I will be honest in saying that I don't follow the scandals of Washington too much anymore. The Right has cried wolf for a generation, and at this point it's getting hard to listen. But I am pretty disappointed with the President for his hasty rush to judgement about the supposed political abuse by the IRS of various Tea Party and right wing groups.
Our President has once again embraced the expedient in stead of the good. He has, in effect, fired the interim head of the IRS, tarnishing that unconfirmed director's reputation without benefit of hearings or an attempt to understand what was behind the IRS's controversial actions.
The GOP noise machine is representing this "scandal" as something right out of the Nixon administration. How hypocritical coming from a party that gave us the Nixonian and Cheney/Bush administrations that never knew the meaning of truth. The voices bleating farthest on the right say that the IRS was acting politically to promote the advantage of the American Chavez who sought to silence his political enemies and undermine the constitution because he hates America. All the better to wage his war to bring Socialist health care on freedom loving Americans as well as obliterate the constitutional right to keep and arm bears. Or something like that...
But seriously, does even a moderated version of this hyper-suspicion of the Executive Branch hold water when you think about it for five minutes? The IRS is an apolitical bureaucracy and is chock full of people who got their jobs during the Bush years What do they have to gain by "abusing" their power and going after the right? Further, did they apply this same attitude to 501c requests originating from other ideological viewpoints? Most importantly, is there grounds for defense of the IRS considering the view that 501c status was being unlawfully exploited as a nefarious loophole in campaign finance and tax law, allowing unlimited and anonymous campaign funding in violation of other campaign and tax law? There is a view that lawyers of the left and right were and are evading the spirit and letter of campaign and tax laws, subverting Democracy and gaining tax advantages in doing so. That was a valid view then, and it still applies now... to 501c's of the left and right. This includes Stephen Colbert's 501c that showed us exactly what abuses were available in the absence of regulating 501c's.
The old Obama we used to know and love, and elected in 2008, would have spoken out against a rush to judgement and instead suggested we get all the facts and make decisions based on evidence. But the current Obama seems motivated purely by putting all so called scandals behind him through capitulation to Republican charges and placating the right, as if clearing his desk through surrender to his critics will buy him good will to get gun control and health care legislation through.
This is ridiculous. No matter how much Obama tries to show he is a good guy and capable of meeting the GOP half way, it will never be good enough. After the failure of compromise from 2008-2012 how does he not get this? But more importantly, if he fires bureaucrats for political reasons- which is what he is doing - he is no better than the Republicans who dream nightly of imprisoning the IRS so they can do no harm to GOP donors, or scaring the IRS from fulfilling their mission of insuring that the tax code ISN'T abused for political ends - by the right or left.This might also fulfill the wishes of those running 501c's on the left. Lets not forget that Obama's crowd has embraced the post McCain-Feingold ethics in practice as much as the Rove crowd.
Obama's firing of the IRS leadership, and threat to subject IRS workers to jail, is cravenly playing into Republican hands. But it also ignores the most important point: WAS THE IRS RIGHT IN QUESTIONING WHETHER TEA PARTY GROUPS AND OTHERS (others being the liberal groups that were also affected by their inquiries） WERE WITHIN THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE LAW in claiming 501c status and shielding of donors. Were they being politically activist themselves, or were they just trying to protect tax code from political abuse? I suspect the latter, and this suspicion that 501c's were being abused was all over the news at the time these so called abuses were occurring. I'm sure Obama might recall expressing those objections himself. I know his supporters like myself did.
By prejudging this scandal instead of investigating the circumstances fully (the IG report asks the questions but doesn't answer them), Obama is being unjust to some who might in fact be good people and deserve better. As far as I'm concerned, Obama is participating in a political lynching. Maybe because he's from Indonesia and Kenya (like the kooks on the right say) he doesn't get it that lynchings are despicable and immoral. But he should put on the Billie Holiday record tonight and listen to what she says about strange fruit. Be you black, white, red or blue, everyone deserves their day in court and a chance to defend themselves against their accusers.
There are two sides to most stories. We deserve to hear both sides, and the accused deserve the right to tell it in advance of punishment.
