CSotD: Weekend Wrap-up
Skip to comments
I'm starting with Gary Clement's commentary on the Trump administration's apparent decision to finish the GOP's efforts under George W. to screw up the entire Middle East.
Emphasis on "apparent," which is why I like the joyous, childish cannonball image he uses.
As Kevin pointed out in the comments yesterday, Trump's Evangelical base sees the move as part of Armaggedon and the end times which, in their cosmology, is a good thing. I would suggest, however, that this is, even within Trump's base, an extreme view and that a more sweeping attitude is that they haven't thought it through and have no idea what any of it means.
That is, he may have such connivers among his advisers, but, as Hanlon and Goethe and others advise us, we should not attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.
In this case, there have been several conservative cartoonists hailing the move, including a couple who joyfully point out that this means that he's not, in fact, a Nazi.
Well, okay then. And he doesn't have a little mustache either, so that proves it.
That "and over here is Mr. Hilter" argument aside, I don't know if it's exactly "racist" for them to cite Hamas and various Iranian extremists as representatives of the entire Arab world, because, once again, I'm unwilling to attribute to malice etc etc. though Iranians may be extreme or they may be moderate but one thing they can't be is Arabs.
But let's not waste time on that, because here's the point: Violent extremism can only exist with the support — grudging or silent or active — of the community.
That's as true in Palestine as it is in Ulster as it is in Afghanistan as it is in Kurdistan as it is in our own inner cities.
And when a government is seen to mess with young, foolish, violent extremists in those communities, they stop being seen as young and foolish and extreme and violent, and support of "our boys" swells.
That is to say, even people who disagree with their politics are willing to shelter them from hostile outsiders.
That is a constant truth, and it doesn't matter if our leaders don't know because they damn well ought to.
The difference between ignorance and stupidity is that there is no such thing as innocent ignorance when you hold power.
When you sit in the Big Chair, you are either smart or you are stupid and you are either deliberately good or you are deliberately evil.
And if you profess to believe in an afterlife, let me introduce you to our …
Juxtaposition of the Day
It doesn't really matter who's making the deal.
What matters is who they are making the deal with.
This isn't difficult: Either you believe in standing up against evil or you don't, and I would apply that rule to the people I'm seeing on social media who bemoan the fact the Democrats have forced Al Franken and John Conyers out of office because it threatens the balance of power in Congress.
It's okay to make that argument, but don't, then, turn around and accuse the Republicans of supporting Roy Moore for the same reason, because it insults my intelligence and makes me very angry.
More about ignorance vs. stupidity
Much as I dislike it, there are times when the technique of bland repetition works, and Tom the Dancing Bug makes excellent use of it here.
Of course, it's only partially a question of how stupid these people are, because arrogance can take the place of intelligent consideration, and, once you sort out the followers, who may be forgiven on the basis of either ignorance or stupidity, arrogance is what it comes down to.
And that last panel rather sums it up, given how things have changed in the past 45 years or so. True, there was a Democratic majority in both houses during Watergate, but it's just not that simple and they couldn't have done it alone then either.
Cameo of the week
Danae, if that's your muse, you need to order a supply of Dexedrine and never, ever drift off to sleep at all.
Although if that's who appeared as I was falling asleep, I wouldn't need help to stay awake.
If I did sleep, it would be with a flyswatter at hand. A silver flyswatter, steeped in garlic.
And then there's this
I like Chip Bok's take on Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, because it does seem to come down to this.
If you lived through the Civil Rights Movement, you heard all the rational reasons for refusing service to people, and the matter of selling a cake to a gay couple sure feels like deja vu all over again.
But the fact that the court bothered to hear it at all was a warning, since the lower courts had ruled against the baker.
And, following the Hobby Lobby decision, we should be prepared for religious beliefs to be held above what seems like equal treatment, though I still wonder why, if an employer can object to a portion of his contribution to employee health insurance being used for birth control, a pacifist can't withhold the portion of his taxes destined for the Defense Department. (Here's why, but you gotta scroll way down.)
Still, this is a less straightforward case than it might appear, since this baker also refuses to do Halloween cakes or to include alcohol in his recipes, which means he does more to brand his business as religiously oriented than simply closing on Sundays, while refusing to make a Halloween cake doesn't discriminate against a class of people beyond "people who celebrate Halloween," which is absurdly nebulous.
So here's a question: If you were a tattoo artist, would you feel justified in refusing to give someone a "White Power" tattoo?
I'm hoping the baker loses, but here's the plain English breakdown, and we'll also let Nina Totenberg explain why it's just not that simple:
Comments 12
Comments are closed.