MN GOP Stands for 'Mazingly Nutty, Gullible (&)/OR Paranoid!

A Minnesota radical Right Wing blogger wrote up a rumor earlier today as if it were fact this morning that “Connecticut was a commin’ to confiscate yer guns”. The original story dates back to a claim by the utterly-unbelievable, totally-lacking-in-any-shred-of-credibility, Glenn “boo hoo” Beck and the Blaze. The local radical right wing-nuttery blogger was Mitch Berg, over at Shot in the dark/aka shot in the foot. Here is the original steaming fact-TURD from Beck, in his most recent blazing poop update:

UPDATE: A spokesperson with the Special Licensing and Firearms Unit of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection told TheBlaze that a letter has been drafted to send to gun owners who are found to be in possession of unregistered semi-automatic rifles deemed illegal by the state’s new gun control law. However, “not a one” letter has been sent out so far. The spokesperson, who didn’t want to identify herself, refused to comment on the content of the draft letter. When we asked what other action the state plans to take against owners of unregistered so-called “assault rifles, the spokesperson said we should contact the governor’s office because that’s where they get their orders from. It’s not clear if the letter published by the Capitalism Institute is authentic, though we can confirm a draft letter does exist.

No, no such draft letters exist that in any way suggest confiscation or pre-confiscation, etc.  This is like claiming that getting a reminder to renew your drivers license is a threat the police are coming to arrest you, or that if you get the renewal notice for your license tabs, it means law enforcement is coming down the street to tow your car out of your garage - and keep it.

On the other hand, everyone IS expected to obey the  law. CT does have laws about weapons and magazines.

And this is not the first time that hoax stories like this about confiscation letters have circulated either; they are as perennial as the daffodils that bloom in the spring. They occur in different places, different variations, but always from sources that can’t back up their claims and always stories that fail fact checking.

In fact, phone calls to a variety of departments that might have jurisdiction resulted in transfer after transfer after transfer. My fact-checking conversation included the Firearms Division of the Department of Public Protection, and the Attorney General’s office. No such letters have been drafted, no such plan exists, and I had to explain in detail what it was I was fact checking, because no one had ever even heard of any such letters or plan to act on any kind of confiscation whatsoever.

It did get a laugh though, at the expense of the lunatic fringe on the right, each and every time I was transferred to a new person. You have to wonder, 1. do the lunatic fringe on the right EVER fact check anything, or do they just believe any and every bit of lunacy and conspiracy theory crap that comes their way (often taking their money with false representations aka LIES); and 2. is there cure for the paranoia that has become the defining aspect of right wing ideology? Can anything shrink those distended, warped and swollen amygdalas that are at the center of the brains of conservatives?

The extent to which the radical right suffers from impaired judgment is truly sad. Similarly, we see the radical right promote the notions of confiscation aka ‘gun grabbing’ , with fake solutions like nullification of federal firearms laws, as we saw last legislative session when the ‘Draz’ , Rep. Steve Drazkowski wrote the Minnesota Firearm Protection Act, HF419.  Periodic circulation of the fear-mongering rumors are essential to continue to deceive and mislead the radical right lunatics that such legislation is necessary and can be successful – both false claims, but both circulated widely and often.  If the radical right doesn’t lie, they lose their power over their base, and with that loss of power they eventually lose all credibility, making it much harder for them to successfully lie and gin up the money-tree that flowers from the paranoia.

Thank god, there might be hope for them yet, through Obamacare mental health care services.

Banning Big Clips Is Supported by Robert A. Levy, Famous Libertarian Gun Rights Attorney

Robert A. Levy, of the Cato Institute, co-counsel for the landmark SCOTUS decision in the District of Columbia v Heller case on behalf of 2nd Amendment Rights, came out in support of the proposals by Democratic legislators to limit the gun clips which hold the large number of bullets used by the shooter of Congresswoman Giffords a week ago.  Levy said:

“I don’t see any constitutional bar to regulating high-capacity magazines,” Levy said in an interview with NBC. “Justice (Antonin) Scalia made it quite clear some regulations are permitted. The Second Amendment is not absolute.”

“It may stop a few of these looney tunes,” Levy said. While saying that he saw it as a “close call," he said that a restriction of “10 to 15 rounds makes sense.”

Walking Back the New York City Snow Plowing 'Union Slow Down' Conspiracy

This initial story was only circulated through the Murdoch propaganda machine; it doesn't deserve to be called news or journalism. The large mostly right-wing fawning followers of this pseudo-news do not check nor hold these sources accountable. This first emerged as a Murdoch owned New York Post exclusive, claiming a scoop that there was an organized union slow down in plowing streets, a slow down which resulted in at least two deaths, due to the inability of emergency vehicles to get through the streets.  The story was, of course, picked up in lockstep by the other Murdoch propagandists - Fox News, etc.  From there the right-wing blogosphere ran with it as fact, not fact checking.

Face the Nation, about Facing the Responsibility

On Sunday January 9, 2011, Robert Schieffer made an excellent observation on Face the Nation, after interviewing members of the House and Senate from both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle.  The entire half hour was devoted to the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, ending  in a personal segment by the ever-articulate Schieffer, entitled :

"Rhetoric and Its Consequences: Violence Stirred by Inflammatory Political Discourse Endangers Our Way of Life"

We live as we were reminded yesterday in a dangerous, hair-trigger time, where tempers always seem near the boiling point and patience seems a lost trait.
Democracy's arguments have never been pretty, but technology has changed the American dialogue.

Because we can now know of problems instantly, we expect answers immediately. And when we don't get them, we let everyone know in no uncertain terms.

I was particularly taken by this next part, given the numerous recent posts here, about the number of false accusation made by the right without regard for the consequences.To put this observation in perspective, let me summarize - and these are only a few; by no means is this an exhaustive list.

We had the ice-cream bribery voter fraud hoax, then there was the 103 frivolous ballot voter fraud hoax, followed by the disabled voter fraud hoax, followed in the past few days by the TSA harassing returning soldiers hoax, the factcheck.org indictment of the 'job-killing and budget-busting' inaccuracy, the various false claims that earned pants-on-fire ratings for false accusations about government jobs versus private sector jobs, the false statements that earned the lie of the year award for false statements about health care reform, the Glenn Beck lie about the city in Ohio doing just fine without accepting federal assistance that he uses as an example of why no one should need any assistance, oh and the snow plow slowdown in New York City.....this is just a partial list of false claims and accusations made by the right.  The right making up false accusations about liberals, democrats and unions is practically a cottage industry.

Schieffer went on to say:

We scream and shout - hurl charges without proof. Those on the other side of the argument become not opponents but enemies.

Dangerous, inflammatory words are used with no thought of consequence. All's fair if it makes the point. Worse, some make great profit just fanning the flames. [emphasis mine - DG]

Schieffer continues:

Which wouldn't amount to much if the words reached only the sane and the rational, but the new technology insures a larger audience. Those with sick and twisted minds hear us, too, and are sometimes inflamed by what the rest of us often discard as hollow and silly rhetoric

And so violence becomes part of the argument.

Meanwhile the Republicans on Face the Nation and all the other 'Talking Heads' programming are desperately trying to distance themselves from their own inflammatory rhetoric, claiming the crime was not political, that there is no connection between their attempt to inflame and people responding in an angry or violent way.

Going Viral, Just Like the Common Cold........and Harder to Cure

When I did some volunteer work making phone calls for a couple of candidates for the 2010 elections, my favorite question of the people I called was what was their most important issue in their choice of candidate for whom they would vote.

