In the 20 years since Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings, there’s been a standard pattern whenever similar accusations emerge. The accuser is either part of a “vast conspiracy” against the accused (e.g. Paula Jones) or has a financial motive. Herman Cain — who looks to be about as inconvenienced by the multiple accusations against him as Thomas was — has gone to the mattresses and pursued both options. He has repeatedly stated that he’s a victim of the “Democrat machine,” which means he gives the Democrats more organizational credit than I do at this point. He also suggested that it was “common sense” to consider Sharon Bialek’s finances as a possible motive for her coming forward.
The first seems less than plausible in Sharon Bialek’s case because she’s a Tea Party Republican. However, a leopard can always change its spots if there’s enough money involved. So, the theory is floated that economoic desperation is leading her into the manipulative arms of “celebrity activist” lawyer Gloria Allred. I call it the Tinkerbell Theory because it only lives if conservatives wish real hard for it.
Allred appeared on the Sean Hannity show in which Hannity, as a good mouthpiece for the right, continued to pursue the “lying broke hussy” narrative.
GLORIA ALLRED, ATTORNEY FOR SHARON BIALEK: Nice to see you, Sean.
HANNITY: I actually prefer when you’re on my side, which is occasional. These are serious allegations. You said and made a big point in your press conference — and I watched the whole thing — that your client could have sold the story, it could have been about money. But it’s not. Why won’t she rule out a book deal?
ALLRED: Well, she has no plans to do a book.
HANNITY: New York Times today — and how often do I quote that –Miss Sharon Bialek has said, she is not seeking money, though she has not ruled out a book deal at some point. That means that there still maybe a financial motive here. And you made a big point saying that it wasn’t.
ALLRED: There really isn’t. You know, I have spoken with her. There is no financial motive. There is no one has offered us a book deal. We haven’t looked for a book deal. She hasn’t talked to anyone about a book deal. This is just complete nonsense. Let’s focus on what’s really —
HANNITY: You have been in celebrity media a long time. That’s not nonsense, because you know and I know she’s going to get a book deal off of it.
ALLRED: Well, no, I don’t. Because you know, what? She has already told her story. And that’s what is important. And the critical point where she could have made some money, she could have sold her story instead of doing a news conference and telling everyone without any charge.
HANNITY: But at that point, she has no credibility, if she tells her story later, it has more credibility.
ALLRED: No. She’s not — take the book deal off the table. It’s not happening. OK?
HANNITY: Not happening?
ALLRED: I have represented people in book deals. And a number of them — Amber Frey, Anne Bird — you know, from the Scott Peterson case — even the jury, I represented.
HANNITY: All right. I got it.
ALLRED: You know, she has not asked me to represent her to do anything with a book deal.
HANNITY: Here is a problem that I see with the story. First of all, whatever happened to the idea, there was a severance payment to her, which is very different from a legal settlement term. You’re a lawyer, you know the distinction and difference. So, they came up with a severance agreement that was supposed to be confidential.
ALLRED: Talking about the other — some other women.
HANNITY: OK, right, but in that case. And I am thinking, all right, so in this case, we don’t have that. In this case, we have this. She goes to look for a job, she never worked for the Restaurant Association. And I am putting this all together in my mind. Do you not understand why people are saying, wait a minute, is this politically motivated?
ALLRED: You mean as to Sharon?
HANNITY: As to all of these charges. We don’t know except for your client with the specific charges.
ALLRED: OK. All right, well.
HANNITY: You said he’s a serial abuser, serial harasser.
ALLRED: What I said was, Sean, if in fact, the allegations of all four women are to be believed and are true, then he is a serial sexual harasser.
HANNITY: If, but you didn’t say if.
ALLRED: Yes, I did. And if they are true then he is also a serial liar and a person who disrespects the rights of women to enjoy equal employment opportunity without the interference of sexual harassment in the workplace.
HANNITY: All right. Here’s my question though, as we follow the timeline of the story that she’s telling here, right? And she claims that she wanted help. She wanted to get a job, right? Legitimate. She has a history of bankruptcy. She has a questionable employment record that, you know, job after job after job after job. Legitimate questions to check the credibility of somebody. Now, when this allegedly happened, didn’t she get back in the car with him after?
ALLRED: In the car?
HANNITY: With Herman Cain. Didn’t she stay with him after? Didn’t she spend time with him after this supposedly happened?
ALLRED: No, she asked him to take her back to the hotel.
HANNITY: So, she got back in the car with him.
