that they formulate their opinions of the world early on based on their parents actions/statements. Just going to a parade on the 4th of July at age 17 isn't going to turn you into a fan of Sarah Palin when you reach voting age. Neither is it going to make you "hate" your country if you happen to have a (D) next to your name on your voter registration card.

No one "owns" the 4th of July or patriotism. Just don't expect anyone within the Modern American Right to admit or even understand that concept. But considering the Harvard study and how the Right are embracing it as some "smoking gun" that if they take a look at their birth certificates, stock papers, or even a receipt from Wal-Mart that they will know exactly what percentage of the day or the ideal that they can call their property.

The Message, The Messenger, And Right vs. Left

It's all too easy to berate a person delivering a valid message in favor of addressing the message itself. This is the M.O. of the Modern American Right - they know that their point of view on a variety of issues like women's reproductive rights, race relations, and he very nature of how news is delivered will ultimately fail if they focus on the message over who/whom delivers it.

But such is the nature of Right Wing framing.

Case in point is Keith Olbermann's new program on Current TV and a recent guest that the Tea Baggers and their sympathizers tried to prove was either nothing more than a hack comedian/actor or simply playing the so-called "race-card" in order to make the Tea Baggers look bad.

Internet sophist and over-simplifier, Allahpundit, takes to another meeting of Garofalo and Olbermann in textbook fashion when it comes to not addressing the message:

Via the Daily Caller, is Olby the voice in Garofalo’s head or is Garofalo the voice in his? There’s not a scintilla of disagreement here — just JG doing her usual over-the-top impression of a cartoon liberal with KO mm-hmming all the way — until around 4:35 in, when suddenly a dispute erupts over whether Clarence Thomas is (a) a victim of Stockholm syndrome in having married a white tea partier or (b) a token used by the tea party to distract from its own seething racism. Gee, guys, I don’t know. Can’t it be both? Coming next week to “Countdown,” hopefully: Olby interviews a tape-recording of himself.

And while some of you might claim that I am acting in the very fashion I am decrying, perhaps you should keep reading.

Let's let's look at the interview in question:



And while Allahpundit is want to source a popular Right Wing framing site, it should be pointed out that the very idea that there is racism within the Tea Bagger conglomerate is ignored in favor of insisting that there very well might be racism within Olbermann's staff since they appear to be predominantly white.

So, are Allahpundit and Ace of Spades now calling for some sort of "Affirmative Action Initiative" when it comes to the media, their staff, and their reporting? Absolutely not, as this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic explicitly used to undermine the very accurate and honest statement that racism still exists in this country.

More to the point, this is another aspect of Right Wing framing, as Allahpundit is insisting that Olbermann explain his staffing decisions in favor of confronting the very real aspect that there is a racist element within the Modern American Right. This is something that I have addressed before - insisting that it's not you but the other that is to blame for everything.

There's quite a bit that Olbermann and Garofalo get into that I can and will address later on, but the primary aspect is what Allahpundit does to this clip with his misplaced, meandering thesis and the reality behind it. Yes, I completely disagree with - and have for some time - that the blanket racism charge needs to be addressed. Not everyone that considered themselves a part of or even tangenticaly aligns themselves with the Tea Baggers are racists, as there are other primary motivators for such a movement.

I have seen Olbermann take after Obama on a variety of issues, such as warrantless wiretapping or the conflict in Afghanistan or the occupation of Iraq. So does the meme of "Liberal Media Bias" only go so far that the Right is butt-hurt that their water isn't carried on specific issues? I would wager yes on that one.

And with that in mind, I would like to leave you with this clip from Maddow to ponder the next time someone within the Modern American Right claims she is a pure Obama sycophant:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Reclaiming Their Obvious Title?

It seemed like literally moments after Barack Obama took the Oath Of Office that Conservative Republicans renounced the (R) on their voter registration cards and took up the mantle of the "Independent" - something the Tea Baggers championed on literally a daily basis.

