Kevin Marshall's America » gop

Rick Santorum vs. education: where have we heard this before?

kevinmarshall — Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:11:10 +0000

“President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob,” said the former senator from Pennsylvania. “There are good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to test that aren’t taught by some liberal college professor to try to indoctrinate them. Oh, I understand why he wants you to go to college. He wants to remake you in his image.”

– Rick Santorum this past weekend in a speech given at a Detroit rally (The Washington Post)

This sort of batshit populism seems familiar somehow…

The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and getting stronger in their fight to overthrow the bourgeoisie and their accomplices, the educated classes, the lackeys of capital, who consider themselves the brains of the nation. In fact they are not its brains but its shit.

– Lenin in a 1918 letter to Maxim Gorky.

Huh. What do you know. Wait, there’s also…

“Fascism combats…not intelligence, but intellectualism…which is…a sickness of the intellect…not a consequence of its abuse, because the intellect cannot be used too much…it derives from the false belief that one can segregate oneself from life…”

— Giovanni Gentile, addressing a Congress of Fascist Culture, Bologna, 30 March 1925

I’m noticing a pattern…

“The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field.”

– Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

OH C’MON. We can’t…we can’t evoke Hitler. Even though it fits. We just can’t.

But it is disturbing, isn’t it? And apt. I’m not saying Santorum is Hitler. Of course I’m not. I am saying that anti-intellectual and anti-science attitudes are often cornerstones of authoritarian beliefs. It’s the shared link between fascist dictatorships and totalitarian Soviet-style communist governments and betrays the true nature of both: that despite all pretenses, the sole philosophy is destruction and power at any cost. No body, government, or civilization has ever improved when such aggressive attitudes have been taken against something as beneficial as education. Rick Santorum is not a monster, per se, but his position and poll numbers should frighten anyone with half a brain, regardless of their political leanings.

Isaac Asimov put it best:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”

Couldn’t have said it better.

Newt Gingrich does not have a good relationship with The Blacks

kevinmarshall — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 17:14:13 +0000

"You're coming with me."

Oh, Newt…

The fact is if I become your nominee we will make the key test very simple – food stamps versus paychecks. Obama is the best food stamp president in American history. More people are on food stamps today because of Obama’s policies than ever in history. I would like to be the best paycheck president in American history.

Now there’s no neighborhood I know of in America where if you went around and asked people, would you rather your children had food stamps or paychecks, you wouldn’t end up with a majority saying they’d rather have a paycheck.

And so I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and explain a brand new social security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African American males because they are the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span.

- Newt Gingrich, 1/5/2012

The arrogance in deigning tell the NAACP that black people should ask for jobs instead of food stamps is almost as astounding as the ignorance and borderline bigotry in the statement. Excessive hubris is never a more dangerous or reprehensible character trait than when it’s combined with (and exacerbated by) outright stupidity.

As I’ve pointed out before, Gingrich is actually kind of an idiot and a hypocrite. The dirty little secret of academia is that a PhD in any given field does not guarantee a person is enlightened, informed, or even intelligent. It does mean that s/he has put in a lot of hard work to achieve it, but it does not alone qualify someone as an intellectual. On a purely anecdotal note, I’m happy to tell you about PhDs I know that actually believe 9/11 was an inside job, and their degrees are rooted in modern concepts and events rather than Medieval European History.

Besides the racist tone of the statement, we also need to move discussion of economics and the economy past the level of President by first acknowledging that the effects of the mortgage crisis and collapse that occurred in 2008 (before Obama took office) was and is going to have residual repercussions that will be felt for years. People have a misconception of the economy as a wild beast whose kicks and bucks you feel immediately; a view that is unfortunately encouraged by politicians and partisan hacks. Economies, nationally and globally, are more like a large body of water. Contaminants take time to spread, and while some effects can be seen immediately, others don’t become readily apparent until some time later.

It is helpful to keep this in mind because while Obama should be taken to task for some of the policies and inactions of his first term, what’s occurring now is actually the result of literally decades of missteps, debt mismanagement, and oversights and lack of foresight in regulation of certain financial market sectors.

It is also important to understand that this current economic state is global. Though we are reared to think of ourselves as the center of the world, the effects of the crisis are far reaching and its roots are not only laid domestically. Just look at what’s happening in Europe. Even China is having some severe economic difficulties, though because of the nature of their country’s politics and notorious obscurity of their domestic issues we only have a vague concept of its depth.

