Swirling in the oily waters of the Gulf of Mexico is one of the clearest examples of conservative governing philosophy you’ll ever see:
When in power, pack government agencies with do-nothing cronies, losers and crooks. Then, when voters elect Democrats to clean up the various and inevitable “Market Gone Wild” disasters, hector the government’s response as incompetent and ineffectual and ceaselessly pillory its officials – all as a kick off for the next election cycle.
That’s why you keep hearing the term “Obama’s Katrina” instead of “BP’s Katrina” or “Bush’s Katrina: The Sequel.” This despite the fact that the oil industry has bought and muscled its way out of just about every reasonable attempt to regulate offshore rigs since the Reagan era.
Conservatives call this self-regulation, and in this case, numerous reports suggest it worked a little something like this:
Oil Industry: “We’ll regulate ourselves much more strictly than you guys at the government ever could. We got everything covered.”
U.S. Minerals Management Service: “Great! Bring on the hookers!”
Now, we’ve got a situation wherein neither BP nor the federal government has the technology to stop the spill. Both organizations look impotent – but only one has leaders you can vote to fire.
Ingenious, no?
So what’s more nauseating: The cynicism and disingenuousness of conservative politics? Or the serial impotence of liberals and progressives against it?
Ah, the swirl…feel its spray against your face as you retch.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Deviants: Does It Take One to Know One?
[Warning: Some content may offend.]
When Republicans vowed to fight the newly passed healthcare reform act by hobbling it with red-herring amendments, I took heart. Surely, doing so would reveal their sanctimonious grandstanding and bitter obstructionism for what it is.
What I didn’t expect is that perversity would come out in that same wash. Yet, there was Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s amendment to deny coverage of Viagra for convicted pedophiles.
Set aside the fact that Viagra merely primes the pump – not the libido. Set aside the fact that Viagra is covered at all by Medicare, Medicaid and most private insurers, while birth control usually is not. Also set aside the fact that these convicts are denied the right to vote ever again.
Instead, I ask: Who thinks like this? Other than an actual pervert?
I mean, is anyone else creeped out by the thought of Sen. Coburn sweating in the dark over the idea of rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders gaming the healthcare system in order to procure performance-enhancing drugs for their dastardly deeds? Do such images haunt him when he pinches the cap on his own prescription bottle?
And if his concern is in earnest – and not a projection of inner predilections – what effect does he think denying these convicts Viagra and other ED meds will have on their desires or behavior?
Pedophile: You know, I’d really love to scoop some delicious little boy off the playground today, but it’s just no fun at half-mast. I think I’ll just sit here in my van and read the bible instead.
And what about the rapist with the whipped cream fetish? Should we discontinue food stamps to keep him off the streets?
Perhaps what’s most pathetic here – and most indicative of the disconnect between Coburn and those he would have us believe he intends to protect – is the notion that the use of Viagra by an assailant (let alone how or where he got it) is somehow a material detail in the larger tragedy.
Victim (between sobs): You know, I would’ve been OK with the whole thing – had it not lasted FOUR HOURS. I truly believe he stopped only so he could seek immediate medical attention. I half-feared that we’d end up in the same emergency room. And with these damn trial lawyers staking out the hospitals, he might’ve even sued me for arousing him in the first place. Ohhh, if only John McCain had won…and then promptly died…I’d still be pure.
When Republicans vowed to fight the newly passed healthcare reform act by hobbling it with red-herring amendments, I took heart. Surely, doing so would reveal their sanctimonious grandstanding and bitter obstructionism for what it is.
What I didn’t expect is that perversity would come out in that same wash. Yet, there was Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s amendment to deny coverage of Viagra for convicted pedophiles.
Set aside the fact that Viagra merely primes the pump – not the libido. Set aside the fact that Viagra is covered at all by Medicare, Medicaid and most private insurers, while birth control usually is not. Also set aside the fact that these convicts are denied the right to vote ever again.