In looking at the list of false emails, the viral cyber disinformation campaign, I encountered a frightening number of people who believed these claims, although I could not always trace them to email.  I have one friend, Lynda, who makes a habit of routinely forwarding me her 'junk' viral emails on political and sometimes historical topics, just because she gets a kick out of my somewhat sarcastic debunking of them back to her.Well, the humor factor is part of it; the other part she gets out of doing so I hope carries over here  to Penigma readers -- having specific sources provided; Lynda says when she comes back to her other friends, family and work colleagues, she "looks smarter to them" for knowing the debunked accurate information,  (with sources, in case someone challenges her on this stuff).

This Explains the 2010 Elections / Political Auctions Results

“The lowest form of popular culture - lack of information, misinformation, disinformation, and a contempt for the truth or the reality of most people's lives - has overrun real journalism. Today, ordinary Americans are being stuffed with garbage."
- Carl Bernstein
author, All the President's Men

If you watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, or most other right-wing propaganda media and blogs,  you're DISinformed, by a deliberate and calculated pattern of inaccurate information and deliberate attempts to create moral panics.
- Dog Gone

disinformation (ˌdɪsɪnfəˈmeɪʃən) — n
false information intended to deceive or mislead
- World English Dictionary

Now one study has made official what I have been saying here for some time, particularly about Fox News as a source of information.  Here is the Maryland Study, "Misinformation and the 2010 Election, A Study of the U.S. Electorate", so you can read it for yourself.
 
There has been extensive coverage of the study elsewhere, including the New York Times.  There has been the de rigeur counter-attack from the right, particularly from Fox News - a rather limp and impotent attempt, for them, compared to their usual standards of snark:
 
So, in addition to providing the actual study, I am making the obvious link between inaccurate information and the 2010 election results.  The only explanation that makes any sense for the results of that election cycle is to understand the significant segment of a mis-motivated, disinformed electorate segment (see moral panic), and the calculated results of the right wing election-cum-auction purchase by the right with the efforts  of Fox News and the big media buys of the groups profiled by the factcheck.org conference, "Cash Attack 2010". The link of the Right Wing false messages to the outcome of the 2010 elections is also reflected in the Politifact.com 2010 Lie of the Year, the false claim that the Obama Health Care Reform passed last spring constituted a 'government take over'.

There is a clear link between the deliberate disinformation of the right, by the right, established by this study which charts the inaccurate beliefs relating to politics and economics that have resulted from that deliberate disinformation campaign.   We can see more local versions in the voter fraud hoaxes perpetrated by groups like Minnesota Majority, statewide, and Monty Jensen, more locally, in Crow Wing County, Minnesota.  In other states we have hysteria over voter frauds like that which was circulated by the fake Fox News segment about the Cincinnati High School Ice Cream Bribes for votes.  (Can anyone else find an update, or better, a correction by Fake News for this story?  I couldn't.)

Fear Strikes Out (not a baseball story)

It OUGHTA Be A Crime!

Yesterday, our press-hungry, tea-party-base-pandering, 2012 Presidential-candidate-wannabe Governor, Tim Pawlenty, proclaimed that he "suspected" that felons would more likely have voted for Al Franken than Norm Coleman.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right - Obama and McChrystal, Sticks and Rolling Stones, Part II

A Study in Contrasts: Black and White, Day and Night

There are two congressional representatives from Minnesota in the news for their role in the BP oil tragedy. They are James Oberstar and Michele Bachmann.

Their response to this American disaster provides a very clear insight into the important differences between them. That difference is made clearest by their own words.

From James Oberstar, serving in his 17th term in Congress, in his position as chair of the investigation into the BP spill, opened on June 9th with the following:

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JAMES L. OBERSTAR

HEARING ON LIABILITY AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OIL SPILLS UNDER THE OIL POLLUTION ACT OF1990 AND RELATED STATUTES

June 9, 2010

Today, we will examine the issues of liability and financial responsibility for oil spills under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and other related statutes.

The liability, financial responsibility, and insurance issues surrounding the Deepwater Horizon disaster are complex. Estimates suggest that losses associated with this casualty could result in between $1 billion and $3.5 billion in claims. These damages will far exceed the liability caps that apply to offshore facilities, with a limit of $75 million. In fact, if these predictions prove accurate, damages will exceed the amount available in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

The tragedy of the Deepwater Horizon shows the need for a comprehensive review of the liability concepts in the laws now in effect. Existing laws were developed from centuries of maritime history to deal with damages to persons and property from accidents involving seagoing vessels. A vessel carries a known quantity of oil or other cargo. There is a reasonable basis for estimating the worst possible case of damages that would result from release of all of the oil. This, in turn, establishes a basis for a liability cap and setting levels of required insurance.

By contrast, the Deepwater Horizon disaster demonstrates that when we are dealing with a facility for drilling rather than a merchant vessel, the amount of oil that can be released is highly unpredictable and can be astronomical. Deepwater Horizon also demonstrates that the technology for deepwater drilling is much riskier and uncertain than merchant vessel technology.

In short, Deepwater Horizon shows us that we need to develop a financial and liability program based on the technological complexities and realities of deepwater drilling, rather than simply adding to the concepts developed for vessels.

In addition to liability issues, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy demonstrates that for deepwater drilling complete reliance on industry does not provide the safety regime we need. The Federal Government has allowed the drilling industry to self police through certification, engineering and design; it is time that we take back control over all safety issues associated with deep sea oil drilling operations.

The issues for consideration in this hearing include raising or eliminating the cap on liability under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) for facilities and vessels, and raising the levels required for demonstration of financial responsibility. An important subsidiary issue is whether any changes should be applied retroactively to the Deepwater Horizon spill, and whether existing caps and insurance requirements are incorporated in existing leases and, if so, whether the government would be in breach of contract and liable for damages if liability or insurance requirements were raised.

With regard to the liability caps for facilities, one option is to remove the caps altogether. A major argument against liability caps is that these caps can reduce the incentives for operators to take steps necessary to ensure safety. In addition, liability caps that are well below the level of damages from a spill will mean that persons suffering damages will have to be reimbursed exclusively from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund; if there are not sufficient amounts available in the Trust Fund, the injured persons will either not receive compensation or will have to be compensated by general revenue from taxpayers.

The argument in support of liability caps is that, without caps, only the largest companies will be willing to drill in the deepwater and run the risk of huge damages. This could lead to less competition for drilling leases and lower proceeds to the Federal Government for selling these rights. Limiting drilling to the largest companies may result in less drilling and the supply of oil may be reduced.

Somewhat different factors are involved when we consider raising or eliminating the caps for vessels. If smaller vessels, such as tug barges carrying home heating oil, are subject to a major increase in expenses for insurance, there may be a loss of shipping capacity that would be detrimental to consumers. Moreover, the potential damages from a spill from a vessel are more predictable than the losses from an uncontained well. The amount of oil carried by a vessel is known, while the amount of oil that would be release by a spill such as the Deepwater Horizon is highly speculative scientific guesswork.

While the caps for facilities have not been adjusted since OPA was enacted, the caps for vessels have been raised by law and administrative action to adjust for inflation.

The Deepwater Horizon tragedy also demonstrates a need for change in the trust fund that backs up individual responsibility for damage. If the costs of cleaning up an oil spill and the costs of claims for damages resulting from the spill exceed the limits in OPA, the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund is available to cover the costs. The Trust Fund is funded predominately by an eight-cents-per-barrel tax on crude oil received at U.S. refineries. The tax is paid by the refinery operators.