Here's an interesting piece from the press suggesting this same view:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/05/15/1209257/-Liberal-groups-received-same-IRS-letter-that-ignited-Tea-Party-nbsp-outrage#
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Things You Shouldn't Write on the Web
Here is a little post I blogged on 2/18/05. I am reposting it since it has disappeared from view, I suppose due to the age of the post. Keep in mind that when this was written Bush was President, we were losing an elective war in Iraq, and the NHL was on their first, but not last, strike. All in all, it was not the best of times to be patriotic. Real patriotism, in context of the times, led to subversive thoughts and words. But at least it was subversion dressed up in an attempt at humor. Humor is about the only way to deal with dark times like those... or these!
******
At the risk of calling down the wrath of Homeland Security upon my person, or Israeli bulldozers upon the homes of my surviving family members, I've decided to become a terrorist.
Oops, that's not how you say it.
I've decided to become a trrrrrrr-rrrrr-ist (mispronounce it like you mean it, with a Texas accent).
It's hard when you become a terrorist, because there is just so much to do. First you have to download the Anarchist's Cookbook off of the web. Then you are have to come up with a good excuse for when the FBI kicks in your door and asks why you downloaded the Anarchist's Cookbook. I've got my explanation ready: "Me just want to help mien kids mit dere homework." If they can cut through the accent, that'll sick the FBI on my kid's teachers, who have it coming.
Then you have to put together a target list. These should be your enemies. Eisenhower had an enemies list and threw it in the waste basket. Nixon had an enemies list and threw it in his desk (along with his "memo to self: call plumbers"). Osama had an enemies list and threw airplanes at it. Then the President borrowed an enemies list from Rummy, and we know what he's doing with it. This is, historians will note, how terrorism evolved from the 20th to the 21st century in America. Ofcourse, you might ask, this leaves out the perpetrators of the OKC bombing. But you are so naive. After the triumph of the right in the coming race and culture war, these brave and gallant martyrs will go by their real name: "freedom fighters."
It's easy to list your enemies. The president, Osama, Wal-Mart, the NHL. But not every enemy can be a target. Can't shoot the President, for instance. Wouldn't be prudent. Also, you'd end up with Cheney officially in charge, without the current buffer of stupidity. Can't bomb Osama, cause you can't find him. Wal-Marts you can find, but they've got security cameras in the parking lot and you'll end up on America's Most Wanted. NHL? Too late....
After somehow figuring out some targets, then you have to come up with a plan. This should not be a problem for me: I am an American, and we are a can-do people. However, this is not something you should just knock off. You have to do it with style and originality. In addition to horrific casualties, you really must bowl over your target audience with something that is aesthetically audacious. And don't forget, you have to act early, so you can dominate the news cycle on FOX for the whole day.
Finally, either before or immediately after execution of your operation, you have to list your grievances in a public forum. This can be done by sending notice to a newspaper or other print outlets (but avoid letters to the editor, which are subject to editing). You can also deliver video to sympathetic media; that's what Osama and the White House does. Or you can just scrawl a manifesto on the wall in blood: Kilroy was here, Juden Nien, Helter Skelter, etc...
Ofcourse, if you really want to make it big, you need a sponsor. The bigger the sponsor, the bigger the bomb. If you get a really big sponsor, you'll get a really big bomb, which will help you when it comes to getting on FOX. State sponsors are the best. It really doesn't matter which state; they can be red or blue. But the main thing is, they have to have deep pockets because things that blow up are pretty expensive. It's also good if you pick a state sponsor who has some expertise in these matters. That way they can advise you in the best way to blow up people and things, which shortens your learning curve. Don't be afraid to ask for help: There are professionals out there with years of experience who are only too willing to share their knowledge with like minded youngsters who are just starting out.
Naturally, a sponsor is likely to want something in return. Sometimes you have to put their name on your shirt. Other times you have to wear their shoes. Sometimes they cut a deal where you wear all their apparel from head to toe. These of course are the best sponsors of all, because their uniforms lend you legitimacy and legal status. Army, Navy, Air Force, Mareeeeens, Taliban, Mujahadeen, Yes, these are the creme de la creme. And the choice of the most discriminating terrorist nowadays is Civilian Contractor, who wears a faux name on his or her shirt; a name like Smith or Doe, something which never manages to get put down on personnel manifests, and which the Abu Graib security cameras can never quite make out.
The drawback to sponsorship deals like this is that you lose some autonomy, and you have to blow up the targets that states, not you, choose. Still it can be a lot of fun, especially if you are bad enough. And after 20 years, if you don't get killed or locked up, you'll have a shirt full of medals, and maybe even retire with the pension of a senior officer - ready for a career in radio, Corporate America, or it's subsidiary the U.S. government.
