by folkbum
Nothing so amuses me as watching the molehills of everyday life become mountains of self-righteous outrage on Wisconsin's right. Usually, the indignation dies a quiet death, because in righty space, no one can hear you scream, thank jebus.
Other times, real people get hurt, physically or financially, because some nut or another gets his Hanes in a bunch over something that, left alone, would have hurt no one at all.
The latest is the news that comedian Bill Maher will be in town, sponsored in part by WKLH radio and American TV. Because Maher dislikes religion--he's got animosity for all religions, in equal measure, as it turns out, not mere "anti-Christian bigotry"--some righties are leading a charge against the sponsors. Mike Plaisted and the Illusory Tenant have a good discussion going about just how ridiculous it is.
But I will ask, as is my wont in these situations (I even have a rule named after me just for this!), why Maher is subject to a standard from righty bloggers that others are not.
John McAdams, the Marquette professor (chair of the Department of Outrage, I believe) who is leading the Maher reaction, has a whole category of posts tagged with "free speech" (a tag missing from his Maher posts!) that include things like praise for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee for bringing noted anti-Muslim speakers Walid Shoebat and David Horowitz to campus (flashback: David Horowitz hates me!). The bigoted (by the Maher standard) messages of Shoebat and Horowitz are sponsored at UWM by your tax dollars and mine, which to me suggests that they might be afforded greater scrutiny than those sponsored by the commercial enterprises like American TV. (I tend to believe that American and WKLH know the market well enough to make decisions that benefit them financially. They know that Bill Maher is going to make them more money than would be lost from the sad protests mounted by Milwaukee's Perpetually Offended. It's all a part of the belief that the free market knows what's best for itself. If McAdams wants to dispute that, he's welcome to.)
Yet the anti-Muslim speakers get a pass and the anti-Muslim sponsors get kudos because the targeted religion is not McAdams's Catholicism, but Islam. (One wonders if Maher had been booked to play UWM instead of the Riverside whether McAdams would have praised UWM for "bringing controversial speakers to that campus" or still have launched this little jihad.)
And then there's the case of bigots on the blogroll. McAdams, just to the right of the space where he denounces Maher's supposed anti-Christian commentary, permanently links to a blogger who regularly calls Islam the "Religion of Piece (of Arm, of Leg, of Torso)" and mocks celebrants of sacred holidays like "Ramalamadingdong." If anti-religion is the test, McAdams's links fail, miserably.
So it seems to me there's a bit of beam in McAdams's own eye that needs to be addressed before he can reasonably complain about the mote at American TV.
--
This is the nut, by the way, of the Wright-Hagee--and I would add Rod Parsley to Hagee--controversy that has been all bubbly here on the blog lately. Liberals are held to standards by the right and by the media that conservatives are not. Barack Obama and John McCain are not being treated equally at all. And don't give me that "Obama knew Wright for 20 years" crap--McCain, knowing Hagee's and Parsley's views, actively sought their blessing and their spiritual advice, and he continues to relish the endorsement of those two clear bigots without facing any media scrutiny.
The McCain camp knows exactly what they are doing with this, too: They know that the John McAdamses of the world will vote for McCain regardless of what anti-Catholic horse they hitch the "Straight" Talk wagon to (as far as I can tell, McAdams has not written a single word about Hagee, and neither has Patrick Dorwin, whose BadgerBlogger is helping to attack American TV). However, McCain's people know that some voters in key states like Ohio and Florida will veer to a third party or just stay home if they don't hear the dog whistles from Hagee and Parsley. It's a calculated pander, like Hillary Clinton's insistence on rolling back the federal gas tax--it's a stupid idea but apparently it polls well in Indiana. Clinton is willing to take an image hit among people who will vote for her over McCain anyway in order to score a few thousand votes in the tight Indiana primary tomorrow.
However, in keeping with the theme, Clinton is getting nailed for this pander while McCain keeps getting a pass. See also the "McCain Flag Lapel Pin Watch." Or the "McCain's hiding assets" watch. Or the "McCain's got lobbyists running his anti-lobbyist campaign" watch. Or the "McCain's lying about Democrats and health care" watch. And so on.
I do not expect the media to turn around and apply the same level of scrutiny to McCain as to Obama and Clinton any more than I expect John McAdams or Patrick Dorwin to chastise the vulgar anti-Muslim bigots on their blogrolls the way they have American TV. But as long as I have this small microphone, I will never let them forget that they are hypocrites.