Currently, the Trust Fund has a balance of approximately $1.6 billion, with a cap on expenditures from the Trust Fund of $1 billion and $500 million for natural resource damages. The House has passed legislation to raise the tax on crude oil to 34 cents per barrel and to raise the caps on Trust Fund expenditures to $5 billion, with $2.5 billion for natural resource damages per incident. Still, the Coast Guard has informed us that it will run out of money to fight this disaster possibly next week because it will have exhausted the $100 million advance provided from the Trust Fund.

On May 13, 2010 Transocean filed a complaint in Federal court in Houston to limit its liability to about $26.7 million under a little-known statute – the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851. The Department of Justice has since filed a motion opposing Transocean’s petition. (enlarged type, my emphasis - note MILLIONS limit, compared to the $20 BILLION escrow fund negotiated by President Obama.)

The 1851 Act was put into place before ship owners had access to insurance to encourage American ship owners to invest in shipping, and to put the American shipping industry on an even footing with its competitors in Europe. The 1851 Act allows ship owners to limit their liability to the value of the vessel and her cargo.

Certainly, the claims for personal injury and death and economic losses that are coming forward and will continue to come forward as a result of the Deepwater Horizon casualty will far exceed the value of the rig or whatever was owed to Transocean by BP and others.

The history of the 1851 Act suggests that it was bad law from the start. Among other criticisms, Gilmore and Black noted in 1975 in The Law of Admiralty:

No doubt when more obscure statutes are drafted, the Congress will draft them, but it is difficult to believe that any future body of law makers will ever surpass this extraordinary effort … The only safe thing to do with such a statute is to repeal it.

As we reexamine existing liability laws, we should consider revisions to such laws as the Death on the High Seas Act and the Jones Act, which prevent persons injured on vessels from recovering non-economic damages generally available under tort law.

I look forward to the testimony of each of our witnesses and I thank you all for coming.

_______________________________________

In contrast, Michele Bachmann MISSED the vote on June 10th to Amend the Oil Pollution Act :

This legislation would allow the Obama administration to withdraw more money from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund in order to better respond to the Gulf of Mexico oil accident. The Senate approved the bill the previous day by voice vote, and the president is expected to sign it.

per

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/votes/votenum=354&chamber=H&congress=1112

But Bachmann did find time to make this stupid statement, among her many interviews anywhere but in her home state, or on the job:

"The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund. And now it appears like we’ll be looking at one more gateway for more government control, more money to government. If there is a disaster, why is it that government is the one who always seems to benefit after a disaster, and that’s of course what cap-and-trade would be."

One representative from Minnesota, James Oberstar, is long serving, in his 17th term of office. The other, Michele Bachmann, is in her 2nd. I think this is an excellent example of who is politicizing a national disaster for their own gain, and utterly failing to represent their constituency in government; and who is doing the actual job they were elected to do with care, fairness, and distinction.

It is obvious why Oberstar is re-elected repeatedly, with usually around 60% of his vote; while Bachmann cannot manage even 50%, and relies on an enormous amount of donations from outside the state of Minnesota for her campaigns. With this kind of performance, why would anyone reasonable, in her own district, fund her election - or vote for her?

The contrast is as obvious as day and night, black and white.

Everything Old Is New Again

"January 13, 1949: Fahy Committee holds its first hearings. Representatives of the Army defend segregation of African-Americans. The Marine Corps also defends its segregation policy and admits that only one of its 8,200 officers is African-American. The Navy and Air Force both indicate they will integrate their units. The Navy admits that only five of its 45,000 officers are African-American."

"March 28, 1949: The three service secretaries testify before the Fahy Committee. Secretary of the Air Force Stuart Symington and Secretary of the Navy John L. Sullivan both testify that they are opposed to segregation and are pursuing policies to integrate their services. Secretary of the Army Kenneth Royall argues in favor of maintaining segregation, saying that the Army "was not an instrument for social evolution."
- The Truman Library Timeline of Military Desegregation
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/index.php?action=chronology

"We're saying, 'We're shoving this down your throat,'" said Rep. Louie Gohmert, Texas Republican. "The military is not a social experiment. We are sending them out there with a mission to protect this country."
- Anne Flaherty, Associated Press "Congress to Vote on Military Gay Ban" http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/27/congress-vote-military-gay-ban/

My father served in the armed forces in World War II as a naval aviator in the Pacific. One of the places I remember quite vividly that I was taken as a child, decades later during a family vacation was the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, one of the Presidential Libraries. My father spoke admiringly of Truman, "even if he was a Democrat". The parental admiration was earned for his conduct as Commander in Chief during the war, not for his desegregation of the armed forces.

I happen to believe Truman was a remarkable president for both reasons.

But when I read some of the statements, such as that of Congressman Gohmert quoted above, something about the phrase "social experiment" in his comment rang a bell. The place I went to look for the earlier similar wording was the Truman Library (online this time) that I remembered from my childhood.

In hindsight, from the vantage of the early days of the 21st century, it would be a rare person who sees the desegregation of our military as a radical exercise in "social evolution". Now we would simply see it as fair, as reasonable, so logical that the earlier status quo seems a bit ridiculous, foolish.

Word for word, argument for argument, I am struck by the similarity of the objections against allowing people to serve, to risk their lives and limbs, to protect this country and its citizens, without regard to their sexuality.

It is not new, gays serving in armed forces. This is not really an 'experiment'; it has been done successfully elsewhere, repeatedly. It is the norm in the armed forces of our allies.

When I was a small child, travelling on winter vacations with my parents, I saw the last holdouts of the "whites only" and "coloreds only" water fountains in small southern towns - mostly poor rural places. On one occasion, the "whites only" fountain was out of order, so as a stubbornly independent kid, I simply drank out of the other water fountain, to my parents' dismay. They didn't actually care which fountain I drank out of, they were simply concerned that I would offend the local populace.

Instead of being meekly rebuked, I crossed my arms (always a harbinger of my stubbornness rising) and declared the segregated system "just dumb". I further quite adamantly expressed my opinion that the local population would be better served by getting one good working drinking fountain, instead of having one crummy one and one that didn't work at all.

My parents tried to hush me, but I was not a hushable child, any more than I tend to be a 'hushable' adult. ( I fear my co-admins may have just choked on their beverage of choice at their respective computers.)

I proceeded to pose what seemed to me to be a logical question, didn't we all drink out of just one fountain without any problems? My mother agreed that was probably true. I pointed out that unless we actually saw who drank out of a fountain before we did, we wouldn't even know if it was another white person or not. My mother agreed this was true. So, I pointed out that it didn't really matter who drank out of a fountain, because it didn't make any practical difference, so it was just DUMB. "Just dumb" was my chronic and persistent protest of all adult illogic.

My parents gave up the hushing battle and simply picked me up bodily, threw me into the back of the family car, and hurriedly drove away to avoid an incident. My parents tried to explain how people felt, that it wasn't about logic.

I held to my conclusion that segregation was just dumb; not, I regret to say, for the inequality of it - I didn't really understand that part of it until later. I objected to the redundancy, the impracticality of it, in the face of poverty.

I find that as an adult looking at the current policy of our government towards gays in the military, I feel similarly that the policy of prohibiting people from serving because of their sexuality is "just dumb". We have always had men - and women - serving in our armed forces who were not heterosexual. Eisenhower had a notable experience in World War II in the European theater with having to relent to allow lesbians in the military, for example.

We have veterans of our current wars who have served with distinction, including people who have been honored for their courage in combat. We have graduated officers from the various service academies who have gone on to lead our armed forces in combat, without any more consequence resulting than that from shared desegregated drinking fountains.