And so, in short, there are four things that we can learn from Newt Gingrich, Goofus and Gallant style, with Newt as the former:

It’s not okay to portray blacks as being eager and willing to accept food stamps rather than paychecks.
The domestic economy is a bit more complicated than simply who happens to be in the White House at any given time.
The cause and effects are far-reaching.
Newt Gingrich is no intellectual.

What was that third thing Rick Perry was trying to remember?

kevinmarshall — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 18:06:17 +0000

In case you missed it, Rick Perry sank himself last night.

Note: what he named are Departments, not agencies, but that’s just semantics.

Well, it was inevitable. The problem with Perry from the start is that he ran on being the new George W. Bush. He had Bush’s “aw shucks” mentality, down-home ethics, and perception of a simpleton, but was lacking any of the charm or charisma that’s required to pull it off.

So what was that third thing Rick Perry wanted to eliminate? I’ve narrowed it down to 10 possibilities.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Ministry of Silly Walks
Penn State
a stick of butter
the Holy Spirit
The Legislative Branch
the Santa Maria
Hank Williams, Jr.’s song for Monday Night Football
that he’s ever gonna love you, even though he wants you and he needs you.
N*****head

Reflections on tonight’s GOP debate

kevinmarshall — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 02:08:12 +0000

There’s one bus stop in downtown Troy which, like so many stops in so many cities throughout the nation, is one that you avoid. The reason being is that for whatever unknown reason, the most morally bankrupt, drugged-out individuals congregate there. It is a place where if you’re, say, reading a book, you’ll get harassed and when you tell the guy to fuck off, he calls you a queer and hits the newspaper vending machine as he skulks away (true story and it happened tonight).

There’s a better bus stop if you’re just willing to walk a couple blocks North. There, you can read and not be called a queer, not be harassed, and not have to listen to wild theories, tall tales, and factually inaccurate accounts of their day to day lives.

And this is why I don’t bother watching the GOP debates anymore. You know that you’re just going to hear some crazy shit and get yelled at for being smart. So why even go there when you can go anywhere else?

Besides, the reaction on Twitter is much more enthralling.

Rick Santorum, gay soldiers, and sexy sex in the military

kevinmarshall — Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:00:22 +0000

A small controversy erupted at the Fox News/Google GOP debate in Florida last week when a now openly gay soldier submitted a YouTube question to the panel.

“In 2010 when I was deployed to Iraq, I had to lie about who I was because I’m a gay soldier and I didn’t want to lose my job. My question is, under one of your Presidencies, do you intend to circumvent the progress that’s been made for gay and lesbian soldiers in the military?”

This was, notoriously, followed by a small portion of the live audience booing loudly with no small amount of derision and hostility.

What was more disconcerting to me, though, was Santorum’s response. Firstly, he did not acknowledge those very loud boos for an American soldier and did not chastise that very vocal group for their treatment of the man and his question, which for anyone with any semblance of decency should have been first and foremost on their agenda.

Instead, he began with this:

“I would say that any kind of sexual activity has no place in the military and the fact that they’re making it a point to include it as a provision and that we’re going to recognize a group of people and give them a special privilege to-and-deh-in removing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

The video, a little over two minutes in length, is below.

Okay, let’s back up.

Firstly, “any kind of sexual activity has no place in the military.” What exactly does this statement mean? What he wants to say is that sexual orientation has no place in the military. However, Santorum’s pathological bias against homosexuals can’t be hidden. He’s a guy that wears his feelings, and his insecurities, on his sleeve. Homosexuals are deviants. And they are a verb, not a noun, and that verb is a vile act.

The repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” provides soldiers with the ability to acknowledge that they are gay, particularly if they are confronted with it, without fear of retribution from superiors and peers in the military. Rick Santorum, however, seems to think that it means that not only will gay soldiers go around yelling about how gay they are all the damn time, but they’ll follow it up with “and now we will have butt sex in front of EVERYONE.”