Hannity does not hide his bias — openly stating that he and Allred are on different sides. He also seems to have an issue with quoting The New York Times. It’s not like it was from the op-ed page or a Jayson Blair article. Anyway, this is all an interesting twist. There are no questions about Cain’s integrity or background. There is no discussion of his motives for lying — he’s running for president, after all. Instead, there is boundless speculation about Bialek — that she is so financially and morally destitute that she’s willing to destroy a man’s reputation for the possible chance of a book deal at some point in the future. That certainly is motive for her to lie but only if she’s a complete psychopath. There’s no evidence that Cain fired her or refused to hire her for a job that would provide a somewhat reasonable — if still irrational — motive for such actions.
Hannity — most likely never having been in the situation that Bialek describes — makes the same mistake that countless other men have made whenever women made accusations regarding sexual assault. They seem to believe that after such an experience, a woman would never be in shock or confused. No, her behavior afterward must be highly calculated and logical or else she’s obviously lying.
So, far Hannity is the classiest of Cain’s supporters, including Cain’s own lawyer, Lin Wood, who said “others should ‘think twice’ before making accusations” — as if the inevitable media scrutiny that is bound to occur is something Bialek didn’t consider. She just woke up one morning and thought she’d threaten the career of a powerful man. What could go wrong? Rachel Maddow called it a ‘remarkable moment,’ because a lawyer was telling potential harassment victims to “shut up,” and seemingly threatening them with some kind of retribution if they didn’t.” Indeed, Tom Hagen was usually more subdued and tactful when representing the Corleone Family.
Rush Limbaugh, from whom one should expect nothing and — if you actually listen to him — will receive even less, reportedly “slurped as he pronounced Bialek’s name ‘buy-a-lick'” and Dick Morris on FOX News “wondered when a Playboy spread would come.” Aside from being a professional woman and mother, Bialek is 50 years old and Hugh Hefner is not generally inclined to feature women only half his age in his magazine.
Hannity meanwhile allowed Cain’s chief of staff, Mark Block, to flat-out lie on-air and claim that Karen Kraushaar, who also accused Cain of sexual harassment, was the mother of a Politico reporter. (Politico was the publication that first broke the sexual harassment story regarding Cain.)
“You’ve confirmed that now, right?” Hannity asked.
“We confirmed it that he does indeed work at Politico, and that’s his mother, yes,” Block said.
In reality, Josh Kraushaar has not worked at Politico for 17 months – and he isn’t related to Karen Kraushaar.
These gentlemen — and I use that word in the most sarcastic sense possible — apparently think bullying and intimidation is the way to counter sexual harassment allegations (though, I guess that’s in character for someone accused of doing what Cain allegedly did). He could stick with the facts and not with the people who made the claims — most of which occurred before he was even running for office — but I guess that’s my own Tinkerbell Theory.
serhasacomplaint 
Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks…
Ann Coulter On Herman Cain: Our Blacks Are Better Than Their Blacks | Mediaite.
Well, of all the crazy things Ann Coulter has said, this probably ranks around the middle:
“They harangue blacks and tell them ‘you can’t be a Republican, you can’t be a Republican,’ it is so hard for a black to be a Republican,” and then complain when conservative events are mostly white-attended, Coulter argued. “Maybe you shouldn’t harangue them so much!” Coulter also told Hannity the source of why liberals “detest conservative blacks” is that “it is ironic in a cruel, vicious, horrible way… that civil rights laws were designed to protect blacks from Democrats,” and now there are “liberal wimen using laws to protest blacks in order to attack conservative blacks with these vicious, outrageous charges.”
Coulter is responding to recent sexual harassment charges against GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain.
The heretofore surging Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain was lifted by news Saturday that he was tied with Mitt Romney at the top of the Des Moines Register’s poll of likely Iowa caucus attendees. Then he was hit by heavy turbulence when Politico reported that, as head of the National Restaurant Association in the 1990s, he was at least twice accused of sexually harassing behavior by women who left after receiving payments from the trade group.
Promoters of racial tolerance Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately argued that the release of this story was racially motivated.
“This is not a news story, this is gutter partisan politics, and it’s the politics of minority conservative personal destruction is what you’ve got here,” the conservative radio host said, also mentioning The Post’s story on Florida senator Marco Rubio (R). “We cannot have a black Republican running for the office of President. We can’t have one elected.”
Limbaugh said that Cain was targeted because of his conservative views and skin color.
“Anything good that happens to any black or Hispanic in American politics can only happen via the Democrat Party. If it happens elsewhere, we’re going to destroy those people a la Clarence Thomas.”
“It really is about blacks and Hispanics getting too uppity. That’s what this is,” he said. “You don’t achieve in American politics as a Republican…..you try it and we’re going to destroy you.”