Which does not alter the feelings of those who object. Minnesota has experienced the homophobic murder and beatings of gays in our history. We have right now so-called ministries and politicians, and their respective supporters, who contribute to that homophobia by claiming that muslims have the right idea in executing gays, who claim that the muslim and 'judeo-christian' faiths correctly label homosexuality an abomination. Perhaps the most egregious claim is that all homosexuals are child molesters, that homosexuals "molest 117 individuals" before being "found out". This is a factually inaccurate claim that is calculated to create fear and hatred. You can see a video of it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOYF2Og1nMI

I have read comments from a devout catholic commenter who sincerely believes that the crisis in the Roman Catholic church is clear evidence that homosexuals are child molesters, because the priests who abused children "buggered little boys" more often than they abused girls, according to the statistics of the church.

Never mind the illogic of the reasoning, it is not about reason.

They claim to be upholding moral values; it is not about moral values. Values are the excuse, the justification, the attempt to defend the indefensible.

They don't want to hear facts or reason any more than those southern whites who believed in the necessity, the importance, the sacred tradition of segregation.

In every case fear will be the weapon of bigotry, whether it be the fear that blacks are criminals and that black men are just dying to rape white women, or the fear that homosexuals are all sexual predators and child molesters who want "to bugger little boys".

Predictably, religion will be dragged out to justify the bigotry that is too weak to prevail, to persuade, by fear alone. Dire predictions of divine retribution are the hallmarks of the worst of the religious zealots who try to preserve and extend the bigotry.

Predictably patriotism and fears for our security will be dragged out, claims that our military will fall apart if we do this. Similar arguments were made against desegregating the armed forces. It is an old, tattered, predictable fear tactic, not a valid argument.

In every case where fear fails to stop, the bigots will resist by trying to slow the progress, wailing that those who would act justly are forcing this evil thing on them. Just as predictably, those who come later will look back with the 20/20 vision of history and with clear hindsight, view the discrimination against gays as equally incomprehensible.

I have learned the adult lessons of diplomacy, that it is not useful to one's position to insult those who think differently by helpfully pointing out their position is 'just DUMB" even if the intent is only to be logical, to reason, not to be demeaning.

There is no more point in expecting logic to prevail in this instance. Some change will come through persuasion, but the majority of real change will come because, like Truman, those who can make the change find the strength to act. It is unrealistic to expect that we will have complete consensus so long as we have elected officials like the gormless Republican Rep. Gohmert of Texas, or Congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, a supporter of the man who is in the video ranting against gays and who shares his view.

It is unrealistic to expect that logic or persuasion will prevail over bigotry. The opposition of those who are so very wrong hurts our fellow citizens through this kind of discrimination, denies them dignity and honor, denies them careers, and denies us the valuable service of their courage, and skills. It is foolish for us to indulge the bigots any longer or to let this decision be dictated by the lowest denominator instead of the highest.

History shows us there will always be opposition. There are and will continue to be segments of the armed forces that are virulently homophobic. That opposition will exist between now and the conclusion date for the study; it will exist during the 60 days after the study is completed (presuming the study affirms the position of the majority of the military leadership as currently expressed).

History teaches us that like the changing attitudes towards desegregation and race, the only thing which will succeed is to steel ourselves to take the plunge. George Santayana said that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Peter Allen came up with the song and lyrics "everything old is new again". An anonymous author perhaps was the wisest when he - or she - came up with the saying "''Each time history repeats itself, the price goes up."

It is time to learn the lessons of history. Again. And to pay that price, whatever it will be.

State of Arizona, Senate Engrossed House Bill 2281

"I'm not interested in preserving the status quo; I want to overthrow it."
Niccolo Machiavelli

"In the human heart new passions are forever being born; the overthrow of one almost always means the rise of another."
Francois de La Rochefoucauld

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it."
Abraham Lincoln

The title of this post doubles as a link to the official Arizona website for texts of that state's legislation. (I was playing with the blog features again.) For those who do not recognize the law by the Legislation identification, this is the controversial legislation recently signed into law, intended to control the teaching of K-12 electives described as ethnic studies.

I would encourage Penigma readers to take a few moments to look at the actual legislation; the pertinent section begins on the top of page 1, comprising only 49 lines, and continues for another 9 lines on page 2 of 4. The remainder of the bills 4 pages consists of an introductory cover on page 1, or unrelated amendments on the balance of pages 3 and 4, addressing school disciplinary modifications, such as expulsions. It is a quick read.

Beginning with the end of page 4, I was a little surprised to see that this Act does not go into effect until "from and after December 31, 2010", which struck me as a rather long lag time for legislation which presumably is intended to affect the 2010-11 school year.

The time frame caught my interest because one of the main advocates for this new law, Tom Horne, has had it in the works for some time. One might think that the lag time is the result of changes across the state in curricula, but in researching the background to the legislation, it turns out to be directed pretty much entirely at classes on the schedule of one single school district, the Tucson Unified School District; and within that one school district, specifically focusing on the Mexican American Studies Department. This law does not contemplate a very big amount of change on the statewide scale of curricula, so the lag time is curious.

But I find it interesting beyond the curiosity, because this statewide law that is directed at one department of one school district, was the work of the conservative Republicans in Arizona. Conservatives who profess to favor as a fundamental, core principle smaller and less intrusive, less far-reaching government. This law, which has a lot of problems in it from my humble reading, would seem to be a clear example of the extent to which conservatives are willing to throw out their core principles on the flimsiest, stupidest provocation. This hypocrisy is the basis for my distrust of conservative slogans, my distaste for conservative actions in direct violation of their stated principles we are asked to believe are dearer to them than their very lives. Core values we are asked to believe are fundamental to patriotism. I harbor the deepest skepticism that a state law was required to address the elective classes taught by one department of one school district. If this is not an over-reach of government, an abuse of power, an attempt to impose the beliefs of one political group on others thereby curtailing their liberties and freedoms, I don't know what is.

This is using a sledge hammer to swat a fly. The danger inherent in using a sledge hammer for fly control is the damage that the force of the sledge hammer does to the surrounding surface, as well as the unlikely chances it will actually do anything to the fly.

Sam Stein in his piece in the New York Times, "Arizona: The Gift That Keeps On Giving" wrote a very well researched column, despite it appearing in the Opinionator column of the Opinion section: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/17/arizona-the-gift-that-keeps-on-giving/?emc=eta1 Stein addresses the aspects of politicizing education in Arizona, on the part of the school district, and on the part of the Republicans who passed this law far better than I can.

Stein concludes his column with these words:

"This is one case, however, where the remedy is worse than the disease, or rather is a form of it. Rather than removing politics from the classroom, House Bill 2281 mandates the politics of its authors, who, in the bill’s declaration of policy, set themselves up as educational philosophers and public moralists, and even, given the magisterial tone, as gods: “The Legislature finds and declares that public school pupils should be taught to treat and value each other as individuals and not be taught to resent or hate other races or other classes of people.” The declaration tendentiously, and without support either of argument or evidence, affirms a relationship between critically questioning the ideology of individual rights — and make no mistake, it is an ideology — and the production of racism and hatred.

This would be a great surprise to those communitarian theorists like Robert Bellah, Michael Sandel and Robert Putnam, generally as American as apple pie, who contend that an excessive focus on the individual results in an unhealthy atomization and tends to loosen and even undo the ties that bind society together. The idea of treating people as individuals is certainly central to the project of Enlightenment liberalism, and functions powerfully in much of the nation’s jurisprudence.

