Your generous
donations help keep
this site running.
Visa/MC/PayPal accepted.
The Washington, D.C. Council voted today to legalize medicinal marijuana. The Washington Post reported the story in a straightforward manner, which failed to note the amusing part of the story:
As an observer of politics, I sometimes have to admire the Republicans for their ability to coordinate the rollout of a talking point. Even if I don't agree with it, or think it is laughably in the realm of fantasy. Because Republicans are very, very good at this sort of thing, and they can sweep public opinion in their wake, at times, behind fears of things which do not exist and are not likely to exist in the near future (see: "death panels"). As I said, they're good at this sort of thing. But the current bugaboo circulating among Republicans is so hypothetical and so impossible to imagine happening, politically, that many Democrats may laugh at the issue and feel free to ignore it. Which would be a mistake (see: "death panels"). Laugh at it all you want (actually, the correct response to such myth-making), but don't ignore it.
I speak of the "value-added tax," or "VAT." Republicans are horrified that President Obama has a secret plan to pass this tax, and are shouting from the rooftops (of the nearest Fox News building) how strongly they're going to oppose it. The facts that Obama himself has come out against the idea, and it seems to have virtually no support in Congress, have not gotten in the way of Republicans doing so, either.
There was an amusing story in the news recently about some folks who got word that a beer company had sent hundreds of cases of beer to the local dump, because it was past its expiration date. Finding this a shame, these enterprising folks "liberated" themselves 50 cases of free beer, presumably to drink it forthwith. The most amusing part was the closing quote in the article, from the beer company's president: "Beer is a popular product."
Well, yes. It is. One might almost say beer sells itself. Almost, until you remember the zillions of dollars beer companies spend on advertising (see: any random sports event on television), and the fact that the bottles and boxes those folks swiped were prominently marked with the brand name of the beer. The motto of the story (for our purposes here today) is: Beer itself is popular -- so popular it does indeed "sell itself" -- but you've got to sell the brand for it to do any good for your particular company.
So I got my taxes done on time. Two whole hours early, if truth be told. Yes, I am one of those "wait until the last minute" type of guys, I admit. Which is why Thursday's column is being posted now, too (although I hasten to point out that it is still Thursday, in my time zone at least).
But, aside from the procrastinatory habits of yours truly, I did notice something while doing my taxes that bears commenting upon. Actually, I did not notice it, but rather someone else pointed it out to me -- and therein lies the problem.
My wife and I got an eight hundred dollar tax break this year. In fact, almost everybody got this break -- four hundred bucks per person. Apparently, it was passed as part of the stimulus package last year. I do remember, at the time, hearing something about how Obama's stimulus changed people's take-home pay by readjusting the federal withholding figures, but I had no idea it would turn into eight hundred bucks back on my tax form.
Protesters are in the streets. They're waving signs, and chanting loudly. Some appear in outlandish dress, and even more have outlandish slogans written on their signs and banners. But, when you look a little closer, the group is not one, but rather a collection of many groups. These subgroups within the general coalition may agree on a few certain ideals, but they may also disagree on many others, as they may disagree on tactics to right their perceived wrongs. There is a big discussion amongst the groups as to whether working within the existing political two-party establishment is the best way forward (since one party does exist which seems to at least partially share their aims), or whether working outside the whole establishment is better (since supporting that party has led to disappointments in the recent past -- and indeed, could be said to have created much of the situation being protested in the first place). At the fringes of the group there are those whose talk can only be described as "militant," who are advocating violence to achieve their aims.
What I just wrote could describe tomorrow's "first anniversary" Tea Party rallies. Or it could describe a late-1960s anti-war rally. About the only thing these two historical eras have in common is the age of the driving force behind the protests. In other words, don't look now, but the Baby Boomers are back in the streets.