****
Ugh, the time. Gotta shave, go to work. Must remember - spellcheck. Bye!
******
At the risk of calling down the wrath of Homeland Security upon my person, or Israeli bulldozers upon the homes of my surviving family members, I've decided to become a terrorist.
Oops, that's not how you say it.
I've decided to become a trrrrrrr-rrrrr-ist (mispronounce it like you mean it, with a Texas accent).
It's hard when you become a terrorist, because there is just so much to do. First you have to download the Anarchist's Cookbook off of the web. Then you are have to come up with a good excuse for when the FBI kicks in your door and asks why you downloaded the Anarchist's Cookbook. I've got my explanation ready: "Me just want to help mien kids mit dere homework." If they can cut through the accent, that'll sick the FBI on my kid's teachers, who have it coming.
Then you have to put together a target list. These should be your enemies. Eisenhower had an enemies list and threw it in the waste basket. Nixon had an enemies list and threw it in his desk (along with his "memo to self: call plumbers"). Osama had an enemies list and threw airplanes at it. Then the President borrowed an enemies list from Rummy, and we know what he's doing with it. This is, historians will note, how terrorism evolved from the 20th to the 21st century in America. Ofcourse, you might ask, this leaves out the perpetrators of the OKC bombing. But you are so naive. After the triumph of the right in the coming race and culture war, these brave and gallant martyrs will go by their real name: "freedom fighters."
It's easy to list your enemies. The president, Osama, Wal-Mart, the NHL. But not every enemy can be a target. Can't shoot the President, for instance. Wouldn't be prudent. Also, you'd end up with Cheney officially in charge, without the current buffer of stupidity. Can't bomb Osama, cause you can't find him. Wal-Marts you can find, but they've got security cameras in the parking lot and you'll end up on America's Most Wanted. NHL? Too late....
After somehow figuring out some targets, then you have to come up with a plan. This should not be a problem for me: I am an American, and we are a can-do people. However, this is not something you should just knock off. You have to do it with style and originality. In addition to horrific casualties, you really must bowl over your target audience with something that is aesthetically audacious. And don't forget, you have to act early, so you can dominate the news cycle on FOX for the whole day.
Finally, either before or immediately after execution of your operation, you have to list your grievances in a public forum. This can be done by sending notice to a newspaper or other print outlets (but avoid letters to the editor, which are subject to editing). You can also deliver video to sympathetic media; that's what Osama and the White House does. Or you can just scrawl a manifesto on the wall in blood: Kilroy was here, Juden Nien, Helter Skelter, etc...
Ofcourse, if you really want to make it big, you need a sponsor. The bigger the sponsor, the bigger the bomb. If you get a really big sponsor, you'll get a really big bomb, which will help you when it comes to getting on FOX. State sponsors are the best. It really doesn't matter which state; they can be red or blue. But the main thing is, they have to have deep pockets because things that blow up are pretty expensive. It's also good if you pick a state sponsor who has some expertise in these matters. That way they can advise you in the best way to blow up people and things, which shortens your learning curve. Don't be afraid to ask for help: There are professionals out there with years of experience who are only too willing to share their knowledge with like minded youngsters who are just starting out.
Naturally, a sponsor is likely to want something in return. Sometimes you have to put their name on your shirt. Other times you have to wear their shoes. Sometimes they cut a deal where you wear all their apparel from head to toe. These of course are the best sponsors of all, because their uniforms lend you legitimacy and legal status. Army, Navy, Air Force, Mareeeeens, Taliban, Mujahadeen, Yes, these are the creme de la creme. And the choice of the most discriminating terrorist nowadays is Civilian Contractor, who wears a faux name on his or her shirt; a name like Smith or Doe, something which never manages to get put down on personnel manifests, and which the Abu Graib security cameras can never quite make out.
The drawback to sponsorship deals like this is that you lose some autonomy, and you have to blow up the targets that states, not you, choose. Still it can be a lot of fun, especially if you are bad enough. And after 20 years, if you don't get killed or locked up, you'll have a shirt full of medals, and maybe even retire with the pension of a senior officer - ready for a career in radio, Corporate America, or it's subsidiary the U.S. government.
****
Ugh, the time. Gotta shave, go to work. Must remember - spellcheck. Bye!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)