But as Obama's first term entered the later portion, the Tea Baggers seemed to become less relevant and the so-called "Independent" began to disappear from media coverage and those that championed them started to wonder where all the Republicans were.

One such person is Hot Air's own Ed Morrissey.

In another of his meandering poll evaluations, he concludes with this statement:

Finally, let’s look at the sample. The D/R/I in the April poll sample was a ridiculous 32/22/41. This sample has a slightly better split, although still skewed at 31/25/39, which still undersamples Republicans. In a sample more reflective of reality, Obama’s job approval would be lower than the 47% shown here, and he’d be in deeper trouble against Republican challengers than this shows.

Where did the love of the Independent go?

And this isn't the first time Morrissey pulled the victim card when a particular poll didn't suit his particular need or reflect his desire to make people believe that a majority of Americans believe exactly as he does. If he were as honest as she should be - given Hot Air's love for the Tea Baggers - he would be able to at least tacitly admit that just because you claim to be "Independent" doesn't mean that you always agree with and vote along Democratic Party lines.

I've noted here many time, polls are interesting snapshots into a particular moment in time but in no way dictate how people will vote come election day. But there is an obvious caveat that I should offer here.

The embrace of Scott Rasmussen by the Modern American Right seems, to me at least, that many of them look to polling and focus groups as voting indicators. This is quite troubling when you begin to take a deeper look into it, as this completely contradicts the Right Wing notion that they act based off their own desires and not the desires of any outside force. But that's another story for another day.

Right Wing Entitlement Culture: Pt. I - Hollywood

Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air ( I do so love that name, since it's quite fitting for their subject matter ) is touting a new documentary intended to expose that evil "liberal bias" in film and television:

What does Hollywood really think of conservatives? Ben Shapiro talked to the movers and shakers in Hollywood to find out — and recounts his adventures in his new book, Primetime Propaganda: The True Hollywood Story of How the Left Took Over Your TV

This is something the Modern American Right love to do - play the role of the ultimate victim in society. This is readily apparent when Morrissey does post like this, as it not only shows how ignorant he is of film narratives but how his definition of "conservativism" shifts to fit a particular time and day.

The real story behind all of this noise and pity party posturing is that the Modern American Right don't want to have to deal with that which they champion most - Free Market Principles. Do they honestly expect studios to produce programming and feature films that don't have an audience that will bring them a profit? Actually, yes, they do. But we all saw what happened when Atlas Shrugged was a giant disaster at the box office, though Hot Air was sure to make excuses for that as well.

Having studied film for the better part of my life, I now that producers and studios can make really bad decisions and end up losing a lot of money, but using the consistent drumbeat of "we are a Center Right nation" that the Modern American Right doles out at every conceivable opportunity, coupled with the fact that the Tea Baggers are somehow "the voice of the people", why do you think Hollywood doesn't make more films like Atlas Shrugged? The answer is quite simple - they don't make money.

With that in mind, one has to ask whether or not this selective love affair with the Free Market travels outside the world of film and television? Does the Modern American Right think that there are business that sell toys, cars, or even food that cater to an exclusively "Far Left" audience? The answer is most likely a definitive yes, considering the group we are discussing.

But what is troubling most of all is how the Modern American Right define "conservativism".

Having grown up on a family farm in Western Kentucky, I saw what true conservativism was. It wasn't predicated on isolating people, but favored the noting that "I am my brother's keeper", as the community helped one another when the time called for it. It was about defending all of America and not just a specific, even fringe, element within it. The broader point is that the Modern American Right have taken the word "conservative" and melded it with "Libertarianism" and "Extremism" and attempting to convince people that this is what makes up a plurality of American thought. The only problem is that this isn't the case, and they will complain until their final breath that they are the target of a malicious attack because the majority won't openly embrace the minority.

NPR, O'Keefe, and Complicit Actions

A brief word on what scam artist and criminal James O'Keefe has accomplished - again.

While the Modern American Right crow like Peter Pan on Crystal Meth - complete with a whine-fest from a disgruntled former employee - one thing should be pointed out:

NPR's Board Of Directors are just as much to blame for what is happening right now.

