The conservative vision of America: a spoiled brat

The conservative vision of America in the world is that of a spoiled child. To them, the United States is like that boy we all know whose mommy has spent his whole life telling him how special he is, how uniquely amazing he is, how he should be immune from any consequences the big, bad world might impose for improper behavior because that special little angel can’t possibly do any wrong. The boy's self-esteem must be protected at any cost, even if it means he isn't expected to learn any important life lessons. He is never told he is doing something wrong because that might harm his precious self-esteem. And may God protect the person who suggest that the boy is occasionally imperfect, for the wrath of the boy’s enabler shall be merciless. This is how conservatives treat America in the world.

Secularism and civilization

The riots in the Islamic world over an anti-Islamic video (ie: people responding to vile accusations against them by proving them true) have reinforced one thing for me. The biggest single indicator of a civilized society today is the degree to which that society is influenced by the separation of church and state.

People have every right to follow their religious faith in their own lives. They do not have the right to impose their faith on everyone else. Civilized societies recognize this. Regressive ones do not.

The insidiousness of lazy, casual bias

In a rapidly changing landscape, there is one article of faith among the pooh-bahs of the press: the main reason that traditional media are better than the new media is trustworthiness. Blogs, Twitter and other Internet outlets merely echo rumor and speculation, often because of an ideological agenda. Newspapers, magazines and broadcasters are superior because they always verify claims before publishing them. Or at least that's the contention.

The actions of the Glens Falls Post-Star give lie to this claim and also highlights the daily's rapidly declining standards. 

The Post-Star has long been a divisive part of the community with its editorials reflexively hostile to teachers unions. These editorials wrongly demonize teachers for wanted to be treated like high-qualified professionals when the real culprit for high school taxes is a completely insane structure of education funding in the state. However, a recent editorial highlights just how lazy and casual this bias is.

Its October 1 "Boos and Bravos" section, which states the paper's formal editorial opinion, deplored the 16-month contract impasse between the teachers union and the school board in Warrensburg. Pretty vanilla stuff. In the past, the paper has also called for more transparency in budget negotiations. No objection there.

But the paper goes on to declare that because of the wording of state education law, it can only surmise that this is a stall tactic by the teachers union...

Wait, what?

I thought they were a newspaper. Why do they have to "surmise"?

If they wanted, they could do some actual journalism to try to reveal whether the impasse really was because of a "stall tactic" or whether there was some other reason. 

What would a responsible news outlet would do? Do in a little digging, find out the truth and then let that reality guide their editorial opinion 

Instead, the paper does exactly what the pooh-bahs so often convict the new media of doing: publishing reckless, inflammatory speculation to suit an ideological agenda.

The previous week, the paper did publish a news article on the impasse. But the article did not quote district or union officials as to their positions. 

The paper may or may not have reported on such details in the past, but if it had, then it could have cited those details rather than just "surmising." 

It just assumes that this particular impasse is the teachers fault -- a position that conveniently correlates with its past editorials against teachers unions -- for no concrete reason. This sort of lazy, casual bias is the most insidious kind.

The gutting of The Post-Star's staff and the economic straits of its parent company have been widely chronicled in this blog.

Maybe The Post-Star doesn't have the resources to do decent journalism of the sort that getting to the bottom of this story might require. But if they can't inform the public about what's going on in Warrensburg, then it should remain silent until it's willing and able do its job. Reckless speculation with no stated basis in fact is beneath what a purportedly responsible news organization should be engaging in.

Pro-civil rights senator's defeat sends wrong messages

You often hear people whining that elected officials have no independent thought, that they merely vote the party line, that they just stick their finger in the wind rather than do what's right. And yet when a politician does show independent thought, bucks the party line and does what he thinks is right, the public too often punishes him. The situation of New York state Sen. Roy McDonald is a case in point.

McDonald was one of four Republicans senators who voted in 2011 to approve a marriage equality law in the state. Without those four votes, the measure would have failed in the GOP-controlled chamber.

As a result, McDonald, who'd never faced a primary challenge to his re-election, was opposed by Kathy Marchione. As Saratoga County clerk, Marchione once pulled a George Wallace, threatening not to apply the same-sex marriage law if it passed.

Marchione very narrowly won the Republican primary. McDonald decided he wouldn't contest the general election, despite having a slot on the Independence Party line.

The most common criticism of his vote in favor of civil rights for gay people seemed to be that he went against the will of the majority of his constituents. This is debatable. But even if that was true, his vote was to respect his oath of office which demanded that he respect the New York and US constitutions, both of which contain equal protection clauses.

Another, more stupid, criticism was that McDonald only did this to get 'gay money,' after the revelation that gay rights groups had donated to his campaign. In reality, if he'd taken the easy way out and voted against gay marriage, he never would've had a far right primary opponent and wouldn't have needed the 'gay money.' Needless to say, much 'anti-gay money' was funneled to Marchione's campaign as well.

The general election will be interesting since Marchione, whose campaign was almost entirely based on her opposition to civil rights for gays, will face openly-gay Democrat Robin Andrews.

