All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Tendrin]

Is it fascism yet?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewals...h=673767a0693d

TOPLINE Trump campaign lawyer Joseph diGenova said Monday that Christopher Krebs — a former federal cybersecurity official fired for doubting President Trump’s voter fraud myths — should be “taken out at dawn and shot,” a shocking insinuation by a member of the president’s legal team.

[worstblogever]

Is it fascism yet?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joewals...h=673767a0693d

Oh, it's been for some time now. The new administration MUST take steps to make sure some things never happen again, and to undo horrible things that have been done (like the return of the firing squad for federal prisioners, per AG William Barr).

[Tendrin]

Oh, it's been for some time now. The new administration MUST take steps to make sure some things never happen again, and to undo horrible things that have been done (like the return of the firing squad for federal prisioners, per AG William Barr).

Oh, I agree with you. The question was not seriously asked.

[worstblogever]

On this date in 2014, "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" ran a profile of of Charles Fuqua, a candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives in 2012, who after winning the Republican primary for his seat, the press started to notice had some interesting opinions that he wrote about in his book, “God’s Law”. Like say, that all Muslims should be expelled from the United States. Or that parents should have the right to execute their children, if they’re too “rebellious” by stoning them to death. As you might expect, he did not win office, and seems to know he never will, as he hasn’t resurfaced since in an election.

On this date in 2015, we published our original "Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day" profile of Debbie Dunnegan Waters, the County Recorder for Jefferson County, Missouri. But in October 2014, she drew a hell of a lot of attention after she got on Facebook to post some of her deep thoughts, wondering to everyone why the military just doesn’t take out President Barack Obama in a coup, writing, "I have a question for all my friends who have served or are currently serving in our military … having not put on a uniform nor taken any type military oath, there has to be something that I am just not aware of. But I cannot and do not understand why no action is being taken against our domestic enemy. I know he is supposedly the commander in chief, but the constitution gives you the authority. What am I missing? Thank you for your bravery and may God keep you safe.” Now, obviously, what Ms. Dunnegan Waters was missing was how our nation’s military swear an oath to uphold the constitution, and serving the orders of the rightfully elected president, our chief executive, have a lot to do with that. But when media outlets reported on her comments, she claimed that she meant “no ill intent” by suggesting a military coup take place and that the media was taking something “simple and innocent and twisting it”.

On this date in 2016, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” published a profile about Mitch Holmes, who served as a Kansas state senator from 2012 through 2012, and prior to that, he spent eight years serving in the Kansas House of Representatives. Holmes has a brutally conservative voting record that includes sponsoring a bill to prevent “dismemberment abortions” (to terrify anyone who thinks that’s a thing), support for the failed policy of trying to drug test welfare recipients, and trying to make it easier to impeach Kansas Supreme Court judges (which he resents for overturning a lot of the unconstitutional ideas Holmes and the Kansas GOP have sent to the desk of Gov. Sam Brownback to get rubber-stamped). What truly made Mitch Holmes infamous, though, even among in one of the most conservative state legislatures in the country, was in January of 2016, where for whatever reason, he decided that the State Senate Committee on Ethics and Elections should have an 11 point dress code, all of which was directed at what women wear, and not men. A bipartisan effort by the women of the Kansas State legislature all united to tell Holmes to effectively get bent, and the weight of both Democrats and Republicans giving him the business wilted Holmes enough to warrant an apology for his dress code suggestions. Holmes retired as an embarrassment in 2016.