Instead, I ask: Who thinks like this? Other than an actual pervert?
I mean, is anyone else creeped out by the thought of Sen. Coburn sweating in the dark over the idea of rapists, pedophiles and other sex offenders gaming the healthcare system in order to procure performance-enhancing drugs for their dastardly deeds? Do such images haunt him when he pinches the cap on his own prescription bottle?
And if his concern is in earnest – and not a projection of inner predilections – what effect does he think denying these convicts Viagra and other ED meds will have on their desires or behavior?
Pedophile: You know, I’d really love to scoop some delicious little boy off the playground today, but it’s just no fun at half-mast. I think I’ll just sit here in my van and read the bible instead.
And what about the rapist with the whipped cream fetish? Should we discontinue food stamps to keep him off the streets?
Perhaps what’s most pathetic here – and most indicative of the disconnect between Coburn and those he would have us believe he intends to protect – is the notion that the use of Viagra by an assailant (let alone how or where he got it) is somehow a material detail in the larger tragedy.
Victim (between sobs): You know, I would’ve been OK with the whole thing – had it not lasted FOUR HOURS. I truly believe he stopped only so he could seek immediate medical attention. I half-feared that we’d end up in the same emergency room. And with these damn trial lawyers staking out the hospitals, he might’ve even sued me for arousing him in the first place. Ohhh, if only John McCain had won…and then promptly died…I’d still be pure.
Friday, November 14, 2008
It's Been Swell, But...
While some in the perpetually red state of Nebraska are hanging on whether a Democrat will pinch one of the state’s electoral votes for the first time since 1964, a different drama is playing out at hospitals across the state. According to an AP report posted on Yahoo News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081114/ap_on_re_us/safe_haven), some cornhuskers are rushing to abandon their children before the state’s “safe haven” law changes. These must be the family values we’ve been hearing so much about in Real America…
Originally aiming to stem the tide of Dumpster babies, the state - “to [its] surprise and embarrassment” – has instead taken in more teenagers than newborns since instituting the law this past July. These have included “six 17-year-olds, two 16-year-olds, six 15-year-olds, three 14-year-olds, three 13-year-olds” and “eight children who were 11 or 12.”
Having worked as a teacher in inner-city schools, I understand how troubled kids can become difficult, if not dangerous, to deal with once they reach their teens (see the example in the news story). But abandoning an 11-year old? That’s quite an in-home trial, wouldn’t you say? After all, these kids are human beings – not home exercise equipment.
Can you imagine that conversation? “Son, today I am taking you down to the police department to abandon you. And I just want you to know that it’s a decision I have not arrived at lightly. I have to admit, when I first found out I was pregnant, I was skeptical about what was in it for me. Even through your selfish cries for food, shelter and affection, I still held out hope that you would be able to turn it around and provide those very same things for me before too long. But after 11 years, I have to say it’s not looking so good. And lately, with these bad grades, scrapes with the law and this annoying insistence of yours on doing as I do, as opposed to as I say? Well, anyway, I hope you understand, and that, at some time in the future, that we can reconnect –especially if you go on to become a successful actor, athlete, musician or business person.”
And how exactly do you explain yourself to family and friends? “Hey, where’s your boy today?” “Yeah, you know, I finally got around to dropping him off at the fire station. I’d been kicking the idea –and him – around for a couple of years now. And when I overheard at the Laundromat the other day that they were going to change the law, well, I finally pulled the trigger. Did the same thing a couple years back when they re-jiggered the bankruptcy laws. Snuck right in there under the deadline. And by the way, you wouldn’t be in the market for a used Wii, would you? Fifty bucks takes it home.”
Crass? Yes. Unfair? Certainly, at least to some. So let’s agree on this: Nebraska lawmakers are the real turds here. They’re the ones, in their failure to agree on an age limit, who decided to use only the word “child” in the final legislation – despite warnings from social services groups that doing so would lead to this very crisis.
