I am Cinna the Poet! Cinna the Poet!

As it turns out, yelling "Koch Brothers! Koch Brothers" can get death threats sent to anyone named Koch.

I look forward to the learned gentleman who posted this to express his displeasure. I'm making myself quite comfortable in the meantime.

It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid.

Listen up, proggies.

Death threats are bad. Everyone knows this, and everyone is supposed to say so.

Civility is good. Everyone knows this, and everyone is supposed to speak up for the civil against the uncivil.

You aren't supposed to excuse the uncivil when they happen to sit on your side of the aisle. You're supposed to keep them under control, or at the very least, not encourage or defend them.

So when unsubtle threats and extortion demands get sent to those who dissent from the Proggie sense of entitlement vision, everyone is supposed to call those people what they are: vain, ridiculous petty tyrants with the manners of Vandals and the morals of pimps.

You're supposed to call it out, in the interests of a better, more civil society for all of us, not just the people who agree with you.

And if you can't or won't do that, then don't be surprised when your caterwauling about how awful and scary the people who disagree with you are falls on deaf ears and rolled eyes.

Ball's in your court.

Old and Busted: Sarah Palin Made Loughner Shoot People

New Hotness: Zeitgeist, which is anti-semetic and right-wing, made Loughner Shoot People

You have to ignore a LOT to make Zeitgeist a Republican film. You also have to ignore a lot to make it a Democratic one. Mainstream American politics -- of which, like her or not, Sarah Palin is a member -- has as little to do with this sort of vision-dreaming. These people aren't on the political fringe. They aren't even cranks. They're nothing, detritus, the equivalent of the tinfoil they doubtless wrap around their heads to avoid the CIA mind control.

Kooks. Jared Loughner was a kook. And kooks do kooky things.

The Left likes to portray Tea Partiers as kooks, for the same reason that Federalists called Thomas Jefferson the Anti-Christ: for rhetorical purposes, an entirely cynical exercise in fear-mongering. And if I wanted to stretch it, I could make a comparison between that and the fear-mongering of Zeitgeist. But I'm not going to do that, because there's a world of difference between "You guys are lunatics!" and "the Federal Reserve is poisoning the wells, the Bilderbergers are unwittingly causing us to bow down to the Beast, Jesus is the Devil!!!eleventy!!!" Cynicism does many things, but it does not willfully deny reality.

Obama's Tucson Speech

Hopefully this will be the last I write on this subject.

My initial reaction to Obama's speech, which I read last night, was that he was sounding the right notes, and appearing presidential for the first time in his presidency. By explicitly calling attention to the Loughner's victims, he made the subject what it should have been all along. It was the right re-focusing of the national attention and mood.

Now, many on the Right are not going to be satisfied with this. For them, nothing short of defending Sarah Palin and telling the unhinged of his own camp specifically to silence themselves, will be acceptable. As with his Iraq Speech, I'm not so picky. I don't expect a Democratic President to specificaly call out members of his own party for rebuke. There's simply no benefit for him to do that. No Republican President would do it either.

No, last night, however briefly, Obama was the President of the whole country, not just the people who agree with him. That is more than I usually expect from him, so I will grant it respect.

Sarah Palin is Absolutely Right

I don't care about Sarah Palin. I saw very little of her in the 2008 campaign that really impressed me. By the same token, it doesn't take much subtelty to see that the response to her from the Left is preposterously out of proportion to her actual deeds. Like George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, she seems to evoke a particular deranged fury from those who consider themselves our credentialed elite.

For both of these reasons, I hope she doesn't win the 2012 GOP nomination, and don't plan on voting for her to get it. To my mind, better candidates can be found, and if she does win, then the election will become a referendum on her media image, rather than anything about the issues or her ability to grapple with them.

That said, her response to the Gifford hysteria is absolutely dead on:

There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated? Back in those “calm days” when political figures literally settled their differences with dueling pistols? In an ideal world all discourse would be civil and all disagreements cordial. But our Founding Fathers knew they weren’t designing a system for perfect men and women. If men and women were angels, there would be no need for government. Our Founders’ genius was to design a system that helped settle the inevitable conflicts caused by our imperfect passions in civil ways. So, we must condemn violence if our Republic is to endure.

One of the mushy middle's more tedious fallacies constantly refrains that our politics are so loud and obnoxious now, and getting worse. The demonstrable falseness of this belief doesn't stop them from holding it. So-called "moderates" and "centrists" believe it because they don't know anything about politics or history, and they don't know anything about politics or history because they find it distasteful.