One this date in both 2017, as well as 2018, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” profiled Jason Spencer, a member of the Georgia House of Representatives since the Tea Party Wave in 2010, pictured above with a memorial to another fellow loser from below the Mason-Dixon Line. That’s not a coincidental photo, by any chance, as Spencer’s love of monuments to a failed rebellion fought because 19th century plantation owners were not about to let the federal government tell them they couldn’t keep slaves. And when a Democratic colleague, LaDawn Jones, saw him post the above photo she commented that he should “that he should get it in … before it is torn down.” Spencer did not take her observation well, and began to retort in a way that sounded like he was threatening to lynch her, responding, “You got that right, they go missing in the Okefenokee .Too many necks they are red around here. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. I cant guarantee you won’t be met with torches but something a lot more definitive.” And after this ugly exchange on social media, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution reached him for comment, he doubled down. Now, if you still have any doubts about whether or not Jason Spencer is a bigoted ***hole, rest assured, there’s more. In November of 2016, he sponsored a ban on burqas in his state. Would you expect that Jason Spencer is also hell bent on anti-immigration law while he’s at it? Because, yeah, he’s got that kind of hatred in spades, too. Back in 2011, while still a freshman lawmaker, he voted for HB 87, Georgia’s draconian anti-immigration law that was so brilliant, it left the state’s agriculture industry with crops rotting in the sun and no workers available to harvest them. Spencer also voted for the state to establish “English only” driver’s tests, which, guess what, the Supreme Court has already ruled that sort of thing unconstitutional. But not all of Jason Spencer’s terrible votes are based on bigotry, some are just motivated by being steeped in conservative ideology that’s either going to be overturned by courts, like his vote for a 20 week abortion ban, his vote to require a Ten Commandments monument be built at the Georgia capitol (again, one state over in Alabama this sort of idiocy was deemed unconstitutional, see Roy Moore), or his desire to see welfare recipients forced to undergo drug testing (a violation of their fourth amendment rights). In 2018, Jason Spencer was one of several Republicans who were interviewed by Sasha Baron Cohen in disguise on his Showtime series “Who is America?”, and in his meeting with Cohen, he was inexplicably suckered into dropping his pants and chasing Cohen around threatening him to touch him with his exposed buttocks, as well as shouting the n-word several times as a part of “anti-terrorist training” on the show, purportedly to “avoid being kidnapped”. Shortly after the footage made it to air and made Spencer even more of a laughing stock than he should have been, he resigned and did not run for re-election. As such, we will also set aside his profile at this time, and go ahead and take a look at a different wacky Republican today instead. (Current crazy/stupid scoreboard, is now 802-40, since this was established in July 2014.)

[worstblogever]

Van Wanggaard

On this date one year ago, “Crazy/Stupid Republican of the Day” had its first profile of Wisconsin State Senator Van Wanggaard, who prior to reaching office, was a 29 year veteran of the Racine Police Department. We will pause for a moment for everyone to giggle, because yes, his name sounds like an SUV that looks like a giant athletic supporter.

Alright, so Van Wanggaard (snicker) first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate in 2006 in District 21 unsuccessfully, before being narrowly elected to office for the first time back in the 2010 Tea Party Wave. Almost immediately upon taking power in Wisconsin in 2011, Gov. Scott Walker and the now GOP-controlled legislature pushed legislation forward to strip voting rights, restructure the district map to gerrymander themselves in control for a decade, and then tried to push forward right-to-work legislation within months of Wanggaard’s first term in office. Outraged constituents were out protesting in force, and signatures were gathered to recall Gov. Walker, and while they were at it, recall several other officials elected in 2010 who carried out their regressive agenda. Among four Republican State Senators facing recall in 2012 was Wanggaard.

And… Van Wanggaard was defeated by Democrat John Lehman over 700 votes in the recall election… and then demanded a recount, simply hoping to keep Lehman out of office as long as possible. The recount showed he actually lost by over 800 votes. Still, the legislative map being already redrawn by Republicans meant District 21 would be far more conservative in the next election in the normal cycle (it is now shaped like a horseshoe, and went from being a 50/50 Democrat to Republican split to now being +16 Republican). John Lehman didn’t even bother running for re-election at those odds, and Wanggaard won with 67% of the vote. He won re-election again in 2018 with 58% of the vote (aided by “accidentally” using state websites to link to his own campaign’s Twitter accounts, an ethics violation), and in the time he’s been in office, Wanggaard has racked up a completely partisan voting record, including anti-choice legislation and support for bills to cut welfare benefits make it harder to get government assistance, in general.

But in 2015, only a few months into Van Wanggaard’s second run in office, he turned heads with his nonchalant attitude about guns. Not just by sponsoring legislation to try to allow off-duty and retired police officers to carry guns on public school campuses, but he boasted that he was strapped while serving on committee meetings where the bill was being debated, because of course the ex-cop with a name like Van Wanggaard needs to overcompensate. He's tried to completely eliminate the 48 hour waiting period for background checks to get a gun, because holy s***, what?

In 2020, Wanggaard has responded to the threat of the Covid-19 pandemic by… doing nothing about it to help the living and instead sponsoring AB179, to help children who are “born alive” after an abortion, even though the current timeline when abortions are allowed doesn’t meet the requirements to even be declared alive scientifically. Okay, we’re not being fair… Van Wanggard did less than nothing, instead publicly feuding with Gov. Tony Evers and Democrats tooth and nail against mask mandates. And, pardon our language, but this bloated sack of s*** had the audacity to claim in a video interview in October of 2020 that Covid-19 had not killed anyone under the age of 20, and that there was no proof that such a person infected was capable of spreading the disease back to adults. (Science fact check: There is, they can, and “F*** you Van Wanggaard for spreading misinformation that was going to get people killed.)

