I feel like people should be screaming 'T-Paawwww; what, what!' after his name is announced when he walks onto stage.
I also think I hate him more every time I listen to him on a Sunday talk show. Given that I developed a strong distaste for him in 2009, he's sunk pretty low by now. It's not just that he says dumb things - everyone spouts bullshit on these shows (the reason Tim Russert was so great was the pushback he gave). David Gregory is ok about forcing people to be honest, but just seemed to give Pawlenty a free pass. Chris Wallace did a better job, but still let T-Paw get away with quite a bit. Problem is, whenever this man is interviewed, it seems as though he says something stupid, and the interviewer just lets him get away with it because it will take too much effort to explain the fallacy, and even if you did explain why he's wrong, Pawlenty would just double down on stupid. Kind of like Joe Wilson. And Bachmann. And, really, boiler plate Tea Party in general.
The awesome thing Pawlenty suggested was fixing Obama's approach to Libya by approaching it the way Reagan would. Gregory suggested Reagan pulled out of Lebanon, which runs counter to Timmy's "Obama isn't tough enough" mantra. T-Paw counters that Reagan used other methods to dispose of dictators. Awesome: Presidential Candidate Tim Pawlenty just went on national tv and suggested Iran-Contra was a good idea. Or maybe he just supported the way Reagan dealt with Libya. That was a time when our country was run by a strong, military-minded President who wasn't afraid to take on Gaddafi. So he engaged in a bombing campaign while refusing to send in ground troops and eventually called an end to hostilities without ever taking out Gaddafi. Which, oddly enough, seems to be what everyone is accusing the current weak, pinko president of doing...
For the record, Reagan on the debt ceiling:
Denigration of the full faith and credit of the United States would have substantial effects on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets. The Nation can ill afford to allow such a result. The risks, the costs, the disruptions and the incalculable damage lead me to but one conclusion: the Senate must pass this legislation before the Congress adjourns.
I wonder what it's like to exalt a man as your infallible guide to policy and politics, yet disagree with most of what he stood for and did.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Use Honey for Catching Flies Only
I've been battling the mice in my house awhile now, content with throwing some more rat poison into the ceiling every time I hear the bastards scamper across the panels as I'm laying in bed. But last week I was awoken from my session-constrained sleep to hear one running around, and was so outraged I began violently pounding the wall (presumably to scare it from the house, but unsuccessfully so).
Monday morning I arose early enough to hit the supermarket for food and the hardware store for mousetraps before heading into work. Arriving home that night, I failed to find my jar of peanut butter (a safe assumption is Erol took it when moving out). Unsure of my next move, I was like, 'well, honey is sweet - I bet they'd like that.' So I set two traps with large dollops of honey and went to bed.
Tuesday morning I arose to find my trapping efforts were for naught, as both had been left undisturbed. Although disappointed, I decided to leave the traps there and see if I could get one during the day. I arrive home last night/this morning to find the traps still empty, consoled myself that it was worth the try, and went to bed. Before leaving for work this morning I check the traps one more time, hoping they'ed finally fallen for the sweet nectar, and sonuvabitch if there weren't ants crawling all over the floor. So now I've failed to adequately address the mouse problem, and have created an ant problem. Not only did I fail, I failed twice. I'm sure there's a lesson somewhere in there, but my penchant for obstinance means someone else will have to apply it.
Monday morning I arose early enough to hit the supermarket for food and the hardware store for mousetraps before heading into work. Arriving home that night, I failed to find my jar of peanut butter (a safe assumption is Erol took it when moving out). Unsure of my next move, I was like, 'well, honey is sweet - I bet they'd like that.' So I set two traps with large dollops of honey and went to bed.
