I Think, Therefore I Blog

And the point on which he’s horrifically wrong.

fsherman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:11:01 +0000

Hart again: “In reality, these not-ready-for-democracy players in imperialistic parts of the world are better served in the short run under the control of a strong-armed leader. ‘Thug-ocracies’ can be fine for keeping countries under control until democracy can take its natural course; China and Russia come to mind as examples.”

And pray tell me, Mr. Hart, which parts of the world are those? Which is this thug-ocracy where everyone is better off than if they had free elections? How exactly does this benefit the people of China? Or Tibet, which is an occupied state?

And what makes you think democracy will “take its natural course”? China hasn’t had democracy in 50 years and it shows little sign of softening. Saddam or one of his sons would probably be still be in charge in Iraq if we hadn’t invaded (no, I don’t consider that a good reason to go in, but it’s certainly true). Saudi Arabia has less democracy than Iran, but they royal family isn’t letting go.

And what does this have to do with Iran? They were ready for democracy back in 1953, then we decided they were electing the wrong people and installed the Shah and financed his secret police? If they’re not ready for democracy—and it looks like a lot of them are pretty keen on it—wouldn’t that be our fault?

Admittedly, this is a fairly common attitude in Washington: People are ready for democracy when they vote the way we like, and if they’re not then they clearly need “stability” or “a firm hand” or some other euphemism. Many of our leaders have no qualms going several steps beyond Hart’s Thugocracy Is Good thesis; they don’t merely tolerate the thugs, they overthrow democracies (Guatemala, Iran) or prop up tyrants (Panama, Iraq, El Salvador) so we can get the oil or the mining or whatever else it is we think we’re entitled to.

It’s one of our country’s most shameful legacies.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

The point on which Ron Hart is fooling himself

fsherman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:55:30 +0000

From this weekend’s column: “Instead of electing a Naval Academy grad with Vietnam fighting experience, we went with an ACORN community organizer whose only war experience has been with Fox News — and he is losing that one. Having an ACORN organizer would be good for us if we were covertly attempting to rig an election in North Korea or Iran, but absent that, the job experience has scant value.”

Dude, the Republican right wing you serve so loyally has twice voted to pick Bush — a guy with no combat experience, a grounded fighter pilot, and a man who blew off his National Guard obligations, then lied about it — over people who actually served (and in the case of Kerry, showing how much they honor the troops by spitting all over his record). The boat has sailed, the Republicans have conceded war records don’t matter a hoot, so just give up pretending.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Good for the Supremes!

fsherman — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 18:50:27 +0000

The court ruled 8-1 that strip searching a student out of suspicion she had ibuprofin hidden in her underwear was a Constitutional violation.
The one dissenter, Clarence Thomas, argued it was a reasonable search because she could have hidden pills there, “nor will she be the last after today’s decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school.” (which would seem a problem with any restrictions on any searches under any circumstances).

According to USA Today, “Francisco Negron, lawyer for the National School Boards Association, said the decision could be confusing for school officials, who typically lack formal training in drugs yet would have to consider whether the contraband they seek is dangerous enough to do to a strip search.”

I think that’s a good thing.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Obama is not an Iranian

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:01:20 +0000

So the latest trend in right-wing outrage is to blast Obama for not doing enough to support the Iranian protesters. This ranges from Ron Hart (in his upcoming Saturday column) saying he should give them “a shout out of support” to the Conunderground blog asserting that “Obama and his staff should be dragged to the Hague for crimes against humanity … Failure to act in support of liberty and freedom, the basic condition of human existence, is a crime against humanity.”

While Hart’s position (ditto other conservatives who’ve said the same thing) is a reasonable one, I don’t agree with it. I think antiwar.com is probably correct that it will do more harm than good. For one thing, the American government is hardly a friend to Iran: We overthrew their previous democratic government in 1953 to impose the Shah, backed his Saavik secret police, signed off on Saddam’s use of poison gas on Iranians in the Iran-Iraq War and have within the past few years labeled them part of an “Axis of Evil” and made noises about regime change.

Under the circumstances, I think antiwar’s Daniel Luban makes the right comparison: “Consider the following thought experiment. In 1963, as King delivers his famous speech to the March on Washington, Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev delivers a public message of his own to the protesters. ‘We would like to tell these brave voices of freedom,’ Khrushchev says, ‘that they have the full support and solidarity of the USSR. The Soviet Union and the United States Communist Party are ready and willing to perform any measures within our power to help our American brothers and sisters obtain their rights from this oppressive regime. And although Dr. King pretends that he holds no hostility toward the American capitalist system of government itself, and wishes only to secure the ideals of the American founding for all of its citizens, we all know that he and his supporters really yearn for complete regime change in Washington. We in Moscow will do whatever it takes to help you achieve this goal.’