Showing posts with label Patrick Dorwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patrick Dorwin. Show all posts
Monday, May 05, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate
by capper
A couple days ago, Elliot Stearns posted the question, "Why does the Left in America hate America?" I posted a comment with an oversimplified view that there was a communication problem.
The next day, Jay put up a similar post, remarking on the loss of civility in people's postings and comments. This loss of civility has even caused yet another blogger, this time Patrick, to ban a commenter, mickey, who has a bad habit of making things personal with people with whom he disagrees. Owen Robinson, who also posted on the loss of civility had banned mickey a long time ago.
People, in general, often have a hard time expressing themselves in appropriate ways. In Jay's post, he mentions two bloggers who feel that this is the only way to get their point across. All they are really doing is blocking whatever message they wanted to express. If a person is insulted, they are not very likely to be receptive to the rest of the message. In my personal experience in real life and in the blogosphere, people are apt to me more receptive to what I have to say, if I don't call them a name or otherwise insult them. I, likewise, am more prone to pay attention if my dead mother isn't insulted, or I am called a name.
As I had mentioned in the comments thread at Elliot's site, I used to facilitate a anger management group for adolescent boys. The first thing I had to do was get them to understand what anger was. Anger is an emotion that is spurred by a real or perceived threat, harm or slight. The other normal responses to such a stimulus would be fear or sadness. However, in society, people are afraid to show signs of weakness so they try not to show fear or sadness. They chose, consciously or subconsciously, to go with anger.
The other thing I had to help these kids understand was to put what they deemed as threats or slights into proper perspective. Obviously, if someone is trying to cause you physical harm, you are going to want to fight to protect yourself. Someone calling you a name, or looking at you funny, is not on the same level, and does not merit the same response.
The hardest part was helping the kids learn to discern when they were feeling angry, what was making them feel that way, and thinking before acting and/or speaking in response to that stimulus. I think part of the reason that this was so difficult is that people don't like taking a close look at themselves in an honest fashion.
An excellent example of this would be the child that gets caught misbehaving, and then gets punished for it. First of all, the child is upset because s/he is being punished, which by definition is usually an unpleasant and averse situation. Secondly, the child, whether they realize it or not, is probably feeling shame for their behavior. But because shame is often considered to be a sign of weakness, it is covered up with anger. Then the child tells the parent that they hate them, or they take it out on their toys, etc.
Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people have a hard time moving on beyond this point. The adult who is caught breaking the law yells at the cops and calls them names. He or she is upset due to the threat of punishment, and lashes out in anger.
The blogger who makes a dumb comment, and gets called out on it, lashes back, often in a personal matter. He or she is threatened by the loss of face or the feeling of shame.
I think one of the biggest threats that people feel is the fear of the unknown and the different. This is where racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice stem from. Instead of facing their fear of the unknown or the different, and possibly making some unpleasant discoveries about themselves, they chose to fall back on anger and lash out at people, hurling invectives and smears at a person, a gender, a lifestyle, a belief system or a race.
To get back to Elliot's question, I don't think that these people, in general, hate America. I think it is a specific part that they don't like, but in the heat of their anger, they get carried away and start saying or doing dumb things. The same can be said for the other examples as well.
Now, keep in mind these are not universal truths. Sometimes anger is justified, such as when someone is presenting an immediate threat, or when someone does something that goes against the norms and morals of society, like a rapist, child molester or murderer. Sometimes the person cannot control their emotions, due to a mental illness or traumatic brain injury.
Nor am I saying I am above any of this. I get mad too, and sometimes I say and/or do stupid things. I am just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for reading, if you haven't already gotten bored and moved on.
A couple days ago, Elliot Stearns posted the question, "Why does the Left in America hate America?" I posted a comment with an oversimplified view that there was a communication problem.
The next day, Jay put up a similar post, remarking on the loss of civility in people's postings and comments. This loss of civility has even caused yet another blogger, this time Patrick, to ban a commenter, mickey, who has a bad habit of making things personal with people with whom he disagrees. Owen Robinson, who also posted on the loss of civility had banned mickey a long time ago.
People, in general, often have a hard time expressing themselves in appropriate ways. In Jay's post, he mentions two bloggers who feel that this is the only way to get their point across. All they are really doing is blocking whatever message they wanted to express. If a person is insulted, they are not very likely to be receptive to the rest of the message. In my personal experience in real life and in the blogosphere, people are apt to me more receptive to what I have to say, if I don't call them a name or otherwise insult them. I, likewise, am more prone to pay attention if my dead mother isn't insulted, or I am called a name.