Coulter and Limbaugh seem to be confused on motive. If anyone wants to take out Cain at this point in the race, prior to the first official GOP primary, it would be another Republican candidate. Based on the last debate I watched, there are a few dozen of them but the ones who have the least laughable chances are Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Both of whom are seeing Cain lapping at their heels or potentially surpassing them. The Obama campaign is focused on Romney as a viable threat because he’s almost rational. Anyway, it would seem logical for the Democrats to wait and pull the pin on any grenade it had until much later in the primary race or even after a candidate had secured the nomination. The denials stemming from the other GOP candidates just reinforce this.
As for Clarence Thomas and his so-called “high-tech lynching.” Boo. Hoo. The guy was confirmed to the Supreme Court. It’s hard for me to find a narrative that comes close to tragedy here. OK, he had a tough job interview. I repeat: Boo. Hoo. It still grates that he pulled the racial victim card when the accusation was not about race but about gender. You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe that race was not a factor in President Bush’s selection of Thomas in the first place, and ultimately Thomas got the job. He still has it, demonstrating that he has better job security than any other black person in the United States. Is this the best Democrats can do to “destroy” people?
But let’s go back to the crazy lady.
With that as a framework, Coulter once again praised the conservative black people she had known, arguing that “our blacks are so much better than their blacks” because “you have fought against probably your family, probably your neighbors… that’s why we have very impressive blacks.” She went on to compare conservative black Americans to the family of the President, arguing that “Obama… is not a descendant of the blacks that suffered these Jim Crow laws,” that he was “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience,” but the “son of a Kenyan” (a point she made with the caveat that she fully believed the President was an American citizen).
“Our blacks are better than their blacks”? That sounds like a discussion of college football in the South during the ’80s.
It’s probably not wise to bother asking but what’s the point of Coulter’s statement? Is the implication that the left prefers Obama because he’s “not the son of American blacks that went through the American experience”? Is the implication that Cain is better at connecting to American blacks because he did? But since when was “connecting to American blacks” a priority of the GOP? If it’s just about policies, then OK, Cain is preferable to Obama if you’re a Republican but why bring race into it?
As with the Thomas allegations, there is nothing really racially motivated about them other than that those accused claim they are. We don’t know the women involved in the Cain allegations — they could be white but that in itself wouldn’t prove anything either.
Cain might want to take some time to reflect on who his supporters are. Let’s recall what Limbaugh said about Thurgood Marshall, who Thomas replaced on the Supreme Court.
Noting that Kagan idolized Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall — she was a law clerk for Marshall — Limbaugh pointed out that, in a 1976 speech, Marshall “declared, according to a law review article she wrote, that ‘the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was defective. Only over the course of 200 years had the nation attained the system of constitutional government and its respect for individual freedoms and human rights that we hold as fundamental today.’
“ ‘The Constitution today,’ the justice continued, ‘has a great deal to be proud of. But the credit does not belong to the framers, it belongs to those who refused to acquiesce to outdated notions of liberty, justice and equality and who strived to better them.’ ”
Rush continued: “The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. So this is who Elena Kagan idolizes.”
Posted by Stephen Robinson on November 1, 2011 in Political Theatre, Social Commentary
Tags: Ann Coulter, Barack Obama, Herman Cain, Rush Limbaugh, sexual harassment
Herman Cain says he opposes abortion in all cases _ no exceptions – The Washington Post
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain says he opposes abortion in all cases _ no exceptions – The Washington Post.
Herman Cain is now talking like a candidate who thinks he has a serious chance of claiming the GOP presidential nomination.
During an interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Cain said he’s “pro-life from conception, period.” Far be it for me to give Cain political advice but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether he wants to include the word “period.” He might be better off with “end of story” or “that’s all, folks.”
This is a turn from Cain’s previous statement made way back sometime last week that confused a lot of people because they had either read it or heard it, which is really not the best way to encounter Cain’s stance on the issues.
CAIN:… Abortion should not be legal; that is clear. But if that family made a decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision. That’s all I’m trying to say.
Far be it for me to give Cain political advice again but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether, as the former CEO of a pizza chain called “Godfather’s Pizza,” he wants to say it’s “the family’s” decision to break the law.
As wonky as that comment was, it was nothing compared to his attempt to link Planned Parenthood to racial genocide.
Cain said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge that the group denies.
“In Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born,” Cain said.
The indisputable logic here is that Planned Parenthood today is a racist institution because it was founded by a racist. Presumably, Cain also thinks that the United States is a racist country because it was founded by slave owners.