[Apologies for posting a repeat of an old column here, but I am busy doing my taxes, so didn't have the time to write today. This column originally ran here exactly one year ago today, and was written right before the first "tax day tea parties" took place. It's hard to believe, looking back, that this entire movement is only one year old, but they began on tax day, 2009. Since Thursday will likely see large anniversary rallies and marches by the Tea Party folks, I thought it was a good time to take a look back at the advice I gave to them last year, and the history of the Boston Tea Party as well. So, if you'll forgive me for the repeat column, while I scurry around at the last minute to get my taxes done, I promise we'll resume new columns starting tomorrow.]
Tea doesn't get much respect in America. This historical snubbing will continue Wednesday, with protests across America meant to evoke the Boston Tea Party, a seminal event in the foundation of our county. How effective these protests will be is going to be open to interpretation, however.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid already had a lot of things on his plate to get done in the Senate this year, even before last week's news broke. Now he's facing two more big issues in the midst of an election year (and in the midst of a fight for his own political life in Nevada) -- a new nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia, and an upcoming confirmation battle over a Supreme Court nomination. Given that Harry Reid's Senate is not exactly known for moving with blinding speed (to be fair, few Senates are), one has to wonder whether Harry Reid can deliver on some of these big issues before the midterm elections or not.
The three major issues which Reid presently faces are the "New START" treaty, the Supreme Court nomination battle, and Wall Street reform. There are other issues just as large (and just as confrontational) which conventional Washington wisdom has already decided Reid isn't even going to tackle in an election year (comprehensive immigration reform and a new energy policy, to name two of the biggest), although it must be said that politics is always fluid, so this conventional wisdom may prove wrong by November. Add to this the regular issues which the Senate must deal with (such as the budget), as well as pressing political problems like jobs legislation, and it's pretty easy to see that Reid faces an overwhelming list of things to do this year.
The Cold War has officially jumped the shark.
Yesterday, President Obama signed a strategic arms reduction treaty (the "New START") with the president of Russia. This is the first nuclear warhead treaty with Russia in 20 years. It will reduce both countries' stockpiles of nuclear warheads by one-third. And, as far as the network news in America was concerned, it was a very ho-hum story.
To me, this marks a low point in television "journalism" -- and, these days, that's hard to do, since they're all in a rush to bottom-feeding anyway. Last night, the lead story on every network should have been the treaty signing. It wasn't. Leading the news was the story of a monumentally stupid diplomat sneaking a smoke in an airplane bathroom, which was played for all the terrorism fear the networks could manage. Following this was the continuing story of the mine disaster in West Virginia, where nothing much happened (which didn't stop the networks from in-depth reporting on the nothing which had happened). Following this -- you simply cannot make this stuff up -- was Tiger Woods' return to professional golf.
As an afterthought, the two nations with over 90 percent of the nuclear weapons on the planet agreed to get rid of a substantial number of them, which would bring the nuclear arms race back to levels the world has not seen since the 1960s. Obviously, for news program directors, not that big a deal (I do have to give credit to PBS' News Hour for not only running it as the lead story, but for taking 20 minutes out of the hour to discuss it -- but then PBS is always better at this sort of thing).
I've written here before in defense of Sarah Palin, and since the two just recently shared a campaign rally stage, I thought it'd be timely to write at least a partial defense of Michele Bachmann today. Because a recent comment by the Minnesota Representative has gotten a lot of ridicule from the left side of the blogosphere, but nobody bothers to point out that she's actually right in what she says about the U.S. Census Bureau and Japanese internment during World War II. This is intellectually dishonest, I feel, which is why I have to make the attempt to defend her words.
This site will go "dark" on Thursday, April 8, 2010, for a few hours. This is due to maintanence issues beyond our control, as our local ISP upgrades the server which hosts this site. The target hour for the site to be down is noon, Pacific Time. They hope to have the server (and hence the site) back up and running within two or three hours, so if you're seeing this message past noon Pacific Thursday, then the site is likely already back up. We regret the inconvenience to our readers, and we apologize in advance for the short notice.
-- Chris Weigant