It was surely unpleasant for someone with such a conservative voting record as McDonald's to be so crucified by the neo-Taliban for a single vote. Still, it's unfortunate that he choose to not contest the general election. Instead, he let a tiny fringe kick him out of office.

Civil rights opponents are crowing about McDonald's primary defeat. But they should be careful to overestimate their victory. All three other Republican legislators who voted for civil rights and contested primaries won those elections, though some were subjected to some disgusting bigotry as well. Secondly, McDonald was rejected by only a tiny minority of his constituents, all from one party. We'll never know how he would've fared had he subjected himself to the entire electorate.   

Each New York senate district contains around 311,000 people.  About 14,500 people voted in the GOP primary. Thus, his fate as an elected representative was decided by fewer than 5% of his constituents, all from a single party, and only a razor thin majority of that rejected him. The other 95% won't even have a say. This is democracy?

Sen. McDonald lost his job because 2.4% of his constituents, all from a single party, didn't like the job he was doing. There's something about this that fundamentally doesn't sit well.

He should've stayed in the race. His job as senator was given to him by everybody in the district; his service shouldn't be taken away from everyone else just because 2.4% of them didn't like one of his votes.

Licensing bicyclists? Not yet.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that the city's government has come up with a money-making scheme to license bicyclists.

In general, I'm not a big fan of licensing bikes. It's not because I'm a biker myself and don't want to give the government any more of my money. It's because the infrastructure is not set up to permit bikers to get from here to there in a safe, easy, reasonable manner.

A biker who strictly follows the rules of the road to the letter 100 percent of the time will either not get anywhere or will get killed or maimed. As someone who averages 1500-2000 miles a year on such devices, I can tell you this is an indisputable fact.

A few examples...

Turning left legally requires bikers to get into the same turning lane as motor vehicles. In many places, particularly soulless suburbia, this means taking your life in your own hand. If you live in this area, try turning left from Route 9 (going north) in Queensbury on to Aviation Road using the legally correct lane. Make sure you have a friend nearby to call 9-1-1.

Another good example is stoplights. Many of them will not turn green if only a bicycle is waiting because its sensors do not recognize the bike, thus leaving the biker with no legal option.

Governments should not 'pull a Cuomo' on this one. If they insist on this money grab, upgrade the infrastructure first. Make it so bikers can follow the law safely and efficiently before enacting such a scheme.

Romney disses veterans

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney found himself in a bit of bother after a video was leaked of him calling 47% of Americans leeches. Conveniently, he said there is also 47% who will vote for the president no matter what and who are dependent on government.

My dad is one of those 47% apparently. Retired, I doubt he earns enough to owe income taxes. He's also an Obama supporter. He also has eyesight thanks to the 'socialized medicine' of the veterans administration.

I guess that makes him one of those dependent on government parasites Romney referred to in his little ivory tower speech to his fellow superrich sponsors.
 
My dad spent his life working and paying taxes. He even spent a few year sin the military preserving Romney's freedom and privilege. He still works part-time, though I don't know if it's enough to owe taxes. And I mean he does actual work, not living a cushy life off investment and inheritance income like Romney. He probably pays a higher percentage of his income in taxes than the quarter billionaire Republican.my dad gets a little bit back of what he’s paid into the system now that he’s older, he has absolutely no reason to apologize for that to someone like Romney or his fellow superrich sponsors. If anything, Romney should apologize to my dad and others like him. I’ve never been an Obama supporter but Romney’s seriously making me reconsider.

So if my dad gets a little back of what he's put into the system now that he's older and his health isn't what it used to be, he has absolutely no reason to apologize to Romney and his fellow oligarchs. If anything, Romney should apologize to my dad and those like him.

An inconvenient truth

Earlier this month, The Post-Star's Will Doolittle published a blog entry regarding a Syracuse Post-Standard article on the Adirondack Park Agency and the Adirondack Club and Resort in Tupper Lake. Doolittle, a long time harsh critic of the Agency and of green groups, criticized the central New York daily for shallow, 'he said, she said' journalism. He goes on to add further 'context' that the Syracuse paper should have, in his opinion, included about how the environmentalists were wrong.

I left a comment on the PostStar.com blog saying that Doolittle was essentially attacking the Syracuse paper for not pushing his personal viewpoint. I also pointed out that the shallow 'he said, she said' transcription (not journalism) is a staple of most newspapers and broadcast outlets, including The Post-Star itself. Maybe that's why the daily doesn't do any reporting on Fred Monroe's taxpayer-funded anti-APA activist group.

I guess the comment hit too close to home. The comment has not been published more than two weeks later.

Clinton-worship sad indictment of modern Democrats

It’s sad, yet telling statement about the modern Democratic Party that the most popular politician among its faithful remains Bill Clinton, the guy who jettisoned what remained of the party’s progressive roots and sold it out to the highest corporate bidders.

He babbled on about ‘patience’ but it’s a lot easier to make argument when you make hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop for a single speaking gig.

And while partisans may have selective memories, it’s worth remembering that the reckless deregulation that facilitated the 2008 economic crash was signed not by an evil Republican but by a Democratic president... one William Jefferson Clinton.