07 Nov 2011, 1:20 pm
Congress is often accused of discussing fripperies when there are more important issues at play. If the pre-2010 House, or the current Congress were to spend time debating a restatement of a superficial item, I would not be surprised at all if that were pounced upon by the right as evidence of Democrats being out of touch and unable to confront the economy. So, when the Republican-majority House is pushing ahead with a bill to reaffirm that the USA’s official motto is still its official motto, am I to take the silence on this from active members, or lack of opposition from the Tea Party as an endorsement of such time-wasting by legislators?
Certainly Republicans have said that they would not support ‘symbolic motions’ in Congress. Only one Republican (and only 8 Democrats) voted against, and he’s a Paulista. The rest of them think there's a good reason to redo something that was done only 5 years ago (for the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Bill).
Utterly unbecoming of me, but I can only conclude that all those of you who have not criticised this yet fully support it and think it’s more important than the House looking at the Obama jobs bill (it may be that they don’t like the Bill but they could be using the time to put it through debate, surely). After all, that's the line on OWS and the Freddie and Fanny bonuses, right?
Still, we do have evidence of support for someone who is behaving badly: ‘Tea Party’ representative Joe Walsh from Illinois is getting a 100% ‘True Blue’ rating from religious conservative group the Family Research Council. This is in recognition of his ‘unwavering support of the family’. The same Joe Walsh is over $100,000 dollars short on the child support he owes to his ex-wife and kids. So while he is supposedly supporting ‘the’ family, he’s being a little slack when it comes to ‘a’ family, which happens to be his own. He votes the right way, so that is enough, right?
So, from this I conclude that right wing Christians are perfectly fine with deadbeat dads who shirk their responsibilities, and more than that, think that it’s compatible with a ‘pro-family’ image. Again, I’ve not seen any of you rush to criticise Walsh or the FRC yet, so by the logic displayed over OWS and Fannie/Freddy, I can only conclude that hypocrisy is fine for you guys if it’s a GOP/Tea Party rep doing it.
To clarify:
1) Bonuses for FNMA and FRMC executives are no better than bonuses for any other executives at a bailed out bank or company. It may be that such bonuses are contractual, or relate to specific targets that the employees met, in which case they are understandable but look bad. It is often argued that not offering and paying bonuses means that an organisation won’t be able to compete for the best talent, but this tends to pale against the observation that the companies concerned failed despite such ‘talent’ and the bailouts should have been conditional.
2) 55 years ago, ‘In God We Trust’ became the national motto, superseding the unofficial (and more noble) ‘E Pluribus Unum’ which has been on the front of the Great Seal since 1782. Since then, besides a few lawsuits that have failed, there has been no serious attempt to replace it. The Supreme Court has ruled it fine aongside the First Amendment (because apparently it is so ubiquitous that it has lost religious meaning). So why now, during a period when the House is supposed to be bidden by the will of the people to do something about the budget and the economy do they have to spend time to ‘reaffirm’ the motto?
3) Someone who refuses to pay child support for his own kids does not support ‘the family’ in anything other than a theoretical manner.
4) In all cases, it may well be that not everyone who might has jumped up to condemn such situations and those involved. Lack of criticism is not the same thing as consent, approval or endorsement. I don’t actually think that you guys do consent, approve or endorse the HoR’s waste-of-time Bill, or the hypocrisy of Walsh’s FRC rating.
5) This post has two objectives. To point out a couple of areas in which certain elements of the US right are being hypocritical is one. To try and show the futility of the “X didn’t condemn A, therefore B’s arguments against Y fail’ logical fallacy. We can all do it, but it’s not big and it ain’t clever.
1 reprise) Oh, and OWS clearly have opposed the bailouts (to whoever) and bonuses (for whoever), so I’m not sure it’s a slam-dunk that they can be criticised for not specifically rallying against FNMA and FRMC payouts. It seems to be the whole culture of high rewards for people who took risks, failed, and got covered that they oppose. I thought that many ordinary people in the Tea Party had a similar view. But it seems that ‘divide and rule’ is the game, and some are all too eager to play.
Certainly Republicans have said that they would not support ‘symbolic motions’ in Congress. Only one Republican (and only 8 Democrats) voted against, and he’s a Paulista. The rest of them think there's a good reason to redo something that was done only 5 years ago (for the 50th anniversary of the 1956 Bill).
Utterly unbecoming of me, but I can only conclude that all those of you who have not criticised this yet fully support it and think it’s more important than the House looking at the Obama jobs bill (it may be that they don’t like the Bill but they could be using the time to put it through debate, surely). After all, that's the line on OWS and the Freddie and Fanny bonuses, right?
Still, we do have evidence of support for someone who is behaving badly: ‘Tea Party’ representative Joe Walsh from Illinois is getting a 100% ‘True Blue’ rating from religious conservative group the Family Research Council. This is in recognition of his ‘unwavering support of the family’. The same Joe Walsh is over $100,000 dollars short on the child support he owes to his ex-wife and kids. So while he is supposedly supporting ‘the’ family, he’s being a little slack when it comes to ‘a’ family, which happens to be his own. He votes the right way, so that is enough, right?
So, from this I conclude that right wing Christians are perfectly fine with deadbeat dads who shirk their responsibilities, and more than that, think that it’s compatible with a ‘pro-family’ image. Again, I’ve not seen any of you rush to criticise Walsh or the FRC yet, so by the logic displayed over OWS and Fannie/Freddy, I can only conclude that hypocrisy is fine for you guys if it’s a GOP/Tea Party rep doing it.
To clarify:
1) Bonuses for FNMA and FRMC executives are no better than bonuses for any other executives at a bailed out bank or company. It may be that such bonuses are contractual, or relate to specific targets that the employees met, in which case they are understandable but look bad. It is often argued that not offering and paying bonuses means that an organisation won’t be able to compete for the best talent, but this tends to pale against the observation that the companies concerned failed despite such ‘talent’ and the bailouts should have been conditional.
2) 55 years ago, ‘In God We Trust’ became the national motto, superseding the unofficial (and more noble) ‘E Pluribus Unum’ which has been on the front of the Great Seal since 1782. Since then, besides a few lawsuits that have failed, there has been no serious attempt to replace it. The Supreme Court has ruled it fine aongside the First Amendment (because apparently it is so ubiquitous that it has lost religious meaning). So why now, during a period when the House is supposed to be bidden by the will of the people to do something about the budget and the economy do they have to spend time to ‘reaffirm’ the motto?
3) Someone who refuses to pay child support for his own kids does not support ‘the family’ in anything other than a theoretical manner.
4) In all cases, it may well be that not everyone who might has jumped up to condemn such situations and those involved. Lack of criticism is not the same thing as consent, approval or endorsement. I don’t actually think that you guys do consent, approve or endorse the HoR’s waste-of-time Bill, or the hypocrisy of Walsh’s FRC rating.
5) This post has two objectives. To point out a couple of areas in which certain elements of the US right are being hypocritical is one. To try and show the futility of the “X didn’t condemn A, therefore B’s arguments against Y fail’ logical fallacy. We can all do it, but it’s not big and it ain’t clever.
1 reprise) Oh, and OWS clearly have opposed the bailouts (to whoever) and bonuses (for whoever), so I’m not sure it’s a slam-dunk that they can be criticised for not specifically rallying against FNMA and FRMC payouts. It seems to be the whole culture of high rewards for people who took risks, failed, and got covered that they oppose. I thought that many ordinary people in the Tea Party had a similar view. But it seems that ‘divide and rule’ is the game, and some are all too eager to play.