But wait, it gets even better: Even though the law’s obvious flaw manifested itself almost immediately, as of November 13, the Legislature still had not emended it. Why not? According to the article, “Reluctance to pull senators away from their jobs and election campaigns, along with the estimated $70,000 to $80,000 cost of a special session, were among the reasons [the governor’s] office cited in holding off on calling a special session sooner.”
Right, because taking care of these 33 kids until they’re 17 will cost much less than $80K. Another possible reason for both the original carelessness and the subsequent sluggishness: “’It was just that people who aren't in the business of dealing with families, they aren't aware how desperate some of these families are’" says the director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society in the article. Thus the paucity of liberal pinko social services that seems to be driving the most tragic cases. Again, so much for Real America’s putting families first.
BTW – Check out the photo that accompanies the story. This woman’s experience with her stepdaughter is a true tragedy, yet the caption might as well say, “If only my daughter were more like Mr. Whiskers here. He’s such a good kitty.”
Originally aiming to stem the tide of Dumpster babies, the state - “to [its] surprise and embarrassment” – has instead taken in more teenagers than newborns since instituting the law this past July. These have included “six 17-year-olds, two 16-year-olds, six 15-year-olds, three 14-year-olds, three 13-year-olds” and “eight children who were 11 or 12.”
Having worked as a teacher in inner-city schools, I understand how troubled kids can become difficult, if not dangerous, to deal with once they reach their teens (see the example in the news story). But abandoning an 11-year old? That’s quite an in-home trial, wouldn’t you say? After all, these kids are human beings – not home exercise equipment.
Can you imagine that conversation? “Son, today I am taking you down to the police department to abandon you. And I just want you to know that it’s a decision I have not arrived at lightly. I have to admit, when I first found out I was pregnant, I was skeptical about what was in it for me. Even through your selfish cries for food, shelter and affection, I still held out hope that you would be able to turn it around and provide those very same things for me before too long. But after 11 years, I have to say it’s not looking so good. And lately, with these bad grades, scrapes with the law and this annoying insistence of yours on doing as I do, as opposed to as I say? Well, anyway, I hope you understand, and that, at some time in the future, that we can reconnect –especially if you go on to become a successful actor, athlete, musician or business person.”
And how exactly do you explain yourself to family and friends? “Hey, where’s your boy today?” “Yeah, you know, I finally got around to dropping him off at the fire station. I’d been kicking the idea –and him – around for a couple of years now. And when I overheard at the Laundromat the other day that they were going to change the law, well, I finally pulled the trigger. Did the same thing a couple years back when they re-jiggered the bankruptcy laws. Snuck right in there under the deadline. And by the way, you wouldn’t be in the market for a used Wii, would you? Fifty bucks takes it home.”
Crass? Yes. Unfair? Certainly, at least to some. So let’s agree on this: Nebraska lawmakers are the real turds here. They’re the ones, in their failure to agree on an age limit, who decided to use only the word “child” in the final legislation – despite warnings from social services groups that doing so would lead to this very crisis.
But wait, it gets even better: Even though the law’s obvious flaw manifested itself almost immediately, as of November 13, the Legislature still had not emended it. Why not? According to the article, “Reluctance to pull senators away from their jobs and election campaigns, along with the estimated $70,000 to $80,000 cost of a special session, were among the reasons [the governor’s] office cited in holding off on calling a special session sooner.”
Right, because taking care of these 33 kids until they’re 17 will cost much less than $80K. Another possible reason for both the original carelessness and the subsequent sluggishness: “’It was just that people who aren't in the business of dealing with families, they aren't aware how desperate some of these families are’" says the director of the Nebraska Children's Home Society in the article. Thus the paucity of liberal pinko social services that seems to be driving the most tragic cases. Again, so much for Real America’s putting families first.
BTW – Check out the photo that accompanies the story. This woman’s experience with her stepdaughter is a true tragedy, yet the caption might as well say, “If only my daughter were more like Mr. Whiskers here. He’s such a good kitty.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