The only time he wanted people not to be allowed in public? Why, of course if was when BlackLivesMatter protesters were in Madison, and on June 24th, 2020, Wanggaard was enraged about a statue of a Confederate general being beheaded and declared the protests “bulls***”. That came after weeks of Wanggaard throwing tantrums in the Wisconsin State Senate about reforms pitched by Democrats that would curtail police violence. Because OF COURSE the ex-cop doesn’t see any need to change. And of course when Kyle Rittenhouse murdered two protesters in Kenosha in August, Wanggaard didn’t blame the murderer, he blamed Governor Tony Evers for not dispersing the protests that the little bastard turned up to murder people at.

Van Wanggaard will be up for re-election in 2022, and it remains to be seen if his district will be redrawn, or if the configuration of the electoral map in Wisconsin will remain the same and make it easy for him to remain in power.

[Mister Mets]

I assume that you are referring to arts or humanities majors, because of course conservatives would be so short sighted to assume that there is absolutely no value in learning skills that aren't directly employable straight out of college, and that if we just raised an entire society of accountants and programmers our culture wouldn't suffer at all. But you really only have to look at the wide disparity in cultural output between the left and right to see the problem with that line of reasoning. It's not so much that conservatives are inherently incapable of producing anything of artistic value, it's just that they're pretty much all told from a young age that pursuing these dreams is a waste of time and that they should focus on being self-sufficient as quickly as possible. And then they turn around and complain that their views aren't adequately represented in movies and shows, and their only recourse is to hastily slap together some truly awful tripe that not even the most diehard of true believers can sit through.

You're going with really extreme takes on conservative arguments, and changing the goal posts from professions that offer steady income versus high risk-high reward professions to STEM VS Art.

The question here isn't about the value provided by the arts and the humanities, but whether it should be subsidized.

It's also worth noting that people can be artists and make a living. Stephen King was an English teacher. Bob Newhart was an accountant and a copywriter. Ava Duvernay was a publicist.

One can be a good artist without going six figures into debt to get a college degree. We can also have a debate about whether we should have the government subsidize hundreds of actors, writers, dancers, etc for the sake of a handful who might go on to make a big difference, which also is going to create all sorts of perverse incentives (Would it have been good if the Trump administration could control what artistic projects get financing?)

You have an interesting perspective on why liberals are overrepresented in the creative fields. I do suspect that there's more to it, including an unwillingness of progressive gatekeepers to hire open conservatives, the type of kids who are interesting in acting, etc.

That more or less sums it up. I would add one point, though. I think sometimes conservatives are intentionally ham-fisted in that hastily slapped together tripe. They often seem to have a vested interest in discrediting the art of comedy as a means of speaking truth to power. For instance, in 2007, FOX tried out a conservative answer to the Daily Show. It was called the Half-Hour News Hour, and it was horrible, not because it was conservative, but because the jokes were forced instead of coming organically from the raw material.

To be fair, there has been a lot of garbage from progressives.

But there are some issues with a lot of conservative art. Attempts to copy often lead to caricatures.

Conservatives can be funny, they're just very hard to find. For example, Schwartzneggar, Kelsey Grammar and Sam Riami is rumored to be conservative. Dennis Miller was funny once upon a time, before 9/11 broke him. But you're right that many conservatives fail to get why comedy is funny, they like punching down and are more prone to stepping on third rails.

This gets to a different question, but while punching down can be immoral, it can also be funny.

As for third rails, there would be the other question of why the third rails conservatives step on are more likely to be career-ending than the third rails liberals step on.

[Tami]

You're going with really extreme takes on conservative arguments, and changing the goal posts from professions that offer steady income versus high risk-high reward professions to STEM VS Art.

The question here isn't about the value provided by the arts and the humanities, but whether it should be subsidized.

It's also worth noting that people can be artists and make a living. Stephen King was an English teacher. Bob Newhart was an accountant and a copywriter. Ava Duvernay was a publicist.

One can be a good artist without going six figures into debt to get a college degree. We can also have a debate about whether we should have the government subsidize hundreds of actors, writers, dancers, etc for the sake of a handful who might go on to make a big difference, which also is going to create all sorts of perverse incentives (Would it have been good if the Trump administration could control what artistic projects get financing?)

You have an interesting perspective on why liberals are overrepresented in the creative fields. I do suspect that there's more to it, including an unwillingness of progressive gatekeepers to hire open conservatives, the type of kids who are interesting in acting, etc.

To be fair, there has been a lot of garbage from progressives.

But there are some issues with a lot of conservative art. Attempts to copy often lead to caricatures.

This gets to a different question, but while punching down can be immoral, it can also be funny.

As for third rails, there would be the other question of why the third rails conservatives step on are more likely to be career-ending than the third rails liberals step on.

