FEBRUARY 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

1. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. After the US Supreme Court struck down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Abbott wasted little time in filing a brief to re-institute the state’s discriminatory redistricting plan, the same plan the Supreme Court had ruled as unconstitutional. When US Attorney General Eric Holder denied Abbott’s request, Texas filed a lawsuit under Section 2 basing its claim on the following arguments. Give Texas credit for honesty. From the filed brief:
 
DOJ’s accusations of racial discrimination are baseless. In 2011, both houses of the Texas Legislature were controlled by large Republican majorities, and their redistricting decisions were designed to increase the Republican Party’s electoral prospects at the expense of the Democrats....The redistricting decisions of which DOJ complains were motivated by partisan rather than racial considerations, and the plaintiffs and DOJ have zero evidence to prove the contrary. It is perfectly constitutional for a Republican-controlled legislature to make partisan districting decisions, even if there are incidental effects on minority voters who support Democratic candidates.
 
You know, having them actually come right out and say it--that they wanted to restrict potential Democratic voters--is long overdue. But wait!  There's more. To address the actual accusations of racial bias and discrimination, Texas is using the argument that "Yeah, there may be an isolated incident or two, but it's NOTHING like it was in 1965".  
 
Texas claims that even if it did discriminate, and it stresses that it did not, it was nothing as bad as “the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that originally justified preclearance in 1965.”
 
So as long as Texas skies aren’t alight with flames from burning crosses, what’s the big whoop? So, Texas is arguing that Section 2, and in fact the entire reasons for preclearance are all based on conditions in 1965.  And that since "things are better than in 1965" then Section 2 is null and void. Better than 1965? With Texas strict registration rules disenfranchising an estimated nearly one million voters in the 2014 election, this assertion is highly questionable. The only thing lacking is a literacy test.
 

CALLING RONALD REAGAN; YOUR PARTY NEEDS YOU

By Ronald Fox

The Eternal Optimist

I ran into Ronald Reagan in a dream last night.  The Senate GOP vow to not hold confirmation hearings on anyone President Obama nominates to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court had him shaking his head in frustration at what’s become of his beloved party.  This latest case of Republican intransigence underscores once again the sharp contrast between Reagan and the current crop of party leaders.  It angers me to no end that the Republican elite continues to cite Reagan as their model conservative. It is an insult to the Reagan legacy. 

Don’t get me wrong; I was no fan of Reagan during his era.  My values for a more inclusive, egalitarian, and diplomatic America didn’t square well with his core beliefs in lower taxes, limited government, and a robust military presence, not to mention his support for repressive dictatorial regimes throughout Latin America and the Greater Middle East.  Contemporary Republican ideological dogmatism, political obstructionism, and war-mongering, however, have made me look at Reagan in a new light.  Oh how I wish today's Republican leaders shared Reagan’s pragmatism, penchant for compromise, sunny political optimism. and broad appeal.  Sadly, these are current GOP taboos.

Since 2013, I have posted three commentaries counting the ways Reagan the politician differed from the image held by most Republicans today:  What Would Ronald Reagan Do? Conservatives Are Clueless; Ronald Reagan and Contemporary Republicans; and, Response to "Anonymous" Regarding Reagan and Contemporary Republicans. The 2016 GOP presidential campaign has furthered sharpened the distinction between Reagan and the Republican contenders, all of whom have dropped his name as their role model. I only wish it were true.    

Firmly entrenched as the party of “no,” it’s hard to envision a bright future for the GOP.  New York Times Opinion writer Jacob Weisberg touched on this theme in an op-ed in yesterday's Times.  I’ve decided to post it as a guest commentary.

THE TRUMP PHENOMENON: REPUBLICANS HAVE CREATED THEIR OWN MONSTER

By Ronald T. Fox

Republican establishment leaders are scratching their heads over the Donald Trump phenomenon. They seem shocked that so many party faithful would gravitate to such a reckless demagogue whose acidic rhetoric has managed to alienate, among others, women, Latinos and young voters--constituencies the party needs to attract if it hopes to win in November.  Worse yet, perhaps, it has confounded the billionaire fatcats that have been bankrolling the party.  The Trump insurgency is threatening to unravel the GOP and the conservative principles it holds so dear.  Try as they have, party leaders and many of its deep-pocketed supporters have so far not been able to stifle the Trump juggernaut.

Many Republicans leaders see the insurrection among traditional party faithful mainly as a product of Trump's unique, larger-than-life personality, his ability to dominate the airwaves, and his deftness in appealing to voter anger with tough-sounding promises.  They're not seeing the bigger picture.

What explains the rebelliousness among the GOP ranks?  For an answer, the party's establishment needs to look in the mirror.