In his new campaign manifesto, “This is Herman Cain: My Journey to the White House,” the candidate states repeatedly and without qualification that “Our Founding Fathers did their job … a great job.” He makes no mention of the blacks who fled George Washington, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson during the Revolutionary War in search of their freedom, or the Constitution’s protection of slavery, or that the initial Constitution forbade Congress from prohibiting American participation in the international slave trade for 20 years and indeed made that provision unamendable.
Oh, I guess he doesn’t. Well, let’s not keep Cain’s apparent hand-waving over historical wrongs get in the way of his focus on Planned Parenthood’s racist actions in the present.
Cain said Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger wanted to eradicate minorities by putting birth control clinics in their neighborhoods, a charge that the group denies.
Cain said 75 percent of the organization’s abortion facilities were built in black communities.
“In Margaret Sanger’s own words, she didn’t use the word genocide, but she did talk about preventing the increasing number of poor blacks in this country by preventing black babies from being born,” Cain said.
I’m not sure if Cain actually believes this nonsense or whether he’s having fun making racially inflammatory statements that would have resulted in a full-day FOX News marathon of condemnation if Obama had said them or been in the presence of someone who said them. It’s actually possible that Cain supporters, offended by his racial genocide comments, will still blame Obama somehow for it.
During the “Face the Nation” interview, Cain was asked if his anti-abortion stance also extended to cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. Cain went for the hat trick of reproductive regulation and responded, “Correct, that’s my position.”
Far be it for me to give Cain political advice yet again but at the very least, he should consider what he’s actually saying and whether he wants to utter the phrase “that’s my position” when discussing rape or incest. It’s just odd.
Perhaps instead of pizza, Cain’s next business venture will be “No Exceptions” jeans for women.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 30, 2011 in Political Theatre, Social Commentary
Tags: abortion, Face the Nation, Herman Cain
Woman on the Moon…
Michele Bachmann’s performance as a presidential candidate continues to resemble Andy Kaufman’s career as a wrestler.
On “Face the Nation” Sunday morning, Bachmann declared that Iraq should reimburse the U.S. for the war. Yes, the one the U.S. started. Yes, the one that destabilized their country and killed more than 100,000 civilians.
“I believe that Iraq should reimburse the United States fully for the amount of money that we have spent to liberate these people,” Bachmann said. “They’re not a poor country; they’re a wealthy country.”
Bachmann is also waiting for African-Americans to pay back the U.S. for the travel costs and in-flight entertainment associated with the Middle Passage. I believe Herman Cain has already written a check for his share.
Maybe Bachmann has uncovered the secret to ending the U.S.’s economic woes. The nation’s new chief export can be warfare: The U.S. military will come to your country, blow it to bits, and all for no money down and a reasonable payment plan. You don’t even have to worry about minor details such as when, where, or if you even want this service at all. The U.S. will take care of that. It’s what we like to call the “old surprise visit” a la “A Clockwork Orange.”
According to Bachmann, demanding payment for the Iraq War is for the Iraqis’ benefit, as well:
“I think that they need to do that, because what we will be leaving behind is a nation that is very fragile and will be subject to dominance by Iran and their influence in the region, and that’s not good.”
See, Iraq is already fragile after we slammed it in the kneecaps with our military baseball bat, so we need to stick it with a bill for roughly $700 billion.
Bachmann is currently pushing the “Noble Reason” for the Iraq War — liberating the nation from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. This surfaced after the “Self-Defense Reason” was proven about as legitimate as any part of Heidi Montag.
To review, the “Self-Defense Reason” was that Hussein was either involved in 9/11 or supportive through training or might assist Al-Qaeda or was at a dinner party that one of bin Laden’s wives threw and on and on until everyone in the U.S. was thoroughly confused. This was actually educated and perhaps tactical confusion, as the connection to the facts grew more tenuous in the months immediately after 9/11:
Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either “most” or “some” of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero.
The intent to save the Iraqi people and “bring freedom to the galaxy” is buried somewhere in the Iraq War Resolution but ultimately the whole invasion was based in U.S. self-interest, which resulted in 4,796 U.S. and Coalition casualties. So, more U.S. citizens died in Iraq than died on 9/11 in an effort to avoid a similar attack on the U.S. that never materialized.
Bachmann and other conservatives are attacking President Obama’s decision to withdraw troops from Iraq. It’s hard to make sense of this: We know for a fact that ending the debacle will save U.S. lives. The Iraqi government gets it. That’s why they graciously want us to leave.
…the Obama administration announced it will withdraw all American troops from Iraq by year-end, at the behest of the Iraqi government. Bachmann said Iraq needs more continued U.S. troop involvement to prevent Iran from gaining influence in the region.