Actually, the remainder of American media fails in this regard as well.

Are they so weak that they can't stand up to the edits and distortions of O'Keefe and his pimp Andrew Breitbart? Apparently not, as this is not the first time they have enjoyed a certain amount of "success".

Let's not kid ourselves - the Southern Strategy is very much alive in America; and the Tea Baggers are more than willing to swallow it whole and parrot it without fear of reprisal - whether it be in "dog-whistle" fashion or in blatant racism. And from what I have seen here in Western Kentucky, it's becoming more and more apparent and unchallenged.

And speaking about that was, from my perspective, the catalyst that gave CEO Vivian and Ron Schiller the boot. But why?

The reason is that the bulk of America media seem to be more than willing to kowtow to Right Wing attacks, seem to be all to eager to not push the stories that they should.

Of course, this isn't to say that they should adopt the same tactics that their Far Right compatriots do, but that they should report and expose what is there, and do it honestly and openly. In that regard, I would say that there should be more "Maddows" on television every night.

But as far as NPR is concerned, I'm guessing that they pushed out Vivian as more of a procedural move, and Ron was on his way out anyway. But the fact remains that NPR has come off as the weaker one in this story. But they shouldn't have - or is this more of an example of how their reporting has morphed. Dave Neiwert takes on this aspect of the story far better than I could.

There's actually a 2-hour unedited video of the Schiller encounter that I am going to watch and blog about that O'Keefe thinks will absolve him of any wrong-doing - as "context" is something that the Modern American Right are struggling with - but I'm guessing that this has more to do with the fact that their original intent of showing how NPR will accept money from The Muslim Brotherhood failed, and that Schiller voiced his "individual opinion" regarding the Tea Baggers........but more on that later.

Make no mistake, this is not "nu-journalism" as much as it is deception dressed up as reality. But then again, NPR fell for it just like the bulk of the media fell for the ACORN distortions. But there is a downfall to this - it doesn't address the real failures of government funding - which is the alleged point of all this O'Keefe/Breitbart hysteria.

At the end of the day, NPR dropped the ball and made themselves look as foolish as O'Keefe and Breitbart intended them to.

When are people going to realize that scams like this are so transparent?

Their Own Weapons Against Them

Over the past week and a half, I have been researching the union protests in Wisconsin with considerable interest. What we are seeing is not only a reversal of script considering who some of the more vocal of protesters have been the past two years, but we are seeing the tactics of the modern American Right used against them.

Chief of these is the idea first espoused by a saint of the Right, Ayn Rand.

It's called "Going Galt".

First, some background.

The entire premise of Rand's seemingly endless preamble - which culminated with a 70 plus page speech from Galt on what would become known as the foundation of "objectivism" - is that is the "producers" separated themselves from the rest of the country, that they would prosper, as people relied on them - as they "produce the wealth" that all Americans enjoy.

For the avid reader of Rand, her prose is akin to Holy Writ, but upon further examination of the woman, she comes across as more of a hypocrite than a patron saint of modern American Right theology.

So how does this connect with the 14 lawmakers in Wisconsin that have left the state to prevent a "quorum" in the State House?

First, we have to look at how many of the loudest voices on the Right are criticizing the tactics they once embraced.

Vocal protests, suddenly the "thing to do" amongst "real Americans" after the election of Barack Obama have become something to joke about, to smear, to claim are nothing more than astro-turf gatherings that benefit no one but the "hidden" behind the scenes. Naturally, this was to be expected, as the modern American Right are want to embrace the Pee Wee Herman defense on a variety of issues.

But what has happened of late, and something that the 14 Democrats from Wisconsin might not have realized, is that they are using Ayn Rand's/John Galt's positions against them. And as this is something difficult for the modern American Right to reconcile - considering how they rallied around Sarah Palin's swift exeunt from Alaska - it becomes all too apparent that the double edges of this "Galtist" standpoint likely won't work for either party like they want.