Politics has never been nice. History has never been nice. Lament this if you will, take pains to curtail it if you must. But don't pretend that we're seeing anything new. Humanity makes innovations on this front but rarely.

Feminism for Me, But Not for Thee

Classical Values, noting the absence of the rather obvious sexism narrative:

When I said this:

If we suppose that Loughner's victim had been black or hispanic, I think there would be a pretty loud chorus on the left that the racist motivation for the shooting was obvious. Similarly, had Barney Frank been shot, there would have been immediate cries of homophobia. 

I should have noted that it would not be true if the black, hispanic or gay victim happened to be on the right side of the political spectrum. Thus, if, say, Clarence Thomas or Alberto Gonzales were assassinated (especially by leftist gunmen), they would not be seen as victims of racism. Similarly, when Pim Fortuyn was assassinated by an anarcho-primitivist nut, this was not condemned as homophobic by the PC classes.

It is a basic law of identity politics that such identities are conditioned upon being on the left. Which is another reason that no indignity heaped on Sarah Palin can ever be condemned as sexist.

Read the whole thing.

Right-Wing Rhetoric is So Violent, and Man Do I Wanna Slap Sarah Palin!

Via Carthago Delenda Est, another example of great lengths to which the left is willing to go to improve the tone of our national discourse, to calm the raging waters of our rhetorical madness.

The blogger (who is not the cartoonist) responds to objections thusly:

Now look at the first few comments there. It's people complaining that the cartoon is in bad taste! Good grief, have you people ever actually listened to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage or looked at Sarah Palin's campaign strategy? I say again, madness.

See? All you have to do is look at them, and you know that they are scum who deserve nothing. And are way too angry all the time. It's so frightening!

Jeff Danziger is an Self-Important Asshat, and Other Thoughful Musings

Apparently if you're not within the actual confines of a court of law, you have no obligation to back your statements up with any kind of connection to fact.

Jeff Danziger, who doodles blurry editorial cartoons for the WaPo and presumably, other places, made his contribution to setting a new tone of calm introspection so needed after the Giffords shooting:

Really?

Ed Frank of Frank Strategies asks him to explain himself. Danziger replies with the usual boilerplate, that the Tea Parties anti-government rhetoric created a mind-controlling memefog that drove Loughner like the talking dog commanded Berkowitz. He does so while demonstrating command of no facts other than his Vietnam war record, which is as impressive as it is irrelevant.

Frank asks for a single piece of solitary evidence to back up his assertion. Danziger replies with the following atom-splitting chunk of Pure Genius:

Ed. We are not in court. I have been watching the development of this combination of loons and opportunists since it started. The Tea Party, the very name is ridiculous. Crazed fat people tortured by their lack of success in life, following the absolute worst of our politicians. Palin, Angel, Quayle’s rotten kid. These people are your choice for anything? The whole thing is based on unreality. Don’t you understand? And Mcveigh was reading that crazy shit from the enbd times or whagtever it is called.

If I was going to make up a stereotypical cornered-nitwit misdirecting non-response, I would not have penned one this utterly bereft of reason. It is adolescent in its mind-set: a set of assumptions based on hearsay and prejudice, into which knowledge of any kind cannot enter. The half-assed typing just seals the deal; I am dissapointed not to find ALLCAPS or a string of exclamation points melting into a string of 1's.

But wait, there's more:

In the end the government has GOT to work. We are in competition with the world. Car companies don’t compete. nation now compete. And these asses want to go back to the 1700′s. I’ve written enough. The whole thing is probably unstoppable except with another dumb war. That’s what usually happens. You can have it.

"Big Brother has to protect us, and if you disagree you're a Luddite, and Good Day, Sir! I'm going to slink off and Profoundly Despair For My Country. [music swells]"

This man believes himself wiser than the rest of us. He really really does. It makes me sad inside.

The Essayist #22: Politics and the Oedipus Effect

The Greeks believed in destiny. Unlike Old Testament prophets, Greek oracles weren't interested in changing behavior. If the gods let you know that something was going to happen, then that thing was going to happen. That thing was not going to change, no matter what you did. The message was not "Check yourself," but "Brace yourself."

Oedipus proves this perfectly. His parents, and then he, were told that Oedipus would murder his father and marry his mother. Everything that Laius, Jocasta, and Oedipus did to prevent this guarunteed that it would happen. By abandoning baby Oedipus on a hillside, Laius and Jocasta guaruntee that Oedipus grows up not knowing who his real parents are. By getting away from the people he thinks are his parents, Oedipus puts himself into his true parents' path. As Camille Paglia put it in Sexual Personae: "Oedipus, fleeing from his mother, runs right into her arms."