The flexibility that comes with not feeling like you have to conform to a rigorously and strictly defined persona. Conservatives always color within the lines, after swiping the other's crayons without permission and refusing to give them back. Democrats share their crayons with each other, work alone or collaboratively, and feel free to color in the lines, outside the lines, or to create an entirely new image devoid of lines.

[PwrdOn]

You're going with really extreme takes on conservative arguments, and changing the goal posts from professions that offer steady income versus high risk-high reward professions to STEM VS Art.

The question here isn't about the value provided by the arts and the humanities, but whether it should be subsidized.

It's also worth noting that people can be artists and make a living. Stephen King was an English teacher. Bob Newhart was an accountant and a copywriter. Ava Duvernay was a publicist.

One can be a good artist without going six figures into debt to get a college degree. We can also have a debate about whether we should have the government subsidize hundreds of actors, writers, dancers, etc for the sake of a handful who might go on to make a big difference, which also is going to create all sorts of perverse incentives (Would it have been good if the Trump administration could control what artistic projects get financing?)

You have an interesting perspective on why liberals are overrepresented in the creative fields. I do suspect that there's more to it, including an unwillingness of progressive gatekeepers to hire open conservatives, the type of kids who are interesting in acting, etc.

Historically, artists have always required subsidies to survive, think about how the Medicis patronized the works of da Vinci and Michelangelo, none of those would have ever come into being if the artists had purely commercial incentives. The thing is that good art is one of those things that the general public benefits from the presence of, but is largely unwilling to pay for directly, whereas the kind of stuff that is marketable to mass audiences tends to be forgotten rather quickly. So if you want to create the kind of art that leaves a lasting cultural legacy, you do need the sponsorship of wealthy benefactors, or in modern times, support from the state, to give artists the room to be creative without having to spend all their time churning out commercialized garbage just to pay the bills. Not all of these are going to turn out to be good, but the small handful of great works that come out of it will be well worth the financial investment in the long term.

[DrNewGod]

Historically, artists have always required subsidies to survive, think about how the Medicis patronized the works of da Vinci and Michelangelo, none of those would have ever come into being if the artists had purely commercial incentives. The thing is that good art is one of those things that the general public benefits from the presence of, but is largely unwilling to pay for directly, whereas the kind of stuff that is marketable to mass audiences tends to be forgotten rather quickly. So if you want to create the kind of art that leaves a lasting cultural legacy, you do need the sponsorship of wealthy benefactors, or in modern times, support from the state, to give artists the room to be creative without having to spend all their time churning out commercialized garbage just to pay the bills. Not all of these are going to turn out to be good, but the small handful of great works that come out of it will be well worth the financial investment in the long term.

Did I hear somebody say "superhero films"?

[SUPERECWFAN1]

Oh, it's been for some time now. The new administration MUST take steps to make sure some things never happen again, and to undo horrible things that have been done (like the return of the firing squad for federal prisioners, per AG William Barr).

The next DOJ administration once Barr is shown the door needs an investigation in Barr and his actions of prior staff. That they have to look at making the agency its neutral office and see how wrong it went.

[BeastieRunner]

The next DOJ administration once Barr is shown the door needs an investigation in Barr and his actions of prior staff. That they have to look at making the agency its neutral office and see how wrong it went.

There's a 10 year wait on all that.

You can't just investigate and go after an exiting administration, which is why we have that law.

Unless there is something big there that gets everyone on board, people need to understand Trump and his cronies probably won't be facing the music except at a state level.

[DrNewGod]

There's a 10 year wait on all that.

You can't just investigate and go after an exiting administration, which is why we have that law.

Unless there is something big there that gets everyone on board, people need to understand Trump and his cronies probably won't be facing the music except at a state level.

I'm afraid that you're correct. As much as Trump and his cronies have it coming, as satisfying as it might be, the precedent would be too dangerous. Nor do I think that congress is going to be able to muster the votes for an investigation of their own.

[Amadeus Arkham]

[Adam Allen]

I'm afraid that you're correct. As much as Trump and his cronies have it coming, as satisfying as it might be, the precedent would be too dangerous. Nor do I think that congress is going to be able to muster the votes for an investigation of their own.

Sure, which is why W's administration was not charged with war crimes like they should have been. But, this administration has been even worse, and has been so incredibly blatant about its corruption, that I think the question really does need to be considered, what don't we want a sitting president to feel certain he won't be prosecuted for, once out of office?

There should be a line, right? I mean -- this is already the office that by definition gets to decide to kill almost anyone, if they think it's justified. I mean, the military has an obligation to not follow an illegal order ... but, that unfortunately is not always a completely clear distinction.

[Hellion]

aaaaand AG Barr may be headed out the door real soon. He interviewed with the Associated Press and said no substantial fraud that would change the outcome of the election has been found so far. I suspect Trump will Tweet him a pink slip any time now.