Let us ignore the question of Khrushchev’s intentions here: whether he is motivated by genuine sympathy and desire to aid the civil rights marchers, or a more cynical hope of destabilizing a rival government, or a narcissistic and self-righteous wish to take credit for the marchers’ achievement in order to feel better about himself and appease his domestic critics. (And before anyone gets up in arms about “moral equivalence,” let me note than I am not equating Obama’s America and Khrushchev’s Russia, merely noting that Obama and Khrushchev occupy structurally similar positions as leaders of distrusted rival powers.)

Let us focus only on a simple tactical question: would Khrushchev’s statement aid the civil rights movement? Would it be welcomed by King and his associates? Why or why not?”

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Compassionate conservatism

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:58:04 +0000

On CSPAN recently, a 62 year old salesclerk asked former GOP Congressman Tom Davis what she should do about healthcare given that she can’t get insurance because she has diabetes: “First of all, you know, I understand the dilemma you’re in. I don’t know if you’ll be able to retire at 62 or not. Frankly, I mean all of our 401Ks are down. I wish I could retire at 62. I think you’re going to find Americans working longer than they had originally anticipated, given the economic downturn and some of the economic realities.”

Yes, I’m sure as a former congressman with a six-figure annual salary he’s feeling the pinch just as much as an aging retail worker. And I’m quite sure he’s really worried about losing his retirement health insurance from Congress … oh wait, probably not.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

As if to prove my point …

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:42:08 +0000

Susan Reimer of The Baltimore Sun writes here about people whose response to her column on the Obama vegetable garden was that the First Couple obviously had plants trucked in to replace the ones they planted.

The right wing would be totally laughable if their unhinged theories about the imminent totalitarian takeover weren’t pushing people to go on killing sprees.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Why there’s no point to Obama presenting his birth certificates

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:23:03 +0000

The moment he did, somewhere between a third and 75 percent of the “birthers” would explain how it’s an obvious forgery and he should be impeached on the spot. Because this isn’t about whether he was born here, this is about the idea that nobody but a Republican conservative has any right to the White House (or for that matter to Congress or to speak in public); Obama isn’t illegitimate because of any question about his birth certificate, he’s illegitimate because he’s a Democrat (and also black, and not anti-Muslim).

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Houses of mystery

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:03:26 +0000

You have to see these to believe it: http://villageofjoy.com/50-strange-buildings-of-the-world/

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

Clarifying something about Ron Hart

fsherman — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:42:58 +0000

One of the recurring complaints by his fans is that they’re shocked, shocked and appalled that I would turn my acidic, venomous writing (as they perceive it) on someone who’s not only a great writer but a colleague. As witness “Scottie’s” recent post that “I am surprised the Log lets one columist rip (slander) the other better one each week. Never seen this back in Birmingham.”
So let’s clear it up: Ron Hart is a syndicated columnist. We aren’t colleagues, we don’t work together, I’ve seen him exactly once when he stopped by the office (I think he has a place in the area). So I can’t see any reason pointing out his errors should be any more objectionable than criticizing syndicated pundits Walter Williams or Kathleen Parker, whom I’ve also written about.
Even if he was a Log columnist, I’ve argued with other columnists too: Dale, who used to work here, had diametrically opposite views from mine and neither of us had any problem arguing when we found each other’s columns wrong. Amazingly, neither of us felt any need to whine in comments about how mean and unfair we were.
Heck, in the 30 years I’ve been writing columns, and letters to various editors, I’ve been told I’m going to Hell, that I’m anti-god, that I’m treasonous, that my parentage is—well, I won’t repeat that one—and that it would benefit the world if I killed myself. That’s the price of putting my opinions out there. So frankly I don’t see there’s anything terribly offensive in saying “Ron Hart is wrong, illogical and spouts Republican talking points,” especially when I can back it up.
So sorry, Scottie and Pat, whine as much as you like but Hart’s views are fair game for my criticism as mine are for yours.
Of course, I’m assuming you really believe that I’m being unfair to Hart. I’ve never noticed you complain when I rip into other syndicated columnists or letters to the editor, so possibly you’re just hoping if you complain loudly enough, I’ll shut up.
If so, dream on.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog

fsherman — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:54:28 +0000

Abortion opponents are reporting death threats against them in the wake of the Tiller assassination.

Even allowing for the fact some of the threats aren’t what I’d count as threats (”I hope someone kills you all.”), death threats aren’t an acceptable tactic. The fact that right-to-lifers don’t seem to be bothered by similar verbal tactics on their side (much as they may complain about people who decide to act on them) is no excuse.

That being said, I take issue with this statement by Rev. Patrick Mahoney, director of the Washington, D.C.-based Christian Defense Coalition: “I don’t want to go into detail, but I know for a fact that numerous pro-life leaders travel with bulletproof vests.”

As the blogger Digby points out, there has never been a reported assassination attempt on an anti-abortion activist. Threats on abortion doctors have been backed up by bullets, bombs and actions.

So as far as I can see, the only martyrs are on the pro-choice side.

Post from: I Think, Therefore I Blog