Bachmann called the Iraqi government’s insistence that American forces be removed from the nation “outrageous”…
“That’s the thanks we get after 4,400 lives have been expended?” Bachmann said, referring to the number of American troops who have died in the Iraq war.
The families of U.S. soldiers in Iraq will probably be content with the return of their loved ones from a war zone. They will find a way to do without the handwritten thank-you note and a bottle of wine.
It astounds me that we’d actually discuss staying in Iraq when its government wants us gone. If the situation were reversed, I think we’d be pissed. That’s called an occupying force or, as the U.S. refers to it in its history books, “manifest destiny.”
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 23, 2011 in Political Theatre
Tags: Face the Nation, Iraq, Michele Bachmann
Cain and Obama: Thrilla in D.C….
The latest polls show Herman Cain beating Barack Obama in the 2012 general election. This is based on a complex, scientific process of predicting how people will vote a year from now (i.e. “guessing”).
This is exciting: Two blacks fighting for the title for the amusement of a mostly white audience and it’s not Ali vs. Frazier. Let’s hope the build-up to the big bout is at least as entertaining.
Unfortunately, if Cain does win, he doesn’t get to be the first black president. Sure, the second black president is sort of impressive — he probably still gets to make a speech, kind of like the salutatorian at high school graduation, but few people listen. This is probably why Cain supporter Laura Ingraham claims that he would in fact be the first black president.
INGRAHAM: And what happened with Obama is that he gets this job that he’s not qualified for… OK, so [Obama is] Constitutionally qualified for but he’s not really qualified for. And guess who pays the price? All of us. Because we had such a yearning for history.
Well I have a question. Herman Cain, if he became president, he would be the first black president, when you measure it by — because he doesn’t — does he have a white mother, white father, grandparents, no, right? So Herman Cain, he could say that he’s — he’s — he’s the first, uh — he could make the claim to be the first — yeah, the first Main Street black Republican to be the president of the United States. Right? He’s historic too.
See, Obama, who was a U.S. Senator, was not qualified to be president and only won because we wanted to have a black president (it was on everyone’s wish list in 2008, along with the iPhone) but Obama has white relatives so isn’t really black in which case, if we act quickly before our warranty expires, we should be able to exchange him for Cain, CEO of a profitable pizza company and thus perfectly qualified to be president, who does not have any white relatives because obviously Ingraham would have researched something like that and not just talk out of her ass.
I’m not sure how far back in the family tree Ingraham is willing to go, but Cain is from Georgia and it was pretty hard for blacks to get through the antebellum South sexually unscathed. Slave masters weren’t that picky. They couldn’t have been because — putting it bluntly — having sex with a slave was probably like having sex with a homeless person. I’m sorry. Hate me all you want but you’ve been watching too many movies with Halle Berry or Jasmine Guy if you think otherwise. Slaves didn’t get access to the quality deodorant, moisturizers, and bath soaps. You think they got to shave their legs? Take all that away from even Beyonce and you’ve got something nasty in a weave. Now take away the weave: Scary, isn’t it?
Even the house slaves were probably legally required to be sufficiently less attractive than the mistress of the house. And the mistresses weren’t Vivien Leigh, either. Look at some paintings from the period. We’re talking about 4s or 5s to be kind, so Mammy is probably a 2 at best and the slave master is still putting on some Rolling Stones and violating her because the guy owns human beings, you expect rationality?
I know this implies that it was predominately Southern men going after slave women. I’m sure some bored antebellum housewives fooled around with male slaves but in a more sexist period, it was certainly risky. If she gives birth to a kid who looks like Obama, maybe she can pass him off as the master’s kid with a suntan and curly hair. If she gives birth to a kid who looks like Cain, it’s her ass unless she then claims that she was assaulted because she wouldn’t willingly have sex with a slave, she’s a good Christian woman, after all. So, her husband rounds up all the male slaves and orders her to identify the guilty one. She goes down the line, winking surreptitiously at the Shemar Moore-looking slave and then points at one of my ancestors, Jebediah Robinson.
Mistress: Yes, darling, that’s the one! I’ll never forget. It was horrible.
Jebediah: Really? Oh come on! (turns to Shemar Moore-looking slave). Dude, I thought we were friends. Look, when I said I’d be your wingman, I didn’t think I’d wind up in actual wings.
However, let’s say Ingraham’s correct and Cain is 100% black — much like the lady who flipped out on Jeffrey Dahmer in court. This would mean that the United States had gone “all in” on a black president. It’s like the guy who is bisexual in college but when you meet him a few years later, he’s dating men exclusively. If we elect Cain, we’re not pussy-footing around. We’ve gone all the way.