As I had mentioned in the comments thread at Elliot's site, I used to facilitate a anger management group for adolescent boys. The first thing I had to do was get them to understand what anger was. Anger is an emotion that is spurred by a real or perceived threat, harm or slight. The other normal responses to such a stimulus would be fear or sadness. However, in society, people are afraid to show signs of weakness so they try not to show fear or sadness. They chose, consciously or subconsciously, to go with anger.
The other thing I had to help these kids understand was to put what they deemed as threats or slights into proper perspective. Obviously, if someone is trying to cause you physical harm, you are going to want to fight to protect yourself. Someone calling you a name, or looking at you funny, is not on the same level, and does not merit the same response.
The hardest part was helping the kids learn to discern when they were feeling angry, what was making them feel that way, and thinking before acting and/or speaking in response to that stimulus. I think part of the reason that this was so difficult is that people don't like taking a close look at themselves in an honest fashion.
An excellent example of this would be the child that gets caught misbehaving, and then gets punished for it. First of all, the child is upset because s/he is being punished, which by definition is usually an unpleasant and averse situation. Secondly, the child, whether they realize it or not, is probably feeling shame for their behavior. But because shame is often considered to be a sign of weakness, it is covered up with anger. Then the child tells the parent that they hate them, or they take it out on their toys, etc.
Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people have a hard time moving on beyond this point. The adult who is caught breaking the law yells at the cops and calls them names. He or she is upset due to the threat of punishment, and lashes out in anger.
The blogger who makes a dumb comment, and gets called out on it, lashes back, often in a personal matter. He or she is threatened by the loss of face or the feeling of shame.
I think one of the biggest threats that people feel is the fear of the unknown and the different. This is where racism, sexism and other forms of prejudice stem from. Instead of facing their fear of the unknown or the different, and possibly making some unpleasant discoveries about themselves, they chose to fall back on anger and lash out at people, hurling invectives and smears at a person, a gender, a lifestyle, a belief system or a race.
To get back to Elliot's question, I don't think that these people, in general, hate America. I think it is a specific part that they don't like, but in the heat of their anger, they get carried away and start saying or doing dumb things. The same can be said for the other examples as well.
Now, keep in mind these are not universal truths. Sometimes anger is justified, such as when someone is presenting an immediate threat, or when someone does something that goes against the norms and morals of society, like a rapist, child molester or murderer. Sometimes the person cannot control their emotions, due to a mental illness or traumatic brain injury.
Nor am I saying I am above any of this. I get mad too, and sometimes I say and/or do stupid things. I am just sharing my thoughts on the matter. Thanks for reading, if you haven't already gotten bored and moved on.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Pension Scandal Redux
by capper
UPDATE: Walker speaks! Also there is talk of examining all buybacks, but everyone is still too busy with CYA to get anything done yet.
In this morning's MSJ, there was a report about the latest scandal to hit Milwaukee County. The basics of the story is that, since 1990, the pension board has been letting county workers buy back time from previous stints with the county. This practice has let hundreds of workers gain potentially substantial gains in their pension benefits, including the addition of the pension enhancer that rocked the county's budgets in 2004, and led to the recall of former County Executive Tom Ament and seven county board supervisors.
Even though it means at most, about $65 million out of a pension fund worth more than $1.6 billion, this has caused an uprising of outrage and understandably so. So far there is only a contingent of right wing bloggers that have posted on this, including Patrick at Badger Blogger, Reaganite at The Croc, and Steveegg at No Runny Eggs and others. I believe that this is only the beginning of the outrage, and that for the next several weeks and months this will be fodder for many bloggers as well as talk radio.
But there are some things that I question about this scandal. The article reports that this has the potential to cost the county millions, but this is based on speculation, including how long people who have gained by the buy backs will be collecting pensions, as well as how many will be able to keep these gains, as that there is a move to disallow some of the buy backs. The number of those disallowed could be ten. Ten out of hundreds. Why aren't the rest at least being examined?
Also, there is a reciprocal relationship between different counties and different levels of government regarding seniority and pensions. This could have some major impacts on a lot of the elected and appointed officials. Walker was elected to the state legislature in 1992. This would make him eligible for the life time free health insurance, which is by reports, as good, if not better, than the one he might be eligible for from the state. Sheriff Clarke was a cop with the city of Milwaukee since 1978, per his bio. This would put him in line for not only the health insurance, but the increased pension enhancement and backdrop. Walker's recent appointee, Tom Nardelli, could be in for the same benefits. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Another thing that I noticed is that Scott Walker wasn't mentioned in the article. The problems were noted 12 years ago to the county, well before Walker's time, but nothing was done. It was noticed again two years ago, during Walker's time, when the board took some action by putting an end to the buy backs general guidelines. The article also states that the Journal has been investigating this for the past six months. I cannot believe that Walker did not know about the Journal's investigation, or that he was unaware of the problem that the board took action on two years ago. Given Walker's past behaviors and comments about the pension scandal of 2001, I thought he would have something to say, but there was not one quote from him, yet.