For the Right in America, this idea of "leaving" would benefit no one outside of those that they idolize - the "producer". For the Left, those that "leave" are likely to face some form of punishment while those they are helping will see the bulk of the benefit. And in that, we see the clear separation of how the "Galt Cultists" in modern day America have a distorted view of whom needs representation.

That being said, the union workforce in America - in relation to the remainder of workers in America - is quite small. The number floats around 7%. But what is happening in Wisconsin has more to do with "disparate impact" than anyone on the modern American Right is willing to admit. It starts with teachers in Wisconsin and then spreads through the country like wildfire. And it's already happening in Indiana and Jersey. But why teachers? That's one of the real questions here.

Public school teachers have been a target of the modern American Right for decades, and will likely remain one regardless of what happens in Wisconsin. Why? The answer is one that is ultimately far too simple to be true, but it is. Public teachers that have organized simply desire a minimum of compensation for what they get each year and what they would get upon retirement. And to that, we need to face the reality that the Right in America have a seriously distorted view of what teachers make and what they do each day.

Does the average public school teacher make a salary equivalent to the average CEO? Not by a long shot. How about "Federal Employees"? No. But that is another point where the modern American Right shows their utter hypocrisy - not only in their accounting used but in whom they are really speaking about. Are we to believe that ALL Federal employees agree with and vote for Democrats? No, but this is what stories of this nature are designed to produce - a false equivalency. But this also goes by to what the Right often pushes as one of their pillars - being held responsible for your individual choice. Was one person forced into working for local and state government while another forced to take a job with a private company? No.

What will happen to the 14 Democrats from Wisconsin when/if they return to their State Capital? The narrative from the modern American Right reveals much, but nothing that would do much but benefit one side. Why are teachers being targeted? And that's the real question here. It's all a matter of perception versus perspective, as the former is being seriously skewed.

This goes beyond teachers, beyond Wisconsin, and far beyond simply just the average workers desire to fair treatment in the American workplace. This is about creating a wider income disparity, a decrease in the middle class, and a further elevation of monstrous private sector usurpers that want to control government to protect their own interests. This is the M.O. of the modern American Right, and it will ultimately see the downfall of even the least of them - they just aren't willing to admit that yet.

The Socialism Bowl : Updated w/ "Last Word" Commentary

Last night's Super Bowl victory by the Green Bay Packers is largely being drowned out by commentary on Christina Aguilera botching a line from the National Anthem ( which every Right Winger in America is naturally taking advantage of - even alluding that they could have performed it better ) to making hay out of a car commercial that aired during the game.

And while the Packs certainly performed well - even getting some unintentional assistance from Big Ben via some poor passing - it shouldn't be ignored that the Green Bay Packers aren't owned by a single entity, but by "the people" :

Since 1923, Green Bay has been the only publicly owned, nonprofit major professional sports team in the nation. And that doesn't just make the franchise a charming anachronism, or the answer to a barstool trivia question.

It makes them an example. A case study. A working model for a better way to organize and administer pro sports.

Namely, through public ownership, a system that could mitigate some of the most irritating ills plaguing our games -- and with little downside, to boot.

The modern American Right are want to breathlessly claim that "Socialism" is evil and will destroy the country they claim to love and cherish. But it seems to have worked for the Packers. And while there is a Board of Directors that are tied to the team, the style of ownership plays a much larger role than most are willing to admit. Is it responsible for their win last night? I think in some small way it is, as the make-up of a team, in any sport, is largely predicated on the decisions of the team owners.

In all, it was a great game. All that's left now is to try to tolerate the complaints and conspiracy theories of all the Steeler's fans at work.

UPDATE

Lawrence comes through...............again

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The SCOTUS And The SOTU

With word having already been spread since last Fall that Justice Samuel Alito will opt out of attending tonight's State Of The Union, considering his clear violation of protocol and decorum expected from a sitting Supreme Court Justice as well as his childish actions in clear response to Obama's election, it's no surprise that the Right are once again going to bat for Alito as well as making a none to convincing case that a sitting President shouldn't question/warn of the far reaching implications of the "highest court in the land", especially in light of Scalia's own, and more recent, ethical infractions.

