Subscribe to the Newspaper
View the Online Newspaper
Welcome
Search: Site   Web
I Think, Therefore I Blog ~ Life. People. Writing. Books. Internet. Politics (sometimes). Big Questions, Little Questions, Food.

Ron Hart and political correctness

January 11th, 2010, 2:53 pm by fsherman

Ever the dutiful parrot of Republican talking points, Hart’s latest column announces that the recent failed plane bombing proves “we cannot protect our country if politically correct bureaucrats are too afraid to address the issue of assessing certain risky airline passengers … The Obama administration is too afraid of offending any other nationality to protect us” and is “being slowly taken down by deluded notions of political correctness while bestowing rights on our sworn enemies”

Mixed in with this is the usual pointless snark such as saying Janet Napolitano “dresses like a small-town lesbian”—which hardly has anything to do with her qualifications for Homeland Security—but we’ll skip the cheap shots and focus on what passes for Hart’s logic.

First off, I agree with him that the system screwed up badly (the good news is, if the only way al Qaida can get this close is when we screw up, they’re obviously not the deadly adversaries right-wingers scream about). However, part of the problem is precisely because we’ve thrown out any sort of probable cause for watching on, spying on or listing people as dangerous: We can’t join dots because there are too many dots.

The kid was on the no fly list. There are medal-bedecked Korean War veterans and constitutional scholars who are also on the list. And nobody knows the standards by which people are assigned to the list. And that was set up by Bush, which doesn’t excuse Obama from not fixing it, but should be kept in mind, since Repub mouthpieces like Hart like to pretend everything was fine before Obama was sworn in.

More to the point, how would profiling help? We don’t require people to register their religious faith before they fly, so how would singling out Muslims help? And if what he means is “frisk Arabs,” Richard Reid, John Walker Lindh or Jose Padilla would have slipped under the radar.

As to the claims this is all PC—bullcrap. PC implies that Muslims are getting some sort of special treatment because they’re a minority, and that can easily be disproved.

Take the anti-abortion movement’s long history of bombings, murder, harassment and terrorism, all of which can be linked with conservative, right-wing Christian anti-abortion activists. Using the logic by which conservatives are squealing to give Muslims a special spotlight, we should keep conservative Christians away from abortion clinics and doctors, send FBI agents to infiltrate the legitimate right to life movement and torture Dr. George Tiller’s murderer to find out what he knows about other possible attacks (he warned there would be some).

Do we see the non-Muslim terrorists getting worse treatment than Muslims? Nope. So political correctness is not the issue. No surprise; political correctness serves little purpose other than to give people an excuse to say something racist (”We’re not locking Muslims in prison camps because we’ve become too politically correct!”).

And let’s not forget, the vast majority of American Muslims are not terrorists or radical militants.

Two other points:
“The Obama administration is too afraid of offending any other nationality to protect us.” Ahh, another Republican theme delivered by a dutiful sock puppet, that Obama isn’t aggressive enough in defending us. Mr. Hart, Obama’s currently waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, threatening sanctions on Iran and our government is openly discussing whether to go into Yemen. How exactly does that constitute fear of giving offense?

•”bestowing rights on our sworn enemies” Our enemies, like our friends, have inalienable rights. They don’t need our government to bestow them. Please remember this the next time Hart discusses how he wants our government limited by the Constitution.

But of course, he’s not alone. For all conservatives lecture about the evils of big “nanny state” government, they’re the ones who squeal the loudest about how government should have unlimited power to spy, arrest, lock up and torture, all so they can sleep safe in their beds like little children under the nanny state’s care.

Conservative philosophy at its finest.

Daily News letters

January 11th, 2010, 2:29 pm by fsherman

GN Menas of Mary Esther argues today that “America’s socialists, progressives and liberal Democrats” are trying to “redistribute the hugely opposed political wealth of Christianity” just the way they redistribute actual wealth.
This strikes me as gibberish. Non-Christians are entitled to all the rights of Christians in this country, and if they gain political influence, that’s hardly redistribution—Christianity doesn’t own the government and doesn’t have some special right to run things.
At one point he asserts that textbook publishers are pressured to portray Islam in a favorable light while “maintaining the separation clause” against Christianity.
The separation clause binds everyone. Muslims. Christians. Wiccans. Swedenborgians.