Tuesday morning I arose to find my trapping efforts were for naught, as both had been left undisturbed. Although disappointed, I decided to leave the traps there and see if I could get one during the day. I arrive home last night/this morning to find the traps still empty, consoled myself that it was worth the try, and went to bed. Before leaving for work this morning I check the traps one more time, hoping they'ed finally fallen for the sweet nectar, and sonuvabitch if there weren't ants crawling all over the floor. So now I've failed to adequately address the mouse problem, and have created an ant problem. Not only did I fail, I failed twice. I'm sure there's a lesson somewhere in there, but my penchant for obstinance means someone else will have to apply it.
Monday, June 20, 2011
Let's Kill the Term "Gay Priest"
Maureen Dowd is obviously agitated over the pushback against gay marriage in New York. The New York Times editorialist eviscerated Archbishop Timothy Dolan on Sunday over his opposition to the legislation. While full disclosure requires me to say I’m not the biggest fan of Dowd, this one rubbed me wrong.
Dowd has a lot of issues with Catholicism, and shotguns about 5 different attacks on the church (not all are even germane). My biggest problem with Dowd’s ranting, though, is that she bashes Dolan for opposing gay marriage while harboring gay priests:The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.
Dowd’s not the first to take this approach, but I think we should try to make her the last. Calling the sick assholes that took advantage of children for decades "gay priests" implies the problem is that they’re gay – and that replacing them with straight priests would solve the problem. It wouldn't, because it doesn't address the problem, but she seems to have no problem conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. Here's the difference: a gay priest gets a rent boy for consensual male companionship (see Ted Haggard, George Rekers, etc.). A pedophilic priest is a criminal who deserves criminal sentencing. And while the media doesn’t seem to recognize it, there’s a pretty big fucking difference. Shame on Dowd for refusing to acknowledge this difference because she'd rather further her personal agenda by throwing bombs at the Catholic Church.
Dowd has a lot of issues with Catholicism, and shotguns about 5 different attacks on the church (not all are even germane). My biggest problem with Dowd’s ranting, though, is that she bashes Dolan for opposing gay marriage while harboring gay priests:The church refuses to acknowledge the hypocrisy at its heart: that it became a haven for gay priests even though it declares homosexual sex a sin, and even though it lobbies to stop gays from marrying.
Dowd’s not the first to take this approach, but I think we should try to make her the last. Calling the sick assholes that took advantage of children for decades "gay priests" implies the problem is that they’re gay – and that replacing them with straight priests would solve the problem. It wouldn't, because it doesn't address the problem, but she seems to have no problem conflating homosexuality with pedophilia. Here's the difference: a gay priest gets a rent boy for consensual male companionship (see Ted Haggard, George Rekers, etc.). A pedophilic priest is a criminal who deserves criminal sentencing. And while the media doesn’t seem to recognize it, there’s a pretty big fucking difference. Shame on Dowd for refusing to acknowledge this difference because she'd rather further her personal agenda by throwing bombs at the Catholic Church.
Friday, June 17, 2011
A Better Battle
As State Senate Republicans debate whether gay marriage comes onto the floor today, a much more important civil rights campaign is brewing half a world away. Over a month of online campaigning is set to commence as Saudi women are taking to the streets... on wheels. Demanding the right to marry through civil discourse is a far cry from the threats of ostracization, violence, and rape awaiting the women brave enough to protest national laws forbidding females to operate motor vehicles. Right or wrong, gay marriage remains a very divisive issue in New York (and across the US). Yet the least we can do is provide an unwavering support for the women risking their lives in what will be one of many struggles for equality in the decades to come.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Paul Ryan's Genius
I was jogging last night listening to last Sunday’s Meet the Press, and Paul Ryan was the lead interview. (I’m in training, and try to jog regularly.) Later on that night, while smoking a cigar coupled with Coronas and eating hotdogs (another aspect of my training), I was hit with the realization that Ryan’s fucking with me. Well, America at large, but I’m taking it personal; he actually taunted me on Sunday morning. Here’s how:
The previous week, Newt Gingrich didn’t mince words in saying that Ryan’s plan amounted to “right-wing, social engineering.” He took a ton of flak, and had to completely backtrack a couple days later. So there it is – Paul Ryan’s plan isn’t social engineering. It’s simply a plan, an idea for how to approach Medicare and get costs under control. It’s a proposal a lot of people disagree with, other people support, and in sum defines a starting position to negotiate from. Done and done.