In the best of all possible worlds, the Supreme Court would decide as a group whether to attend or not and then unanimously follow through on that decision. Obviously, we don’t see a lot of unanimous decisions on the law from the court, but this question deserves some thought not just for this presidency but as a tradition. Roberts is right that the State of the Union has long since become a political pep rally, something that started long before Obama, and as the one ostensibly non-political and non-partisan branch of government, the captive presence of the Supreme Court among the partisan cheers is quite unseemly.

Here's the problem with this sort of logic - thinking that the Supreme Court is "non-partisan" and "non-political".

I'm not so naive to think that there are at least 3 liberal-leaning members on the SCOTUS, and the modern American Right would be wise to admit that the "activism" they so often decry has been more present in the SCOTUS over recent years, most widely recognized by the disastrous Citizen's United decision - which the above mentioned author tried none-to convincingly to minimize:

Last year, President Obama publicly upbraided the Supreme Court during his State of the Union speech for its Citizens United decision, claiming — incorrectly — that it reversed “a century of law.” In fact, it reversed the McCain-Feingold law that barred corporations from spending money on political advertising within a certain period of time before an election, not the “century of law” that barred corporations from donating to political candidates, which is still very much in place. Justice Samuel Alito knew the difference, which is why he shook his head and mouthed the words “not true,” which so offended Obama that the White House continued its ignorant attack on the Supreme Court for another few days rather than picking up the decision and reading it.

True, corporations have always been allowed to donate a "maximum" amount to political campaigns within a pre-determined time-frame, but that also disappeared with McCain/Feingold. Obama was right to question the decision - which fell clearly across partisan lines - but that only provided ammunition to further the specious and poorly structured claims of the Right that "The Fairness Doctrine" would be reinstated or that the Obama Administration intends on censoring "conservative speech". The only thing that Obama, the Left, and more than a handful of "centrist" and "independents" called for was "disclosure" - the ultimate victim of the Citizen's United case.

If Roberts can’t get unanimity, though, the members of the court who are in town at the appointed time of the SOTU should make an appearance. Having just the liberal judges show for Obama and then presumably just the conservative justices show for a Republican President would be even more unseemly. Having been the target of the White House political team after last year’s SOTU, Alito can certainly be excused. And perhaps the members of the court can at least agree that an explicit attack on one of their decisions by a President in a State of the Union speech in the future will result in the entire court walking out on the rest of the speech, in what would be the only rebuke that the court’s members can deliver in that setting.

And here's where the continuation of the "Right Wing as perpetual victim" meme comes full circle. The only problem is that Alito was not called out by name, as Obama warned against what were the systemic risks of such a decision to allow undisclosed donors and unchecked amounts to be donated to ANY political figure - it was a clearly non-partisan statement that should have given the Right as much pause at it did the Left. And while there were the equivalency arguments put forth by members of the Right - that labor unions ( read: evil, far-left, mafia types ) were granted unlimited donation status because of this decision - the money and power is clearly more tilted to corporations with an unhinged Right Wing directive.

The question is ultimately if the SCOTUS should be present during a State of the Union speech. Naturally, and what should be clear to anyone within the modern American Right, is that it has always been about presenting the prime directives, initiatives, and successes of the administration in power, so having what should be a "non-partisan"/"non-political" judicial body present makes no sense at all, regardless of who occupies the White House. To me, it has always seemed like a contest of who can be the most stone-faced during the speech. Alito failed in that venture last year and was the sole person responsible for injecting himself into the debate over Citizen's United - NOT Barack Obama.

A Teaching Moment

The modern American Right have - over the course of the last decade - slowly moved closer and closer to stating point-blank that higher education is completely worthless.

Seems that they are just moments away from claiming that, in light of this report featured in USA Today:

Nearly half of the nation’s undergraduates show almost no gains in learning in their first two years of college, in large part because colleges don’t make academics a priority, a new report shows.