But it is an idea, not a commandment handed down from on high, and as such it deserves to be studied, not worshipped. The authors of House Bill 2281 don’t want students to learn about the ethic of treating people equally; they want them to believe in it (as you might believe in the resurrection), and therefore to believe, as they do, that those who interrogate it and show how it has sometimes been invoked in the service of nefarious purposes must be banished from public education.

The moral is simple: you don’t cure (what I consider) the virus of a politicized classroom by politicizing it in a different direction, even if that direction corresponds to the notions of civic virtue that animate much of our national rhetoric. The political scientist James Bernard Murphy has been arguing for years that teaching civic virtue is not an appropriate academic activity, both because schools are not equipped to do it and because the effort undermines the true function of education — “enthusiasm for the pursuit of knowledge” — and even corrupts it. Teaching students either to love or criticize their nation, Murphy wrote in The Times in 2002, “has all too often prompted textbook authors and teachers to falsify, distort and sanitize history and social studies.”

Lots of evidence of that in Arizona on all sides of the dispute. Teach ethnic studies by all means, but lay off the recruiting and proselytizing; for if you don’t you merely put a weapon in the hands of ignorant and grandstanding state legislators who, as the example of Arizona shows, will always be eager to use it."

I always prefer to go to the actual text of controversial legislation, to see for myself, and I will address the specifics of the law here. From page 2, line 5, immediately under "15-111 Declarations of policy" THE LEGISLATURE FINDS AND DECLARES THAT PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS SHOULD BE TAUGHT TO TREAT AND VALUE EACH OTHER AS INDIVIDUALS AND NOT BE TAUGHT TO RESENT OR HATE OTHER RACES OR CLASSES OF PEOPLE.

Really? Now I agree that it is not appropriate for a public school to teach hatred for others, including groups which might be unpopular -- say for example, Muslim Americans, or illegal immigrants. But in view of the mood on the right in Arizona towards their border issues and crime problems, this strikes me as a bit of pot calling kettle black.

Line 9, under 15-112 Prohibited courses and classes; enforcement, A. A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL IN THIS STATE SHALL NOT INCLUDE IN ITS PROGRAM OF INSTRUCTION ANY COURSES OR CLASSES THAT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. PROMOTE THE OVERTHROW OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.
2. PROMOTE RESENTMENT TOWARDS A RACE OR CLASS OF PEOPLE.
3. ARE DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR PUPILS OF A PARTICULAR ETHNIC GROUP.
4. ADVOCATE ETHNIC SOLIDARITY INSTEAD OF THE TREATMENT OF PUPILS AS INDIVIDUALS.

I looked at the educational philosophy being targeted, "Teaching for Social Justice", and the Marxist Brazilian educator who is central to it. I don't run away screaming at the word Marxist; but neither do I embrace Marxism. My own education included an objective and critical look at it. Marxism is not illegal in this country, nor is communism, or socialism, although it is unpopular in many quarters. But it is not fundamentally anti-American, or bent on the overthrow of the United States government, or any state or local government within the United States. I looked at the web site for the Tucson Unified School District, and frankly it just wasn't all that different from any other school district in this country. It stresses the same ideas of courtesy, individual achievement and excellence as you will find anywhere else. The Brazilian educator, associated with "Teaching for Social Justice" is addressed by Stein at greater length than I will go into here.

The essential point is that there is NO teaching taking place so far as I can find, or that anyone else can find apparently, advocating the overthrow of the United States government. This is an unnecessary law. We have laws addressing advocating the overthrow of government, federal laws. If we follow the logic of including this, giving it priority in the list no less, then we cannot in fairness teach the writings of the figures quoted above - Machiavelli, Rochefoucauld, Lincoln, or many others, if you take these authors from the past, and consider applying their thoughts to our modern world. But that does not appear to be the intent of this law; this law is intended far more specifically to enable a few individuals to go after other people with whom they disagree, allowing them to impose their views on others. This state law addresses elective classes, not graduation requirement material, and over-reaches what should be the local school districts determinations as reflected in the decisions of the elected school board and the school districts employees. This is NOT smaller government, less intrusive government.

As to number 2, promoting resentment towards a race or class of people........I did come across a number of references to a guest speaker saying "Republicans hate Latinos." It was a personal opinion, protected by First Amendment freedom of speech, it was not part of the formal curriculum, and it is not a justification for a state law. While it is a very partisan opinion, one to which I can appreciate Republicans might object, even if it represented a pattern of the exercise of free speech, it is not a matter for state intervention; it is a matter for the residents of the school district. There are better ways of dealing with this as an issue, including news coverage, assemblies, rallies, and other interaction between the community and the school district, and between the rest of the state and the community. We need to ask the supporters of this law if the still value our first amendment, or not.

Number 3, line 14, addresses classes "designed primarily for pupils of a particular ethnic group", but if has the glaring fault of failing to define how this is to be determined. I would imagine this makes the law too vague to be enforced, given that I could not find any classes in this district which restricted enrollment on the basis of race or ethnicity; classes are open to all academically qualified students.

And number 4, the line which addresses ethnic solidarity. Again, the law consists in this regard of the single brief line. There is no definition of what constitutes teaching 'solidarity' or teaching against 'individuality'. There is no evidence of how ethnic solidarity is remotely damaging. I don't see how they can construe the one, 'individuality', as contrary to the other, 'ethnic solidarity'. Is it ethnic solidarity, for example, when an ethnic group has a Cinco de Mayo celebration, or observes Sytten de Mai, or Saint Patrick's Day, Guy Fawkes, or some other event? (I celebrate a very eclectic calendar of holidays.) Even the United Nations came out against this aspect of the law, something I don't recall seeing before in response to state legislation, noting that all people have a right to learn about their linguistic and cultural heritage. Without defining what constitutes ethnic solidarity, without defining how to identify and measure a failure to teach the importance of individuality, this law is again, profoundly flawed.

The Tucson Unified School District makes it very clear they promote individuality. If they are correct, then it doesn't matter if this law comes into effect on December 31, 2010, or next Tuesday. Given the severe flaws inherent in its very concepts, the moment there is an attempt to enforce it, particularly applying the financial penalties that are included in this section of the law, there will be challenges in court, challenges I would not expect this law to withstand. What the very nature of such a poorly conceived law entails is to increase the contentiousness of the situation while attempting to expand inappropriately the reach of government to allow the views of a few at the state level to over-ride the views of local citizens. That is not freedom; that is not patriotism; that is tyranny. We should be most wary of tyranny when it is cloaked in claims of liberty, and patriotism.

Drill, Baby, Drill; Spill, Baby, Spill; Burn, Baby, Burn; Now......................... Plot, Baby, Plot?

“The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.”
- author unknown

"“In fact, one thing that I have noticed . . . is that all of these conspiracy theories depend on the perpetrators being endlessly clever. I think you'll find the facts also work if you assume everyone is endlessly stupid.”
- author unknown

"The popularity of conspiracy theories is explained by people's desire to believe that there is - some group of folks who know what they're doing”
- Damon Knight
American Science Fiction Author, Editor, Critic and Fan
1922 - 2002

“Many journalists have fallen for the conspiracy theory of government. I do assure you that they would produce more accurate work if they adhered to the cock-up theory.”
-Sir Bernard Ingham
Chief Press Secretary to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and
prominent opponent to wind energy
1932

Sarah Palin promoted the slogan "Drill, Baby, Drill!" during her 2008 Vice Presidential campaign as the Republican candidate. In April 2010, President Barack Obama came out in favor of off-shore drilling, reversing his earlier more pro-alternative and renewable energy / pro-environmental concerns position.