A new Republican meme?

January 8th, 2010, 3:24 pm by fsherman

It’s long been a standard Republican lie that under Bush, this country didn’t have a terror attack after 9/11.
It’s a lie because we had five people dead of anthrax. And shoe bomber Richard Reid arguably constituted a terrorist attack as much as Mr. Exploding underwear.
But apparently that’s not a big enough lie for some Repubs. So a few weeks ago, former Bush press secretary Dana Perrino told an interviewer that there had been no terrorist attacks under Bush. And this week, Rudy Giulani said the same.
Given how many Republican talking points get recycled in the Daily News letter columns, I’ll be curious to see if this takes off, even among people who’ve made “remember 9/11″ the center of their existence.

From the wonderful world of the Daily News letter column

January 8th, 2010, 11:51 am by fsherman

John Fay, Tuesday: “waterboarding is extremely unpleasant, but we do it to our own soldiers as part of their training. This does not constitute torture.” Therefore, calling it torture is a “liberal canard.”
It’s torture, Mr. Fay. That’s why we train our troops with it, to learn to resist if it happens to them. Jesse Ventura, who actually underwent waterboarding as part of his training, said it was definitely torture.
And it’s not as if waterboarding was the only thing we did: There were beatings, sodomy with blunt instruments, stress positions, sleep deprivation, all of which are recognized as forms of torture—or were, before the Bush administration started insisting otherwise.
Then, today, we have Edward Armbruster of DeFunk quoting Ronald Reagan: “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”
Coming in the same letter that announces “we are on the road to socialism,” that’s kind of amusing. For that matter, referencing Reagan, a guy who claimed a military gap with the Soviets that didn’t exist, discussed the potential for Nicaragua to invade America and boasted how supply-side tax cuts would boost the economy and tax revenue (didn’t work—he left office with a record deficit), is kind of amusing, because Reagan “knew” lots and lots of stuff that wasn’t so.

Good grief

January 8th, 2010, 11:43 am by fsherman

A story on tampabay.com reports that a radio talk-show host screamed blue murder because Publix’ free calendar listed the start of Islamic new year on Dec. 7 and not Pearl Harbor’s bombing. She told the local paper that she considers Muslims an enemy waging war on America—though she said she wouldn’t object if it was in next year’s calendar as long as Pearl Harbor was too.
I’m not sure what it shows about America that some people are so touchy about remembering Pearl Harbor (there was a flap in some circles because Google didn’t mark it on their Web site). It was a tragedy, but we beat the Japanese, won the war—it seems about as pointless to me as marking the day the South fired on Fort Sumter.

Engineering

January 4th, 2010, 7:41 pm by fsherman

The city negotiated for its two engineering firms at a previous meeting and picked Moore Bass Consulting and Jenkins Engineering. This is to approve the finished contracts.
Sandy Trammell to the Jenkins rep (Scott Jenkins): Is it true you’ve been bought up by another firm.
Jenkins: “You really won’t see any changes … it’ll give us more ability to help to serve you as a client … the contract really won’t change.”
Trammell: Didn’t we want a large and a small firm? And now you’re no longer small.
Kisela: The official solicitation was for engineering services–-staff recommended we include a small firm, but it’s not a requirement.
6-1 with Sandy Trammell abstaining (she had a family member involved with one of the firms).
Next, City manager comments: There will probably be a CRA meeting at the Jan. 19 meeting (which is Tuesday, because of the MLK holiday).

Comments from the audience: None. And we’re adjourned.