Or so I thought. When Ryan comes onto Meet the Press, host David Gregory launches into an attack on how unpopular the plan is with people, forcing Ryan to defend his actions. Ryan could’ve simply responded that this is a starting point, that of course it will be molded to take into consideration the concerns of the American people, and that he will be taking those concerns into account as he gets the chance to talk to his constituents about it. He could’ve simply said, “there is no other plan on the table. Here’s my plan. Until someone introduces a better one, this is what America needs.”
At first this is what Ryan does. There’re the usual political talking points about it being 700-some-odd days of Democrats failing to pass a budget, lack of leadership from the White House, blah blah… Then, something crazy happens. Ryan continues his attack on leadership by exclaiming leaders are elected to lead. I don't consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be. Leaders change the polls.
There’s a lot of extraneous to unpack in the above, from mocking Gingrich’s ‘if you quote me directly and in context, you’re a liar’ to the fact that Republicans controlled both Houses and the White House for a couple thousand days without passing a budget. These aren’t my takeaways though. It’s the fact that Ryan was accused of right-wing, social engineering, everyone in the Republican party made Gingrich retract the statement, and one week later, on the same show, at the same time, sitting in the same chair, Ryan says leadership isn’t doing what the American people want – leadership is engineering polls of the American people to go along with what you want. I don’t think it’s simply ironic; it’s taunting. Paul Ryan is actively taunting me, and no one has caught on. He’s going to get away with it, because he knows he can. What’s more, there’s no political advantage to taunting people at a level above their heads. I honestly believe he’s only doing it to derive some smug satisfaction from manipulating people dumber than him. I gotta hand it to’m – that Paul Ryan is one clever bastard.
The previous week, Newt Gingrich didn’t mince words in saying that Ryan’s plan amounted to “right-wing, social engineering.” He took a ton of flak, and had to completely backtrack a couple days later. So there it is – Paul Ryan’s plan isn’t social engineering. It’s simply a plan, an idea for how to approach Medicare and get costs under control. It’s a proposal a lot of people disagree with, other people support, and in sum defines a starting position to negotiate from. Done and done.
Or so I thought. When Ryan comes onto Meet the Press, host David Gregory launches into an attack on how unpopular the plan is with people, forcing Ryan to defend his actions. Ryan could’ve simply responded that this is a starting point, that of course it will be molded to take into consideration the concerns of the American people, and that he will be taking those concerns into account as he gets the chance to talk to his constituents about it. He could’ve simply said, “there is no other plan on the table. Here’s my plan. Until someone introduces a better one, this is what America needs.”
At first this is what Ryan does. There’re the usual political talking points about it being 700-some-odd days of Democrats failing to pass a budget, lack of leadership from the White House, blah blah… Then, something crazy happens. Ryan continues his attack on leadership by exclaiming leaders are elected to lead. I don't consult polls to tell me what my principles are or what our policies should be. Leaders change the polls.
There’s a lot of extraneous to unpack in the above, from mocking Gingrich’s ‘if you quote me directly and in context, you’re a liar’ to the fact that Republicans controlled both Houses and the White House for a couple thousand days without passing a budget. These aren’t my takeaways though. It’s the fact that Ryan was accused of right-wing, social engineering, everyone in the Republican party made Gingrich retract the statement, and one week later, on the same show, at the same time, sitting in the same chair, Ryan says leadership isn’t doing what the American people want – leadership is engineering polls of the American people to go along with what you want. I don’t think it’s simply ironic; it’s taunting. Paul Ryan is actively taunting me, and no one has caught on. He’s going to get away with it, because he knows he can. What’s more, there’s no political advantage to taunting people at a level above their heads. I honestly believe he’s only doing it to derive some smug satisfaction from manipulating people dumber than him. I gotta hand it to’m – that Paul Ryan is one clever bastard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)