And it’s not even about skintone: As Cain says, Obama’s never been part of the “black experience.” Obama, after all, cowardly chose to not even be born when Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, whereas Cain bravely followed his father’s advice to “not start trouble” and sit in the back of the bus.
“…If I had been a college student I probably would have been participating.” (Cain) said that, as a high school student, “it was not prudent” for him to be involved.
“Not prudent”? Well, if Cain’s elected, Dana Carvey can stage a comeback by impersonating him. Apparently, Cain’s father advised him to keep his focus on education and presumably the promising career in janitorial services he would have had without the efforts of the Civil Rights Movement.
“Did you expect every black student and every black college in America to be out there?” Cain said. “…You didn’t know, Lawrence, what I was doing…maybe, just maybe, I had a sick relative!”
If the Civil Rights Movement was the black Vietnam — although blacks fought in Vietnam, as well, but just try to follow me on this — then Cain marched not in Martin Luther King’s path but Dick Cheney‘s and avoided service with, maybe, just maybe, a lame excuse.
But that’s all in the past. Let’s see who winds up king of the U.S. empire when Cain and Obama step in the ring! If my analogy holds, this means that we’ll probably wind up with a brain-damaged president regardless of who wins but we’ve been there before.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 19, 2011 in Capitalism, Political Theatre, Social Commentary
Tags: Barack Obama, Civil Rights Movement, Herman Cain, slavery
The Peasants Are Revolting…
I read this piece in the Economic Times, which states that “many see lack of focus in growing Occupy Wall street movement.”
The protests that began on September 17 by a small group of people in Manhattan have snowballed into a movement against the financial institutions, income inequality and corporate bailouts with thousands taking to the streets and courting arrests.
However, the protesters are yet to ask local and federal governments to adopt specific actions to address their grievances.
I suppose the pun (“see” and “lack of focus”) is unintentional. However, the criticism is not new. Bill Clinton mentioned it recently in an appearance on Late Show with David Letterman.
“They need to be for something specific, and not just against something because if you’re just against something, someone else will fill the vacuum you create.”
I know the protestors have a lot of free time — as many don’t have jobs — but why is the onus on them to fix the problem? And maybe I’ve being even more cynical than usual but wouldn’t any specific policy recommendations be dismissed as uninformed anyway?
I thought widespread protests against “financial institutions, income inequality and corporate bailouts” would be a good place to start, right? That is if politicians genuinely want to resolve these issues. So far, they sound like a really bad boyfriend:
“I don’t get it, baby, why are you leaving me?”
“You slept with my sister and you maxed out my credit cards playing full-tilt poker.”
“Yeah, but all that aside, what specifically is wrong?”
It’s possible to infer from the political realm’s reaction to the movement that it has failed to accomplish more than some front-page media coverage. Let’s look back at the beginnings of the Tea Party movement. Everyone, Democrat and Republican, was in a hurry to either embrace them or not piss them off. Clinton’s position is almost eerily identical:
“I think that, first of all, the tea party insurrection … that you see in these Republican primaries, reflects the feeling of a lot of Americans that they’re getting the shaft,” Clinton said on CBS’ Face the Nation. “That the people who caused these problems …the banks that were responsible for the financial meltdown, they’ve gotten well again. And everybody has got money again who is in that business, but ordinary people don’t.”
“So there is a general revolt against bigness Which in the case of the Republicans is always directed more against the government than the private sector,” Clinton said. “It’s totally understandable.”
The Republicans meanwhile have no concern about giving the movement a united golden shower:
Cantor Deems Protesters Rabble Rousers
Cantor slammed the movement on Friday in a speech in Washington at the 2011 “Value Voters Summit” intended to energize social conservatives.
“I’m increasingly concerned about the growing mobs occupying Wall Street and other cities across the country,” said Cantor at the event sponsored by the Family Research Council Action, the American Family Association, and other evangelical Christian groups.
“And believe it or not, some in this town have actually condoned the pitting of Americans against Americans,” he said.
Oh no! Americans against Americans! Brother against brother in a vicious blood battle! These agitators are stirring up the otherwise peaceful peasants against their benevolent corporate masters! Where’s J. Edgar Hoover’s ghost when you need him?
Fortunately, presidential candidate Herman Cain was able to make Cantor’s statements seem benign in comparison:
Herman Cain steps up attacks on Occupy Wall Street protests
Republican presidential contender Herman Cain amplified his criticism Sunday of the growing Occupy Wall Street movement, calling the protesters “jealous’ Americans who “play the victim card” and want to “take somebody else’s” Cadillac.
Yes, the protestors do want to “take somebody else’s Cadillac” — so they can sleep in it. Wow, Cain sounds about as rational as two angry ladies at a beauty salon in the Bronx.