JANUARY 2016 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

 

1. House Speaker Paul Ryan. The new House Speaker, who insists on lots of family time for himself, explained his opposition to paid family leave for other people:

"I don't think people asked me to be speaker so I can take more money from hardworking taxpayers to create some new federal entitlement. But I think people want to have members of Congress that represent them, that are like them," Ryan said. "Don't you want your member of Congress to be a citizen legislator who lives with you, among you, who has your own kinds of concerns, who wants to spend time with his children on Saturdays and Sundays? "That I think is what most people want in their life, a balance. So if you're asking me because I want to continue being the best dad and husband and speaker I can be — getting that work-life balance correct — means I should sign up for some new unfunded entitlement, that doesn't make any sense to me."

He doesn't want to take money from hardworking taxpayers ... to give those hardworking taxpayers paid leave if they have a child or need to care for a sick family member. He opposes an unfunded entitlement ... except that "unfunded entitlement" is, in California for instance, actually a small payroll deduction that's helped 1.8 million Californians take paid leave, 90 percent of them to care for a new baby, over the law's first decade, without hurting businesses or killing jobs.

In short, Paul Ryan does not care about the facts. He cares about spending time with his family while standing in the way of you doing the same. He has a job that lets him make that kind of demand, and if you're not so lucky and powerful, screw you. Basic rights for you—the kind of thing that three American states and virtually every other country on earth can somehow provide—can be boiled down to meaningless Republican buzzwords for "no."

A EULOGY FOR AL JAZEERA AMERICA

By Ronald T. Fox 

Al Jazeera America, the cable network that has been repeatedly recognized for excellence in journalism by industry peers, I wrote so glowingly about back in November (see: Investigative Journalism in America: Rest in Peace) announced on January 6 that it will be shutting down by the end of April.  The only cable news option in the US that offered thoughtful, in-depth, contextual journalism from an international rather than an American-focused perspective, will be gone.  I guess it had to be. Serious journalism is a poor fit in the highly competitive, profit-driven US media marketplace.

With the US also lacking an extensive national public news option not captive to profit, similar to, say, the BBC, Agence France-Presse or Sveriges Television (Sweden), Americans thirsting for serious global news coverage will now have to turn exclusively to web sources.  (I understand public networks have their issues, but I would take any of the above listed offerings over the private networks or limited public broadcasting we have in the United States.)

IMAGES OF A DESTROYED RAMADI

By Ronald T. Fox

The back-slapping and self-congratulation has been deafening: with assistance from American special operation forces and air support, Iraqi military forces retook the city of Ramadi from the Islamic State, which had controlled it since May. This was good news for most Americans, even if 600 air strikes from the US-led coalition, along with destruction caused by retreating ISIS booby-traps, left 80% of the city destroyed.  Chalk up one more "liberated” city with an uncertain future. Up next, Fallujah, followed by Mosul and then Raqqa, the Syrian "capital" of the Islamic State.

Ramadi is yet another example of the scorched-earth reality that passes for victory on the ground in Iraq and Syria. Call me naïve; I just can’t seem to figure out how the utter destruction of towns serves any long-term purpose for achieving stability and order, let alone political and economic viability.   Military victories can be won, but the political challenge of reconstruction, meeting humanitarian needs, and reconciling Sunni-Shiite animosities remain illusive, if not intractable.  When will we learn that military gains must have a political program to back them up?

Previously I posted images of Kobani, Syria, which was similarly “liberated.” Below are some images of Ramadi.  Draw your own conclusions.

DECEMBER 2015 BONEHEAD ABSURDITY OF THE MONTH

1. Colorado State Republican Representative JoAnn Windholz. Windholz issued a statement on the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood attack that left 3 dead and 9 wounded last week. The Colorado Independent published her jaw-dropping statement:​
 
“The freedoms we enjoy in the United States include those that were made up to fit the audience and unsubstantiated numerical support, specifically the right to an abortion. When a violent act happens at a Planned Parenthood (pph) facility (most recent in Colorado Springs) the left goes on “auto-pilot” blaming everyone in sight when they should be looking in a mirror. Free Speech has brought to light the insidious selling of baby body parts (PPH has no shame). These facts and overall mission of the abortion industry would easily send anyone over the hill who wasn’t rational.”
 
Oh, but wait—there’s more. Rep. Windholz was just getting started:
 
“Violence is never the answer, but we must start pointing out who is the real culprit. The true instigator of this violence and all violence at any Planned Parenthood facility is Planned Parenthood themselves. Violence begets violence. So Planned Parenthood: YOU STOP THE VIOLENCE INSIDE YOUR WALLS.”
 
Blaming an organization that provides vital legal and medical services to women, including abortions (3 % of its funding), and circulating false information about what PPH does, has become the stock in trade for far-right conservatives. They have no qualms about making up facts to push their sick notions. Worse, though, are the gullible people who believe their lies.
 
Windholz won her seat in 2014 by only 106 votes. Let us hope her outrageous statement will seal her electoral doom.  The full statement from Rep. Windholz can be read at the Colorado Independent.