Instructors tend to be more focused on their own faculty research than teaching younger students, who in turn are more tuned in to their social lives, according to the report, based on a book titled Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. Findings are based on transcripts and surveys of more than 3,000 full-time traditional-age students on 29 campuses nationwide, along with their results on the Collegiate Learning Assessment, a standardized test that gauges students’ critical thinking, analytic reasoning and writing skills.

After two years in college, 45% of students showed no significant gains in learning; after four years, 36% showed little change.

Students also spent 50% less time studying compared with students a few decades ago, the research shows.

And right on cue, one of the biggest Right Wing blogs pushes exactly that question - do kids really need college?

But the author - AllahPundit - doesn't stop there, as they make a none to thinly veiled accusation that there has to be some sort of bias ( read: liberal ) at all colleges that causes students to put emotion and political alignments before "critical analysis", based on an article from McLatchy - then following up with this:

If you think false media narratives are easily absorbed now, wait until the Leaders of Tomorrow graduate and take their place in society. I keep thinking that the combination of a poor economy and ludicrous higher-education costs will solve this problem to some degree by re-normalizing the idea of entering the labor force after high school. If you’re a kid who’s unenthused about incurring a mountain of debt for the privilege of four more years of study with no guarantee of finding a job afterward to fund the repayment, why not pound the pavement for an entry-level/trainee position somewhere instead? The pay will be rotten to start and the lack of a diploma will make some future employers think twice, but in the meantime you’re debt-free and building skills — and if I’m right about re-normalization, the “no diploma” stigma will fade a bit culturally over time.

And there's the money shot - are conservative parents going to stop what they did when I was young, to urge that their children get a higher education so that they can end up better off in the world than they are?

Certainly, the world is a different place than it was in 1989 when I started high school, but have we come so far as a nation that we are willing to buy into this notion that a college education simply doesn't matter?

The first argument that any parent has with their high school senior is of the "cost" of the school of their choice. And while not every child is lucky enough to get that grant or scholarship, it is one of the obstacles with sending a student to college and will be a conversation that a plurality of parents will have with their kids. But should that be the rationalization for telling them they don't need any further education after high school? Should that be the reason that a kid give up their dreams of being a doctor, a lawyer, geologist, or an architect, or even a teacher?

I still owe a fairly large sum of money for my college education. Was it worth it? Every last penny. Could I have made some better choices after I graduated? Most certainly. But are we to believe that the modern American Right think that they could fair better without a college education? Are we to operate under the assumption that college is as outdated as cassette tapes, VHS, and CB radio? Are we to believe that the value of higher education in the eyes of employers will disappear in a sufficient enough timeframe to satisfy Right Wingers like the above mentioned author?

What the study shows, and what most within the modern American Right will ultimately ignore, is a lack of motivation by the students in the percentiles highlighted. This isn't about what classes are offered, where the school is located, or how much it costs - it's the students' desire to learn.

I'm not so naive to think that there won't be temptations at college, as I took part in my fair share of ribaldry and class skipping - but I knew that in order to make the grade I had to do the work. The person that is ultimately responsible for your grade is you, regardless of what the author at HotAir has to say about "grade inflation".

College isn't for everyone. I had this same talk with my nephew after he dropped out of a regional University and thought his parents would be mad at him for the rest of his life. But if you opt to skip college, don't think that you will have the same job opportunities as those with a college diploma, even if you don't have that debt hanging over you.

Defending The Tan Man

I was waiting to see how long it would take conservatives to defend the new Speaker of The House from doing something incredibly dumb. Sad that it took the death of innocents and the assassination attempt of a Democratic Congresswoman for them to go full steam ahead.

This obnoxious meme began last night when word got out that House Speaker John Boehner didn’t travel with Barack Obama to Arizona for last night’s memorial in Tucson. Boehner snubbed Obama! He snubbed Giffords!......

Well, guess what - he did.

The above quote is from none other than Ed Morrissey, recent "Blogger Laureate" of last years CPAC and someone that is more than willing to bend the fabric of reality in order to prop up even the most ridiculous meme from the modern American Right.