I jest, but his phrasing is important because it betrays a very outdated and somewhat warped sense of what being a homosexual is: it’s not an orientation or who you are, but rather a fetish akin to someone who smells shoes or sucks toes. So for me, I wasn’t bothered by the booing, because it really was a small handful of cranks that were quickly shushed, and there were just as many others (if not more) in the audience that applauded the soldier for his question and his bravery. What I was and continue to be bothered and deeply concerned by is not only Santorum’s nervous, blustery bigotry, but the undue sensitivity granted to him and his archaic world view by pundits and the general public. The mainstream media took a small handful of anonymous, boorish crowd members to task, but not the Presidential hopeful who champions the rhetoric.

Rick Santorum complained last week about the search engine Google and how it wasn’t doing anything to eliminate the horrible and offensive search results that come up when you enter his name as a query. I was curious, so I entered his name myself. The second entry is to his Wikipedia page, but the first entry was to Spreading Santorum, a site that lists the new definition of “Santorum” provided by a reader of gay columnist Dan Savage in response to Santorum’s description of pedophilia in priests as a “homosexual relationship.” I felt and do feel for him, and honestly wish Savage had never done it. It’s imbecilic and childish, and only lends the man the appearance of being a victim himself.

It also distracts from what I assumed he meant when he complained about offensive search results: all the terrible things he’s said and believes about gay people.

Donald Trump isn’t a candidate for President, but he plays one on TV

kevinmarshall — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 18:40:53 +0000

Image via Wikipedia

Entertainment headlines the last several weeks have been dominated by Donald Trump’s speculated Presidential bid. Trump has been everything from a bankrupt billionaire to a morally bankrupt reality television show host, and now he wants to be your next President of the United States.

Well…kind of.

Actually, Donald Trump doesn’t want to be President. Donald Trump isn’t the man who spoke before the CPAC Conference recently and was heckled by the Tea Party portion of the crowd. Donald Trump isn’t the guy who’s been making the rounds talking up his potential Presidential bid and suggesting he may run as an Independent instead of as a Republican. Donald Trump isn’t the one saying he doesn’t believe Obama was born in the United States (even though he totally was). Donald Trump didn’t recently call Bush the “worst President in history,” further polarizing himself amongst other GOP Presidential hopefuls.

That was television character The Donald.

We’re coming out of a decade where reality television dominated the landscape. Fortunately (for us), that era is coming to an end. The popularity of these shows is no longer guaranteed; slumping ratings for key shows and the embarrassingly low attendance at the recent Reality Rocks! Expo in Los Angeles are further proof that television is trending away from cheap voyeur programming. However, despite the sharp decline in popularity, it has left in its wake a permanent legacy: people knowingly portraying caricatures of themselves for the sake of entertainment or, more often, self-promotion.

The Donald from New York, like The Situation from the Jersey Shore, isn’t the same guy in front of a camera that he would be if you were to meet him in private. It’s a version of the real person with the volume turned up, along with a handful of personality traits created during the course of a television series. Although he made a name for himself initially in Real Estate, Trump has co-opted a method perfected by a new type of celebrity that is famous simply for being famous rather than any particular talent.

It’s not just his portrayal of The Donald persona in public appearances that has me skeptical of a Presidential run. It’s also the timing. Talk of his running started in early March, the same time NBC was premiering the latest season of “Celebrity Apprentice.” Now he’s stated he’ll make his official decision in June…after the conclusion of the current season and the announcement of next season’s contestants.

In the meantime, the speculation will continue and more questions will be asked by everyone from Wolf Blitzer in his ominous Situation Room (which sadly is not located anywhere near the Jersey Shore) to Mario Lopez on the set of “Access Hollywood.” Will he run as a Republican or an Independent? Will he “Ross Perot” the GOP ticket, a reference to the theory that Clinton’s 1992 victory was the direct result of a split created amongst Conservatives by Perot’s candidacy? If so, is he really a Democratic plant (I could have sworn during the 90s he even publicly identified himself as such)? Will he continue to surge in the polls?

No, because The Donald will tell us in June that he’s decided not to run. He will call politics a nasty business and infer that personal attacks against his character have come in conflict with his duties as a businessman. He’ll also note that he ultimately decided his life’s work as a businessman and media mogul was more important. Then he’ll wrap up by alluding to a conspiracy to force him out of the race.

The real reason, however, will be that The Donald can’t run because he – not Obama – isn’t a citizen of the United States. You have to be a real person to meet that criteria.