On April 20, 2010, two days before Earth Day, the Gulf of Mexico oil drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded, and subsequently sank into the gulf, killing 11. It appears likely to be one of the largest oil spills in history. Atttempts to control the volume of oil include controlled burning. President Obama now appears to be at least temporarily returning to his original more cautious position on off-shore drilling. Proponents of the practice, including Sarah Palin, have for the moment gone relatively silent.

Meanwhile, the conspiracy theorists on the political Right have gone out of their ever-loving minds; the further to the right, the crazier the conspiracies they promote while trying to politicize the disaster. I will provide the highlights of these conspiracy theories, but first...

A little background on Earth Day; Earth Day is a core part of at least some of these conspiracies, so a brief overview is germane. Back in 1970, a U.S. senator from Wisconsin, Gaylord Nelson, came up with the idea for a nation-wide environmental "teach-in" day in response to widespread environmental degradation. His proposal achieved an unexpected success, participation by an estimated 20 million people back in 1970. The celebration of Earth Day has spread to some 175 countries, and 500 million people. It is, in other words, no longer an event unique to the United States. Senator Nelson had the bright idea for this annual event, in part to emulate the college and university 'teach-ins' held in response to the Viet Nam war; and in part as a response to witnessing as a senator the damage done by an oil spill in 1969, near Santa Barbara, California and the lack of a government response.

Ah, history! The more things change, the more some things stay the same...just variations.

One of the key pieces of misinformation in some but not all of these conspiracy theories is the ignorance of the correct meaning of the acronym "SWAT". In the context of the oil rig explosion, it refers NOT to "Special Weapons and Tactics Teams, the type of law enforcement special ops personnel, garbed in bullet proof black clothing, bristling with sexy weapons and lethal skills. It refers to the personnel of the Minerals Management Service, the branch of the Department of the Interior responsible, among other things, for the management of safety and the environment in drilling for oil and natural gas on the federal Outer Continental shelf. The Federal Continental Shelf includes an area off the coast of the eastern United States covered by the Atlantic Ocean, the Gulf of Mexico off the southern United States, a large area under the Pacific Ocean off the western United States, an area around Alaska including land covered by the Gulf of Alaska, the Bering Sea, the Chukchi Sea, and the Beaufort Sea (sorry, but I love geography). The Department of Interior SWAT teams are assigned to check the blow out valves and other safety compliance and records - not shoot anyone. They are more geeks than 'gun bunnies'.

So, lets go through some of the right wing media 'talking heads' and their notions about the oil rig explosion conspiracies. Lets start with what many might consider the biggest - Rush Limbaugh. Rush has made not one but two different sets of comments on the explosion, the SWAT teams assignment, and the coincidence of the event taking place around the time of Earth Day. Rush states the rig blew up on April 21st, the day before - as he likes to deride it -'Erf Day', as an indication that the rig explosion might have been caused by sabotage carried out by environmental extremists. Except that the explosion and fire occurred on April 20th, if that makes any difference. And Rush claims that Earth Day was started because of the Cleveland River catching on fire - not the Santa Barbara oil spill. There was a Cuyahoga river fire in 1969, the year that Senator Nelson began working on Earth Day for April 1970; and it was related to an oil slick on the river along with debris and other pollution, but it was an ongoing problem, not related to a specific 'spill'. The same river had caught on fire before - in 1868, 1883, 1887, 1912, 1922, 1936, 1941, 1948, and in 1952 -- the 1952 fire was more extensive and costly than the 1969 conflagration. So while the river catching on fire did draw attention to the polluted state of the river, which in turn influenced federal clean water legislation in 1972, this was not a new experience for Cleveland, but rather more of a chronic problem that flared up from time to time - pardon the pun.

But we're talking here about Rush, so we can hardly expect a high threshold of fact to be characterize his rant. Rush goes on to claim that the rescheduling of cap and trade legislation is a red flag signalling that the environmentalists who opposed this kind of drilling because it was more dangerous than proponents advocating it would admit (and who were correct, as it turns out) also were in opposition to nuclear power proposals from President Obama. So Rush finds it plausible to float to his audience that this might be sabotage, instead of an accident. That environmentalist wackos would some how sneak onto an oil rig 42 miles out in the ocean - undetected; blow it up - remaining unscathed, where others were injured or killed; escape - again undetected; all with the intention of causing exactly the kind of damage they oppose. Lets us not forget, without taking credit for their sabotage, and skipping the opportunity to make their point clearly. This conspiracy has more holes in it than the Deepwater Horizon has oil leaks!

A more fact based cause and effect theory can be traced to more recent developments than the '69 river fire and earth day eco-commandos. Under the Bush administration, dating back just to 2003. Oil companies doing off-shore drilling were exempted from the requirements for additional safety measures that these same companies, like BP, are required to have in place by an overwhelming majority, virtually ALL, other countries in the world which have ocean drilling for oil. Experts indicate that had this equipment been in place this explosive fire and spill, and resulting complications would have been avoided.

According to a 2007 study by the Minerals Management Service, there were 39 rig blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico between 1992 - 2006, which suggests that while the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon rig, one of the largest ever constructed, is a bigger event than the others, it is far less rare than most of us were aware --- another important factual omission from Rush Limbaugh, as he insists we can do this kind of drilling safely.

By omission, I don't mean that Rush Limbaugh is deliberately withholding the information; I mean the man is profoundly ignorant, and doesn't care that he is inaccurate or uninformed. At least, he doesn't care enough to inform himself or his listeners with any information that doesn't suit his predetermined position.

Another little factoid that Rush either doesn't know or doesn't care about is that Haliburton, you know, that company that Cheney was CEO of from 1995 - 2000, was the company servicing the Deepwater Horizon, performing a job called 'cementing' that is connected to the probable cause of the explosion -------- along with 18 other instances of those 39 rig blowouts addressed in the 2007 Minerals Management Service study. But that doesn't make for a Rush approved conspiracy theory, so it is unknown or omitted, just like he omitted the information that BP did not prepare for anything resembling a major spill, in the arrogance that it simply couldn't and wouldn't happen.

Rush then goes on to quote his 'official climatologist, Dr. Roy Spencer' who according to Rush claims that the Gulf of Mexico and similar oceanic bodies of water simply take this in stride, oil leaks along the ocean floor all the time, and in Rush's words "the ocean's pretty tough, it just eats it up." Intelligent design proponent Dr. Spencer, affilardiated with the University of Alabama at Huntsville, may have to eat his words, which could be a good alternative to eating seafood out of the Gulf of Mexico any time soon, or for a long time to come. Huntsville is quite a ways inland, but it is looking as if all of the Gulf states will be affected, from Texas eastw to the gulf coast of Florida.

Limbaugh goes on to state that the oil spill from the Exxon Valdez in Prince William sound is all cleaned up - in Limbaugh's words, because "They were wiping off the rocks with Dawn dishwater detergent and paper towels and so forth. The place is pristine now." Except that it is not - but Rush doesn't want any legitimate opposition to the perils of drilling, so he leaves out those annoying facts, AGAIN.

The Exxon Valdez accident occurred in part because of Exxon being cheap - the ship was single hulled instead of double hulled, the captain was a drunk, the crew involved with piloting the ship were inadequately trained and had not had the mandated safety measure time off to rest, and equipment was in poor repair including a crucial Raycas radar system, among other factors.