“Girl, did you hear what those Occupy Wall Street protestors are saying about you?”
“Oh, Laquita, they just jealous. Just jealous of how fine I am and how nice my Cadillac is.”
On CBS, Cain suggested that the rallies had been organized by labor unions to serve as a “distraction so that many people won’t focus on the failed policies of the Obama administration.”
Huh? Labor unions organized this? How many of the demonstrators were actually members of unions? Wouldn’t they possibly still have jobs if they were? The biggest union presence at the protests is arguably the police — the guys with the solid health insurance and retirement plans.
The banking and financial services industries aren’t responsible for those policies, Cain said.
OK, so the Obama administration forced Bank of America to screw its customers? I guess it is Obama’s fault that the economy is sputtering along so that banks can only make jillions instead of gajilions. They have no choice to charge fees that would shame your average loan shark — though a loan shark actually loans you money, rather than charging you for the burden of using yours to play a riskier version of full-tilt poker.
And if the labor unions are pulling the protestors’ poverty-stricken strings, then we all know who is the ultimate puppet master.
Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who appeared on the program with Cain, offered a more measured response, but blamed the White House for the discord.
“There a lot of people in America who are angry,” Gingrich said. “This is the natural product of President Obama’s class warfare.”
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), chairman of the House Budget Committee, also pointed a finger at the president, whom he accused of fear-mongering.
“He’s preying on the emotions of fear, envy and anger. And that is not constructive to unifying America,” Ryan said. “I think he’s broken his promise as a uniter, and now he’s dividing people. And to me, that’s very unproductive.”
I’m sure privately Republicans are shaking in their boots over Obama’s Army of the Destitute. They will collectively knock down the pillars of our economic system with their massive student loan debt.
So what if companies openly discriminate against the unemployed during a period of record unemployment? It’s unproductive and divisive to get upset. Stay home and come up with some specific policy positions that your elected officials can ignore. Better yet, watch some bad reality TV instead and let Wall Street continue to steer the country in the swell direction it’s currently going. These are busy people. They don’t need your jealous whining.
Cain later conclusively proved the Occupy Wall Street movement’s threat to national security:
“To protest Wall Street and the bankers is basically saying you’re anti-capitalism,” he said.
I sort of thought that this was a protest of Wall Street excess, which did play a part in leveling the economy, rather than an outright broadside against capitalism as a whole, but unlike Cain, I never ran a pizza chain named after a mafia figure.
Wait a minute: If you’re anti-capitalist, aren’t you essentially a communist? And the terrorists also attacked Wall Street, so maybe these demonstrators are communist terrorists or, depending on whether you’re a Northern or Southern Smurf, terrorist communists!
In fairness, Cain was equally protective of Muslims as even though a small minority of extremists were threats to U.S. security, he realized that they weren’t reflective of Islam as a whole and to protest Islam is basically saying you’re anti-religious freedom.
(Yeah, you see where I’m going here: To the YouTube Mobile!:)
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 17, 2011 in Capitalism, Political Theatre
Tags: Cain, Cantor, Occupy Wall Street
The New Daily Show: The Anita Perry Report…
Forget those amateurs Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert: Comedy Central should devote an hour to Gov. Rick Perry’s wife, Anita. What she lacks in lucidity, she makes up for in insanity. It’s enough to cause Michele Bachmann to stand back and say, “Damn girl!”
She’d previously stated that God had wanted her husband to run for president:
“It’s been a rough month. We have been brutalized and beaten up and chewed up in the press to where I need this today,” she said. “We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party. So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith. He is the only true conservative – well, there are some true conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”
You might think this sounds like paranoid, delusional ramblings with no bearing in reality and you’d be correct.
Perry later topped herself when she blamed President Obama for her son’s voluntary unemployment:
Rick Perry’s wife Anita said Friday that she could sympathize with the plight of the unemployed because her son was forced to resign his job to take a more active role on his father’s presidential campaign.
Anita Perry blamed the Obama administration for her son having to resign his position.
“My son had to resign his job because of federal regulations that Washington has put on us,” Mrs. Perry said while campaigning for her husband in South Carolina, after a voter shared the story of losing his job.
“He resigned his job two weeks ago because he can’t go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations,” she continued, referring to the Securities and Exchange Commission. “He has a wife… he’s trying to start a business. So I can empathize.”
“My son lost his job because of this administration,” she said a few minutes later.
I don’t think that’s empathy. I’m not sure what that is. Her son chose to resign his job at Deutsche Bank in an effort to help his father win the highest office in the land, which might come with some perks for him down the road.