Project reports

January 4th, 2010, 7:37 pm by fsherman

Sandy Trammell: Thanks Public Works Committee on the parking issue she brought up last meeting, concerning parking on the side of the road around Destin Elementary.
Tom Weidenhamer: Nothing.
Dewey: We’ve had a complaint from Twin Lakes about parking, and residents staying in a single-family dwelling. Code enforcement is checking into it, but Dewey would like to have staff and council see if more can be done. He’s had complaints about single-family homes turned into boarding houses from several other people, despite all the work the city’s put in on trying to stamp them out.
Bagby: Happy New Year.
Jim Wood: He’s heard from the same person as Dewey. “It is a very thorny issue to wrap your hands around.”
Sam Seevers: Wishes everyone a prosperous New Year.
Kelly Windes: Nothing.
Craig: New Year’s wishes from him, too. And congratulates Mayor-elect Seevers (applause from all quarters of the room).
Jerry Miller: The Clancy Company real-estate purchase has been closed. Part of the closing includes satisfying a code-enforcement lien on the property; some of the escrow money has been used for paying that, and he’d like a formal declaration that it’s been done.
Dewey: Should we declare conflicts of interest? Miller: Yep, if you have them.
Craig: How much is the total? Greg: $23,000 total. Bragg Farmer: $23,843.
Bagby: “That’d cover the food for the 25th anniversary.”
Kisela: “Not quite.”
(That was calculated at $250/day, the standard for code violations)
The vote: Unanimous, with Dewey and Kelly abstaining because they own property on the north side of 98, opposite the Clancy land.

Kisela

January 4th, 2010, 7:31 pm by fsherman

It runs in front of the annex building, then connects to the sidewalk in front of the church, then into Country Club (this in answer to a question by Dewey Destin).
And now, the vote (again, adjusting the priority): Unanimous.
Jerry Miller: He suggests council move to send the ordinance back to the staff for reworking to bring back to council at first reading again.
Unanimous.
Kisela: The Pathway Plan has been adopted—will we have to retrace the adoption to reconcile it with these changes (this vote was to adopt it as part of the Land Development Code).
Gallander: If we have to make changes, we’ll bring those back as well.
Next: Consent agenda. Passes unanimously.

Sam Seevers

January 4th, 2010, 7:27 pm by fsherman

(I had honestly not thought there’d be this much discussion on this plan, but I was wrong.).
Sam: Points out another site (not sure where) that she suggests be taken off the priority list. It’s MUT 13. I’m not sure what the issue is–it’s partly a debate over whether it’s a Commons stretch or Crystal Beach. Someone clarifies that it’s in a Gulf Power easement.
Ashley: Maybe we should table this?
City Attorney Jerry Miller: Settle the demotion of those Commons improvements first—if that passes, we’ll need to start over from first reading, which will affect the advertisements.
Sandy Trammell: She understands that the intent is to enlist the county to fix Commons, but it would help if we give them direction on negotiating—to tell the county it should be on their plan. Do we need to write a letter to the county?
Barker: So you don’t support the motion?
Trammell: No, it’s fine to drop it to level three, but the next step is to direct our staff to take it to the county: “Right now it’s only on our plan, we’re not doing anything to get it on the county’s plan.” If it’s on our plan, even at third-level, the county could decide we’re getting to it someday, so why bother?
6-1 with Kelly Windes voting no (that’s to demote the three sites).
Bagby: Now move the Indian Trail site (MUT 8) from Priority Two to Priority One.
Kisela details the exact extent of MUT 8

Where is MUT 8?

January 4th, 2010, 7:19 pm by fsherman

There is much shuffling of papers as they try to find it. I think (I don’t have a copy of the document to hand) that it’s in there, but not under that listing.
Bagby has more corrections:
•There are asterisked items that are irrelevant to the plan because they’re holdovers from other studies. Community Development DIrector Ken Gallander says the asterisks are a no go.
•SW 11, it’s a property the city doesn’t own so it should be out of the prioritization list.
•Bagby moves MUT 11 at priority 1 and MUT 13 at priority 1 and MUT 12 at priority 2 be moved to Priority three because they’re all outside Destin (I think they must be on Commons—this issue has come up before). “I encourage the county to construct those multi-use paths.” That could change, he adds, if they’re annexed into the city later.
Sandy Trammell seconds.
Greg Kisela: “I understand the thought proceses, it’s not in the city, it’s in the county … but it does help to use these documents” talking to the county about where improvements are needed. Commons is a busy road with a lot of activity and “to me it would help us to have it in there.”
Bagby: He’s not advocating removing it, though that was his original position. “But I cannot support something not in the city being our number one priority.”
Kisela: Understood, but Commons improvements are very important for Destinites in that area. “It’s a policy issue, but it does help us in our discussions.”
Bagby: “I will gladly make those three the number one priority if those come into the” city.
Kisela: It’s chicken and the egg: The county would love to turn over Commons, but the city wants it up to standards first, and it’s not there yet.

ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site