His laughably insipid validation actually comes from TPM, a site that usually has something of value to add to the national discussion.

Yesterday, House members attended a vigil for victims of the Arizona shooting spree in an auditorium underneath the Capitol Visitor’s Center. As they trickled in, a House aide provided reporters, including me, a glimpse of the program of events and list of speakers. There was one small revision to the schedule, though: Minority Whip Steny Hoyer would be reading Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s portion of scripture, because she was on her way to Tucson with the President.

If Boehner had accepted the invitation, then the leaders of both parties would have missed the Wednesday vigil.

Yeah, because if Boehner's tears weren't present in Washington, then all semblance of reverence would have disappeared, Congressional interns would have been sacrificed to Aqua Buddah, and gays would have been allowed to marry.

Is that really the argument that the Right wants to make at this point, that Boehner - the man who was allegedly elected by his fellow House members to bring order and stability to not only the Lower Chamber, but America - couldn't be bothered to do what any decent member of the electorate should do?

Sure, there was a vigil on Capitol Hill, but I'm fairly certain that it would have went off without a hitch had Orange McMaudlinDrunk got on a plane with Pelosi and Obama to pay respects to the dead in Tuscon.

But everyone needs a story, don't they......

No, Please, Keep It Up

The modern American Right isn't so much afraid of losing their freedom of speech as they are afraid of admitting the obvious - that there are actually people out there that can, will, and have taken what they have said as gospel and gone on to perpetrate heinous acts of violence.

Whether they are gnashing their teeth over unrealistic fears of a reimplementation of the Fairness Doctrine - something I would think that the modern American Right would welcome, as they are always eager to shout that there is consistent and clear bias against allowing any conservative/libertarian point of view be shown in the media, as it is obviously controlled by evil liberals - or that the FCC will begin shutting down stations that carry Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity, there hasn't been a hush given to Right Wing rhetoric as it has actually amplified since Tuscon.

And to that, the modern American Right is proving the point of the Left.

Ever since word broke that a Democratic Congresswoman was shot, that a Federally appointed Judge was killed, the modern American Right has been in full damage control mode. From insisting that all violent acts against political figures in America, that all murders in America that even hint at the final solution of an anti-government activist, were carried out by members of the Left to continuing to stoke the fires of "they're coming to get you" by people like Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox"News", the modern American Right can't seem to see the irony in what is transpiring.

They are increasing their anti-government, anti-democratic, pro-uprising language.

Not only that, but we are beginning to see their rising stars begin to diminish. Take a look at modern conservative messiah Chris Christie on Palin and Obama:



In the weeks and months prior to Tuscon, Christie was being heralded as a solid Presidential candidate, and how he's the RINO Messiah?

To all this, I say "keep going" to the modern American Right.

But what are the far reaching implications of all this?

Has Palin increased her chances of getting the nomination from the Republican Party for President?

Are other aspiring Presidential candidates, like Pawlenty and Romney - the later soundly crushing her in early polling - going to use this against her?

Is the modern American Right going to split in two by using what happened in Tuscon between now and election day 2012.

Keep it up, guys.

Their Own Tactics Against Them

Seems that conservatives aren't pleased when the tactics they have employed in referencing "costs" since Obama took office are used against them.

Vanity Fair has the relevant data:

It would seem that in an era of Fiscal Responsibility™, a performative rendition of the Constitution might have been one such eliminated endeavor. For an estimate on just how much the Republicans would have saved if they had decided against the tedious exercise, VF Daily checked with Peter Keating, the co-author of “The Cost of No” and VF.com’s resident expert on Congressional wastefulness.

“The amount I get is nearly $1.1 million. $1,071,872.87, to be exact, though of course this is more back-of-the-envelope than exact.

“When one chamber of Congress is in session but not working, we the people still have to pay for members’ salaries and expenses, and for their police protection, and for keeping their lights and phones and coffee machines on. Even Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Mike Pence (R-IN) combined don’t blow enough hot air to heat the Capitol in January.”