I can understand her blaming Obama for the lousy economy. That’s sort of how the game works but does she really think that Obama should make it easy for her son to actively campaign to remove him from office? Does she also expect Obama to spend his free time calling prospective GOP primary voters on Perry’s behalf?
Full disclosure: Both of these statements were made while in South Carolina. I should warn Perry that despite her time in Texas, she should ease herself into the Southern diet: The sweet tea, which is 98 percent sugar and 2 percent tea, and the chicken-fried steak fingers can go to your head.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 15, 2011 in Political Theatre
Tags: Anita Perry
The Protect Life Act…
The House just passed the Protect Life Act, which true to its name ensures that all U.S. citizens have access to affordable health care, nutritious meals, and safe housing. It also eliminates capital punishment and reduces our military presence abroad. No, wait, I confused the U.S. with a first world country; the bill actually does the following:
Limitation on Abortion Funding-
‘(1) IN GENERAL- No funds authorized or appropriated by this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), including credits applied toward qualified health plans under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or cost-sharing reductions under section 1402 of this Act, may be used to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion…
So, what’s the point of this? House Majority Leader Eric Cantor says it’s to “ensure that no taxpayer dollars flow to health care plans that cover abortion and no health care worker has to participate in abortions against their will.”
Cantor must think we live in some sci-fi movie in which everyone, after their birth from a futuristic gestation matrix, is assigned a career with no option to choose something else — such as the vegan who got randomly assigned to the slaughterhouse that specializes in cute animals. If you are distinctly anti-abortion, it might behoove you to consider a career in which it will never come up. It’s not that hard. I have friends who are real estate agents and accountants. To my knowledge, they’ve never had to participate in an abortion — even when the market was at its worst.
The bill does make the usual exceptions for “rape or incest,” so apparently the life is less worthy of protection if the father is a bastard and the mother did not actually enjoy the sex that led to conception. There’s also an allowance if the woman might die. However, that only gets her through Level 1 of the government-approved misogyny video game. Level 2 is still the potential refusal of the service if it offends the sensibility of medical provider.
OPTION TO PURCHASE SEPARATE COVERAGE OR PLAN- Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as prohibiting any non-Federal entity (including an individual or a State or local government) from purchasing separate coverage for abortions for which funding is prohibited under this subsection, or a qualified health plan that includes such abortions, so long as–
‘(A) such coverage or plan is paid for entirely using only funds not authorized or appropriated by this Act; and
‘(B) such coverage or plan is not purchased using–
‘(i) individual premium payments required for a qualified health plan offered through an Exchange towards which a credit is applied under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986; or
‘(ii) other non-Federal funds required to receive a Federal payment, including a State’s or locality’s contribution of Medicaid matching funds.
I’m not a lawyer but basically, if you’re rich, you can still have an abortion — just have your butler hand over some gold bars to the doctor. This seems to put abortion on the same medical footing as a nose job and breast enlargement.
There is a section the prevents “nondiscrimination on abortion,” but that actually is intended to protect medical providers who are anti-abortion and don’t wish to perform them (sort of like the dentists who don’t like root canals):
‘(1) NONDISCRIMINATION- A Federal agency or program, and any State or local government that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act), may not subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, or require any health plan created or regulated under this Act (or an amendment made by this Act) to subject any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination, on the basis that the health care entity refuses to–
‘(A) undergo training in the performance of induced abortions;
‘(B) require or provide such training;
‘(C) perform, participate in, provide coverage of, or pay for induced abortions; or
‘(D) provide referrals for such training or such abortions
I think this is how you ban abortion while people are too busy watching primetime TV to notice. Who needs to bother with Roe v. Wade? Reading this bill, it seems a woman has a better chance blowing up the Death Star than getting an abortion.
Laura Bassett from the Huffington Post reports further:
H.R. 358, introduced by Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), goes beyond the issue of taxpayer dollars to place actual limits on the way a woman spends her own money. The bill would prevent a woman from buying a private insurance plan that includes abortion coverage through a state health care exchange, even though most insurance plans currently cover abortion.
An even more controversial aspect of the bill would allow hospitals that are morally opposed to abortion, such as Catholic institutions, to do nothing for a woman who requires an emergency abortion procedure to save her life. Current law requires that hospitals give patients in life-threatening situations whatever care they need, regardless of the patient’s financial situation, but the Protect Life Act would make a hospital’s obligation to provide care in medical emergencies secondary to its refusal to provide abortions.
I suppose the bill is appropriately named after all: Its stated desire to “protect life” certainly is an act.
Posted by Stephen Robinson on October 15, 2011 in Political Theatre, Social Commentary
Tags: abortion, Cantor, Huffington Post, Protect Life Act