Then it hit me. Walker is facing increasing resistance from the county board and from the public in general, after year after year of budget cuts and service cuts that have affected almost every county resident in some fashion. Now the county board has proposed a referendum to increase the sales tax by a penny, and even some people on the right are in favor of letting people have a chance to speak on this issue. To make it a trifecta, Walker will be running for re-election in the spring (even though he promised he wouldn't), and some of the names of potential opponents could give him some stiff competition. The buy back scandal could give him the same grass roots uprising that he had when he successfully won after Ament's pension scandal.
Walker, like many professional politicians, knows the value of timing. Walker skills at this was demonstrated in the last election, when he knew about, but withheld the information about the huge deficit the parks had that year. It only came to light after he was re-elected, and then he scapegoated Sue Baldwin who had reported the deficit to him months earlier. This leads to the question, "When did Walker find out about this, and why didn't he act on it sooner?"
UPDATE: Walker speaks! Also there is talk of examining all buybacks, but everyone is still too busy with CYA to get anything done yet.
In this morning's MSJ, there was a report about the latest scandal to hit Milwaukee County. The basics of the story is that, since 1990, the pension board has been letting county workers buy back time from previous stints with the county. This practice has let hundreds of workers gain potentially substantial gains in their pension benefits, including the addition of the pension enhancer that rocked the county's budgets in 2004, and led to the recall of former County Executive Tom Ament and seven county board supervisors.
Even though it means at most, about $65 million out of a pension fund worth more than $1.6 billion, this has caused an uprising of outrage and understandably so. So far there is only a contingent of right wing bloggers that have posted on this, including Patrick at Badger Blogger, Reaganite at The Croc, and Steveegg at No Runny Eggs and others. I believe that this is only the beginning of the outrage, and that for the next several weeks and months this will be fodder for many bloggers as well as talk radio.
But there are some things that I question about this scandal. The article reports that this has the potential to cost the county millions, but this is based on speculation, including how long people who have gained by the buy backs will be collecting pensions, as well as how many will be able to keep these gains, as that there is a move to disallow some of the buy backs. The number of those disallowed could be ten. Ten out of hundreds. Why aren't the rest at least being examined?
Also, there is a reciprocal relationship between different counties and different levels of government regarding seniority and pensions. This could have some major impacts on a lot of the elected and appointed officials. Walker was elected to the state legislature in 1992. This would make him eligible for the life time free health insurance, which is by reports, as good, if not better, than the one he might be eligible for from the state. Sheriff Clarke was a cop with the city of Milwaukee since 1978, per his bio. This would put him in line for not only the health insurance, but the increased pension enhancement and backdrop. Walker's recent appointee, Tom Nardelli, could be in for the same benefits. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
Another thing that I noticed is that Scott Walker wasn't mentioned in the article. The problems were noted 12 years ago to the county, well before Walker's time, but nothing was done. It was noticed again two years ago, during Walker's time, when the board took some action by putting an end to the buy backs general guidelines. The article also states that the Journal has been investigating this for the past six months. I cannot believe that Walker did not know about the Journal's investigation, or that he was unaware of the problem that the board took action on two years ago. Given Walker's past behaviors and comments about the pension scandal of 2001, I thought he would have something to say, but there was not one quote from him, yet.
Then it hit me. Walker is facing increasing resistance from the county board and from the public in general, after year after year of budget cuts and service cuts that have affected almost every county resident in some fashion. Now the county board has proposed a referendum to increase the sales tax by a penny, and even some people on the right are in favor of letting people have a chance to speak on this issue. To make it a trifecta, Walker will be running for re-election in the spring (even though he promised he wouldn't), and some of the names of potential opponents could give him some stiff competition. The buy back scandal could give him the same grass roots uprising that he had when he successfully won after Ament's pension scandal.
Walker, like many professional politicians, knows the value of timing. Walker skills at this was demonstrated in the last election, when he knew about, but withheld the information about the huge deficit the parks had that year. It only came to light after he was re-elected, and then he scapegoated Sue Baldwin who had reported the deficit to him months earlier. This leads to the question, "When did Walker find out about this, and why didn't he act on it sooner?"
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)