And while conservative "concerns" about use of tax dollars have clearly fallen on partisan lines, it's those same conservatives that cry foul.

Ha ha! Yes, we can tell that this analysis is strictly non-partisan. Say, how much did Nancy Pelosi’s speech, complete with its rambling partisan defense, cost us? Wait, Vanity Fair and Keating are too busy venting outrageous outrage over the reading of the foundational legal document that members of Congress swear to uphold and defend.

How do VF and Keating reach their conclusions? They take the cost-per-minute of the House being in session, complete apparently to the cost of cleaning staffs, and apply that to the time needed to read the Constitution. Of course, this is simply bunk. The House did not come to session to read the Constitution, so those fixed costs — including salaries — would have been spent already regardless of whatever gets said on the floor. The cost doesn’t come from the reading; it comes from the existence of Congress itself.

There isn’t even any opportunity cost involved, since the reading of the Constitution won’t prevent any other business from being conducted. It will take much less time to read the Constitution than to, say, name post offices and hear debate over whether to designate February as National Toothpick Month, complete with testimonials to the toothpick industry and how it contributed to the greatness of America by removing the remains of porkchops from the teeth of red-blooded Americans. There actually isn’t much extra cost in those efforts either, except for the paper needed to publish the bills, because once again, Congress would already be in session. Those cases matter because politicians like to use those resolutions to claim productivity, when in fact they’re wasting time — but not much money.

One can literally sense that Ed Morrissey is really stretching the limits of his own rhetoric to validate what is ultimately attention whoring to the conservative base.

But one has to ask why Republicans didn't offer this up before. Oh, that's right - we didn't have a President with a funny sounding name that was more intent on a Domestic agenda that included ALL people prior to 2009. Silly me.

So here's my next question for Morrissey - and any other conservatives that have a new found love for our "sacred documents". What else is going to be read in the Lower Chamber now that the GOP/Tea Baggers/Koch Industries have a louder voice and a higher vote count?

- The Emancipation Proclamation?
- Declaration of Independence?
- Any of the letter of Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin?
- Atlas Shrugged?

There's always going to be a cost related to anything done by members of Congress, and it's always going to be footed by the tax payer. It's just that Little Eddie can't stand it when someone points out that the logic used by him and his compatriots is just as "bunk" as what Vanity Fair did. Had he the intellectual honesty to realize that that is what Peter Keating and Juli Weiner were attempting to accomplish - at least that's how I read it - then perhaps he and others like him would seek to be just a shade more serious now that they have a modest majority in Congress.

I'm not looking for that to happen though.

And So It Begins

This is sure to make Fox"News" ratings soar, but also sure to make conservatives even more volatile and unpredictable:

Forget the fervent chatter speculating that Tea Party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann is considering launching a campaign to challenge Sen. Amy Klobuchar for the Minnesota U.S. Senate seat in the next national election cycle. Think bigger.

ABC News has learned that Bachmann, R-Minn., also is seriously weighing whether to seek the Republican nomination for president in 2012.

A source close to the three-term congresswoman said Bachmann will travel to Iowa this month for multiple meetings to seek advice from political forces there and party elders close to the caucus process before coming to a final decision regarding a potential presidential run. Bachmann, a native of Waterloo, Iowa, also is set to deliver a keynote speech at an Iowans for Tax Relief PAC fundraiser Jan. 21 in Des Moines, Iowa.

While a trip to Iowa is certainly not a trip to Jerusalem, it's certainly enough of an indicator to get prominent conservative bloggers foaming at the mouth, if but for the buzz it would generate within the modern conservative movement.

I'm guessing Bachmann will attempt a run, but would likely end up dropping out when her fan base ends up insisting that she's spending too much time ignoring her "duties" as Congresswoman. Still, she's made enough noise about how "experience" is necessary that people will likely start comparing her acumen to Palin's. Not that I would ever consider supporting either of these right-wing loons, but at least Bachmann hasn't quit yet.

Get your popcorn ready kids.