According to the NOAA study in 2007, more than 26,000 gallons of crude oil remain in the contaminated shoreline, and is only declining at the rate of 4% per year -- far from the land or water 'eating it up'. Twenty years after the event, a number of studies show the area is still ecologically and economically devastated, and the effects of the spill are lasting far far longer than anticipated - by Exxon. Salmon and herring and other fishing industries have yet to recover from the damage, and tourism and sports industries are are still adversely affected, and a native American corporation, intended to help the various Eskimo groups had to file chapter 11 bankruptcy. There were even multiple suicides in the area attributed to problems from the spill. Not what anyone with a factually based reality could call 'pristine' in terms of clean up of that oil spill. But that's what you get when you listen or watch ol' Rush Limbaugh, much like the skewed information that comes from Fox News. Follow Rush here for yourself:
www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_042910/content/01125113.guest.html

Much of this information about the Exxon Valdez spill after-effects, incidentally, comes from studies done by the state of Alaska, home of "drill, baby, drill" it's- all-safe Sarah Palin, who as governor of the state that did all of these studies should know better than most how UN-safe some of this drilling really is when an oil spill results. I would also expect that as Palin claims to have oil expertise, she would be - or SHOULD be - familiar with the largest oil spills in history, which involved larger amounts of oil, and which led to better understanding of oil spill consequences (both long term and short term) as well as triggering advances in clean up techniques. For those readers who are as unfamiliar with risks and damages from massive oil spills, I will refer you to lazy-style research, on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_spills. They provide a lovely graph.

And then there is my personal favorite, the conspiracy theory being promoted by right wing talking heads like Michael Savage, the claim that it was North Korea torpedoing the BP Deepwater Horizon. Some versions have this as an attack by North Korea on the United States for --- fill in the blank reasons. Other versions claim that because the South Korea industrial giant Hyundai corporation built the rig, that this was actually an attempt by North Korea to attack South Korea. It is rumored that South Korea / Hyundai is already contracted to build more of these rigs, so I'm unclear as to how giving them even MORE business, building a replacement rig, is a damaging attack; but heck, this is conspiracy theory thinking, not logic.

We have another right wing talking head, Alex Jones, who is promoting the conspiracy that the 'accident' is actually an intentional attempt to make oil more scarce so that oil speculation will be profitable again, and working in the 'one world government' paranoia angle.

Then we have Mark Levin, who helped Betsy McCaughey promote the death panel hysteria before Palin made it popular, who is positing that the oil rig was really blown up by terrorists, until he gets a caller who has a different convoluted theory - all very technobabble, which appeals to conspiracy fans - to explain what really happened. Geeze, I guess we don't need to wait for that investigation - talk radio has an unverified, unconfirmed CALLER to tell us all we really need to know.

I could go on with talking heads, pundits, and correlate all of the "internets" right wing conspiracy theories. As the oil spill spreads, I'm sure the theories will grow along with it, providing at least a few laughs for the rest of us sane people during this crisis. A few facts go a long way to 'explode' the conspiracies.

"Sarah from Alaska", a book review

The Sudden Rise and Brutal Education of a New Conservative Superstar

by Scott Conroy & Shushannah Walshe

published 2009 by Public Affairs Press,
ISBN 978-1-58648-788-1 (hardcover), 301 pages

I added this book to my reading list after hearing it described as a biography which was fact-based, and which was credited with seriously striving to be as unbiased as possible. Author Shushannah Walshe was a producer at Fox News from 2001 to 2008; author Scott Conroy worked for CBS News and CBSnews.com as a producer. Both were embedded in the Vice Presidential Campaign of Sarah Palin as reporters.

I read this book in a very short period of time, so as to have my impressions from reading it fresh in my mind when I write this. The book appeared to me to be meticulously researched, with five pages of small print notes broken down by chapter, following the main body of the book. Those notes detail meticulously many of the 190 interviews for this book which they completed in research, in addition to their own shared observations from the campaign, and the additional several pages of acknowledgments. The authors point out that they give credit where they can, a few other sources did not wish to be identified in the book's pages. These sources encompass family and friends, political allies and foes - and some individuals who had been both at different points in time. One of the qualities in the writing of this book that most impressed me was the determined effort of the authors to avoid a celebrity hype piece, or a hatchet job, or sensationalism (pro or con).

My favorite quote, although long, insightfully sums up what was said by many of the people interviewed reads:

(quoting Republican State Legislator Ms. Lesil McGuire from Anchorage, who served prior to and during the Palin partial term as governor, pages 277-278)

"I am proud of her for entering the fray, for coming out and being strong with a full family and all of those obligations that she struggles with. And I am very proud of the person that she was when she entered the race. She was very real and plain spoken. But what I see as having happened now is that you had a really good person thrust way up ahead of where their experience level was. Maybe it would be like asking someone who had observed or read medical textbooks to go and perform a surgery. No matter how competent you are as a person and your character and what you stand for, it doesn't mean that you have the experience necessary to govern. People take that for granted. I think they think that when they are voting for someone, it's a personality contest. Well, if I like them, if they are attractive to me, if they seem like a good person, maybe I want them to be my neighbor, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are qualified to govern. And it may mean they are qualified to govern later on in their life, not at that particular point. So she got ahead of her experience. Because of that, in my opinion, her self-confidence deteriorated. She stopped having one-on-one meetings, because, frankly, the conversations would get into details that she wasn't able to answer. That then begets a whole other series of problems. People feel like you are not respecting them because you are not meeting with them. You are evasive; you are aloof. You're not doing it necessarily because you're mean, because you are rejecting the public; it's because you're maybe out of your league and then now you compound this with this national exposure, and she never got an opportunity to define to the world who she was prior to that."

I have been skeptical of the allegations made in the recent gossipy book "Game Change", which included the idea that Sarah Palin was so poorly educated on such a wide range of topics that she did not know why there was a North and South Korea, and that she had to be educated on the fundamentals of the history of WWI and WWII. In the section of "Sarah from Alaska"dealing with the preparation for the Vice Presidential Debate, the participants involved in prepping Palin assert that Palin had very much that kind of ignorance. They describe foot tall piles upon piles of flash cards intended to try to cram as one would for an exam to bring her up to speed. Palin appears to be not only appallingly ignorant, and unqualified to serve in a major political office, she shows no indication of attempting to remediate her deficiencies, or to even acknowledge that she has such deficiencies. Palin has, correctly, been compared unfavorably to the widely viewed as unqualified Vice President, Dan Quayle.

On page 38, Palin's own father is credited with explaining Sarah Palin's leaving the University of Hawaii at Hilo, in a comment that is in some ways descriptive of Palin (and her friends) subsequently leaving the office of Governor after the Vice Presidential campaign "It just wasn't what they expected," he says. "They were a minority type thing and it wasn't glamorous, so she came home." A similar lack of glamour is given as one of the causes, but by no means the only cause, for Palin leaving office without serving out her full term. It also reflects a very parochial, narrow comfort zone for Palin prior to being thrust upon the national stage.

I won't try to summarize the entire contents of this book. It covers Palin's entry into state level politics, it addresses many of her relationships, both family and friends, and political colleagues and adversaries. "Sarah from Alaska" provides an excellent look behind the scenes of the 2008 McCain / Palin Presidential and Vice Presidential campaigns, and follows her up until shortly after her resignation as Governor of Alaska after the campaign was over.

I was impressed with the effort by these two journalists to be as objective and fact-based for their statements as is humanly, reasonably possible. I was impressed at the level of collaboration as authors, especially given the rivalry of their employers. For those who have a continuing interest in Palin, whether as a supporter or a detractor (or the few who remain neutral), I would encourage adding this book to your reading list. It is a significant source for anyone trying to form a well-grounded opinion of Palin in anticipation of the 2012 electoral race.

I would particularly appreciate comments from any other readers of this book for their reactions to the content.

