Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

It may be Easter, but stupid never takes a holiday. The Cons' knee-jerk "blame Obama first" reflex has been on magnificent display. Now they're blaming him for pirates:

For a while, "soft on communism" was all the rage in conservative circles. That eventually shifted to "soft on terrorism." Now, get ready for "soft on piracy."

The National Review's Victor Davis Hanson wrote yesterday that he has "three thoughts about the pirates" from Somalia, before making four points. His third was arguably the most interesting. (via Isaac Chotiner)

In academic circles the last two decades, pirates have been romanticized in a variety of contexts -- as in pirates being contrarian individualists, admirable anarchists, Marxist redistributionists, sexually ambiguous, cross-dressing, transgendered libertines, and Lotus-eater-like sensualists, rather than as murderous criminals. Who knows, maybe such esoteric theorizing has filtered down to the U.S. State Department.

Yes, the U.S. State Department can't get Johnny Depp and Keira Knightley out of their minds, so officials can't quite bring themselves to care about well-armed thugs off the coast of Somalia.

[snip]

We're supposed to believe that the piracy, in other words, is a result of President Obama's departure from Bush/Cheney-style "toughness."

It's difficult to take such transparent nonsense seriously, but I suppose it couldn't hurt to point out that piracy off the coast of Somalia began in earnest in 2005 and 2006. By the end of Bush's second term, offshore banditry had become the single biggest money-maker in Somalia's economy.

Just in case that canard wasn't ridiculous enough, they're also upset over the Obama family's new dog:

The American public has always had a fascination with White House pets; FDR's Fala, LBJ's beagles, Jerry Ford's Liberty, and George W. Bush's Jeff Gannon. So today word gets out on the Obama's puppy selection and while most of the world is "awwwwwing" wingnuts choose to "arrgh".

[snip]

Something called The Obama Legacy says:

Bo, we feel you're pain. You'll be in our prayers. I know that Bo will be properly cared for, as he will probably have a Dog Nanny 24/7. Proper care is not my concern. I hope that he will receive the love that he deserves and not just be a political ornament at the White House.

[sound of head banging against the wall] How could 52% of the people be so wrong? Political hypnosis? A cult of personality?

I don't think the "head banging on the wall" is just an expression. It's a feature.

[snip]

JammieWearingFool seems unhappy because the Obama's named their dog Bo. Better safe than sorry. Had the first family named their dog something like Allahu Akbark, it might have been enough to send someone on a cop-killing spree.

Filling in over at Michelle Malkin's place (while Michelle takes a few days off to get her bile ducts enlarged so they can handle a heavier load) is minor league wingnut Doug Powers who, lacking any one thing to hook onto, goes full metal Leno with painful results. Even the crickets are yawning.

If Obama cured cancer, they'd complain about overpopulation.

I do believe they would.

When they haven't been busy whining about pirates and puppies, they've been wailing about all the nasty foreign influence on the Supremes:

For several years, if a Supreme Court ruling even acknowledges international legal trends, many conservatives throw quite a fit. In 2005, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay raised the specter of impeaching judges who cite foreign law in court rulings. The idea didn't go anywhere, but conservative ire has only grown since.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg doesn't understand what all the fuss is about.

In wide-ranging remarks [at the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University], Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg defended the use of foreign law by American judges.... Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

"Why shouldn't we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?" she asked.

She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.

The Canadian Supreme Court, she said, is "probably cited more widely abroad than the U.S. Supreme Court." There is one reason for that, she said: "You will not be listened to if you don't listen to others."

[snip]

Not surprisingly, several conservative bloggers are fuming over Ginsburg's remarks. One item, typical of the criticisms, argued, "Having foreign laws guide American law is unconstitutional.... The justices are wrong in following foreign law -- or even referring to them (with the exceptions being the Magna Carte and British common law)."

And, of course, all that blather is completely fucking insane. Go figure.

Moving on to the hypocrisy part of our program, you'll recall way back when leading Con politicians were howling about the stimulus by saying things like, "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job" and “When it comes to slow-moving government spending programs, it’s clear that it doesn’t create the jobs or preserve the jobs that need to happen." Not a single Con in the House voted for the stimulus, and only three did in the Senate. All of them were dead sure that government spending wouldn't help businesses. Interesting, then, to hear them howling now:

However, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced plans to end production of the F-22 at the current 187 planes — down from the 381 planes the government was expected to order — many of these same conservatives were up in arms over the jobs that would be lost.

Chambliss, in particular, said that he was concerned people in his state would lose jobs if F-22 production was cut, because “when it comes to stimulating the economy, there’s no better way to do it than to spend it in the defense community.” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who also voted against the economic recovery package, similarly said, “I also believe that it is unacceptable that this administration wants to eliminate 2,000 jobs in Marietta and potentially 95,000 jobs nationwide at a time when unemployment rates are rising across the country.”

Today on ABC’s This week, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman called out this hypocrisy:

KRUGMAN: What’s so wonderful is watching Republican congressmen saying, “But this will cost jobs!” The very same Republican congressmen who were denouncing the stimulus, saying government spending never creates jobs, but cutting defense spending costs jobs. It’s wonderful.

And, of course, wrong:

Military correspondent David Axe has pointed out that it’s possible very few workers will lose their jobs because of Gates’s announcement. In fact, thousands of workers will likely be “snapped up for active production lines churning out F-16s, F-35s, C-130s and modernized C-5s for Lockheed, not to mention the prospect that industry rivals Boeing and Northrop might lure Lockheed workers for their own active production lines for the F-15, F/A-18 and others.”

Amazing how they're either wrong, hypocritical or both nearly 100% of the time. I believe the .00001% of the time when they're correct is just a matter of random chance.

No wonder they're in such bad shape:

While I think it is premature to write an obituary for the Republican Party, it's hard not to watch this clip and not come to the conclusion that the party is in critical condition.

What is a consensus amongst the talking heads is that the GOP is lost today: no leader, no clear idea of what values to champion, no clear idea if it should be centrist or move even further to the right. Of all the things that the Bush administration destroyed in their term of office, their own party is probably the most surprising.

[snip]

Ultimately, the group agrees that it remains to be seen whose idea will resonate with the general public, but it appears that no one currently vying for the top role has been able to offer an idea that we haven't seen for the last 30 years. So have I got this straight? No obvious leader, rudderless and no new ideas?

Awwww....couldn't happen to a more deserving party.

Excuse me. I need to go acquire an onion so that my tears for them look somewhat convincing. Oh, and does anyone have a miniature violin they can lend me?