Nuts, not soup-to-nuts, but Super Nuts

Hart Van Denburg wrote on December 9
"Latest Bachmann ACORN concoction: It could regulate banks!"

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/12/latest_bachmann.php

The fuss is over Bachmann's response, in her position on the House Financial Services Committee, to an amendment offered by a Democratic Congresswoman from California, Maxine Waters. The amendment would create a Consumer Financial Protection Oversight Board with members from 'fields of consumer protection, fair lending and civil rights, representative of depository institutions that primarily serve under-served communities or representatives of communities that have been significantly impacted by higher-priced mortgage loans'.

The oversight board in Water's amendment would not have the power to set policy or to regulate banking.

Waters made the statement, expanding on the purpose of her amendment, "Over the past two years, we have seen the impact of foreclosures on communities, small banking institutions, and our constituents and how predatory financial products like subprime credit cards and mortgage loans were targeted to minorities and low-income consumers. In order to ensure that this does not happen again, groups and individuals with the consumer's best interest in mind must have a seat at the table."

How does Congresswoman Bachmann respond? She claims that it is expansive new government beauracracy with far-reaching powers.

WHAT 'expansive new government beauracracy? This is about consolidating and making regulation more effective. WHAT far reaching powers??????????

Bachmann goes on to claim that this new oversight board would "make decisions for consumers about the kinds of mortgages, small business loans, and other financial products they may access."

MAKE DECISIONS for consumers? NO.

In her grand finale, Bachmann contradicts her own comment about "far-reaching powers" when she states "In its current form, ACORN would be elegible to sit on an Oversight Board tasked with advising the CFPA Director on his overall strategies and policies."

Not make decisions for consumers, not make policy decisions either; the board would simply ADVISE, and presumably not as the only source for advice on regulation either, but serving as a counterbalance to predatory financial interests.

Which if you deconstruct what Bachmann says, it boils down to 'this is a good idea, there isn't anything else of substance to complain about, so let's fall back on the tattered and torn worn-out boogeyman of ACORN in an attempt to discredit a useful and necessary amendment. Well, that, and expressing the obligatory negativism of the Republican party-sans, the party of not, the party of nope......or perhaps that should be written, the party of NO hope.

Taking a look at the financial state of Bachmann's own 6th Congressional District:

Bachmann's 6th District leads the state of Minnesota with one of the highest foreclosure rates, with housing foreclosures up 56% in Minnesota overall in 2009 compared to 2008. Looking at a map of Minnesota displaying the most recent statistics, while there are three other counties spread around the state with higher individual county foreclosure rates, ALL of the counties in Bachmann's very gerrymandered 6th Congressional District (Anoka, Benton, Sherburne, Stearns, Washington and Wright) are among the more severely affected, with Wright County being one of the four very worst affected. Out of 87 counties in Minnesota, Anoka County ranked 3rd in the state for the most foreclosures, Washington was 5th, Wright tied for 6th, Sherburne was 8th, Stearns just missed the ten worst coming in at 11th, and Benton was the 24th worst county for foreclosures.

From September 2008 to June 2009, unemployment in Minnesota increased 56% to a statewide figure of 7.4% (seasonally adjusted) up from 6.1% in November 2008. But in Bachmann's District 6, the rate is higher, with Sherburne County having an unemployment rate of 8.2%, and Wright County 8%; Anoka and Benton Counties are closer to the state average at 7.6% and 7.3%, while Stearns and Washington Counties come in slightly lower than the statewide average, at 6.6%. In contrast, the state of Minnesota had a rate of 3.8% prior to the recession, back when Bachmann was first elected to Congress. The US overall, has an unemployment rate that is at 10.0%in November 2009, up from 6.8% a year earlier.

Of the six counties represented by Bachmann, 4 are among the top ten HIGHEST stats for filing Bankruptcies: Sherburne - 1st, Wright - 3rd, Benton - 5th, and Anoka - 7th. Washington county just missed out on the top ten, coming in at 13th, while Stearns county came in at 21st, still reflecting an unhealthy economic situation relative to the rest of Minnesota's 87 counties, just not the MOST unhealthy.

Which provokes the inevitable question, whose interests does Bachmann serve?

The interests and needs of her constituents would seem to be coming in a distant second to the welfare and profits of predatory lenders. Bachmann voted against five foreclosure relief bills, the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, the Neighborhood Stabilization Act, the Expanding American Home Ownership Act, the Expand and Preserve Home Ownership through Counseling Act, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, the FHA Housing Stabilization and Homeownership Retention Act of 2008 (in committee), and Bachmann voted against funding for HOPE for Homeowners (a program to refinance home mortgages facing foreclosure).

It would appear from the statistics, and from her voting record, that there is far more to fear from Bachmann's actual role regarding positive regulation than from any potential, hypothetical role in regulation by ACORN. Bachmann has focused her legislative efforts on stupid issues like not phasing out incandescent lightbulbs in favor of more energy efficient flourescent bulbs; on misstating the science of carbon dioxide; on promoting the notion that this IS a Christian nation (not only a Christian nation, but a predominantly Christian not secular entity according to Bachmann); opposing health care reform, and particularly any balanced and accurate view on abortion.

So, given the statistics, given her voting record, why would Bachmann say such odd things?

Saying distinctly odd things, often and loudly, through any media that will give her a mouthpiece is the defining characteristic of Bachmann. She lives for sensational statements and misstatements about the Census, Re-education Camps, and Un-American ideas in Congress. And let us not by any means ignore her favorite canard about the political left stealing elections, despite no evidence supporting the statement of real, substantiated, significant fraudulent voting affecting the outcome of elections ANYWHERE.

But........why? WHY would Bachmann engage in this behavior, conduct which just recently won her the CNN Wingnut of the Year Award? I think the answer was provided by Minnesota right wing blogger TJSwift, aka "Swiftee" in a comment found under Van Denburg's writing.

"TJSwift says:
This is Bachmann's "rope a dope".
She's gained national prominence for her outspoken, and yes, sometimes outrageous statements....but the gist of her message always is based upon a truth.
Most Americans are too busy trying to make their way through the day to pay attention to politics. Michelle understands that and has found a very effective way to make them sit up and listen.
She is more responsible for taking ACORN down than anyone else. And any group that she sets her aim on would be smart to have a care.
In the mean time, the batshit crazy response Michelle provokes from the left is providing some of the best theater evah."

Deconstructing "Swiftee's" comments, NO, emphatically NO Bachmann's comments are NOT based on fact, they are carefully and artfully crafted to take some item that begins as a fragment of fact but never a complete fact, and from their mislead and to misrepresent it. Many more of Bachmann's statements, as indicated above, are outright bold-faced lies.

The conservative right wing takes great delight in Bachmann's outrageousness, but implicit in Swiftee's statement about 'most Americans' being 'too busy to pay attention to politics' is the assumption that our fellow Americans are not patriotic enough to care about their elected representatives, or issues;and, that our fellow Americans should be manipulated by outrageous, sensationalized mis-statements calculated to get their attention.

This is a tactic that can fairly be described as fear-mongering. It is appallingly condescending in its assumptions about the citizens of this country, and inherently insulting.

But doesn't it just explain perfectly the phenomenon that is Bachmann?

Secondary to doing everything in her power to act against the interests of her own district's constituency, is Bachmann's obsession with ACORN, a source of pride and entertainment to the conservative right. ACORN is not now, nor has it ever been, a serious threat to Bachmann's district, to the state of Minnesota, or the the government of the United States. But hey, focussing on ACORN apparently in the mind of Bachmann and the conservative right is a good use of one's time and resources, a suitable priority ------- but ONLY in the minds of the conservative right.