An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Only a ‘Party of the Left’ Can Save Us: Jornal de Negocios, Portugal

Expect Minor Quake (No Tsunami) From Japan’s Elections »

Cue Up the World’s Smallest Violin

Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Economy, Health, Politics, Society.
Sep 17th, 2009 | Comments

Can you imagine the cries of outrage and gales of mocking laughter from the right if they had heard complaints like this after the huge anti-war demonstrations in the former administration?

Rep. Kevin Brady (R) said an 80-year-old woman and her 60-year-old daughter were forced to walk and pay for a cab because the subway system was so crowded. He said he heard many complaints from people who traveled long distances to attend the event, which served to challenge some of President Obama’s signature policies.

“Based upon numerous eyewitness reports by participants in the march, it is clear Metro did not adequately prepare for the influx of Americans traveling to D.C. for this historic event,” Brady said in his letter.

What a bunch of clueless spoiled-brat crybabies.

The irony is so thick and rich, you need a sharp knife to cut through it. Amanda Terkel rises to the occasion (emphasis in original):

Last weekend, tens of thousands of right-wing protesters invaded Washington, DC for the 912 March. Not only were they rallying against President Obama’s plans for health care reform, but more generally against “socialism,” government-run services, and too much taxation.

A large number of the tea party protesters relied on DC’s transit system to get around the city. The Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) reported that on Sept. 12,metrorail ridership was double compared to an average Saturday. The Washington metro, of course, is public transit — in other words, it’s run by big government. Nevertheless, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has written a letter to WMATA complaining that the service wasn’t good enough for the tea baggers:

“These individuals came all the way from Southeast Texas to protest the excessive spending and growing government intrusion by the 111th Congress and the new Obama administration,” Brady wrote. “These participants, whose tax dollars were used to create and maintain this public transit system, were frustrated and disappointed that our nation’s capital did not make a great effort to simply provide a basic level of transit for them.”

A spokesman for Brady says that “there weren’t enough cars and there weren’t enough trains.” Brady tweeted as much from the Saturday march. “METRO did not prepare for Tea Party March! More stories. People couldn’t get on, missed start of march. I will demand answers from Metro,” he wrote on Twitter.

A large part of the reason that the DC metro has had so many problems in recent years is that it doesn’t “have dedicated tax revenue.” It has often run into protests from people such [as] Sen. Tom Coburn (R-TX), who has said that we shouldn’t “steal opportunity from our children so that we can have a ride on the Metro.” The American Public Transportation Association says that “recession-imposed limits on government budgets and increased demand are doubtless among the reasons why ‘transit systems are strained all over the country.’”

Americans around the country are relying on metro more than ever. Last year, they took 10.7 billion trips, the highest level in 52 years. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials reports that “an annual investment of $46 billion is needed to keep up with an expected 2.4 percent annual growth in ridership,” but in 2006, “transit capital from all levels of government amounted to only $13.3 billion.”

As for Brady…John Cole points out that when a bill containing $150 million for emergency maintenance funding for the DC metro system came up this summer, Brady voted against it.

What Obama called Kanye West.

More commentary at Memeorandum.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

Leonidas

What irony, that a Conservative group finds a government run service run poorly? Maybe it would have been more efficient if privatized. Also who's tax dollars paid for that Metro? I think they have a right to complain. I mean. if the Air Force was derelict in their duty when a North Korean missle hit the US would liberals not be justified in complaining even if they advocated budget cuts to the military?

That being said, its not a big deal one way or the other. It does show the dedication of the 80 year old and her daughter not to be deterred however.

kathykattenburg

If the D.C. Metro were privatized, Leonidas, it would have had the necessary money spent on it to make it work more efficiently.

Either you really don't read, despite your claims that you do, or you don't care about making sense, because it says right there in the post that underfunding is the issue. There's no magical explanation when privately run services work better, Leonidas. The explanation is money.

Leonidas

If the D.C. Metro were privatized, Leonidas, it would have had the necessary money spent on it to make it work more efficiently.
Yup.
Either you really don't read, despite your claims that you do, or you don't care about making sense, because it says right there in the post that underfunding is the issue.

And not all of us take the Washington Post as a religious source. Has their ever been a public official who claimed that their agency or post had enough funding or too much? Forgive me for not being born yesterday.

There's no magical explanation when privately run services work better, Leonidas. The explanation is money

The explanation is privately run. Stockholders demand returns to a greater degree than taxpayers. Stockholders contributions are voluntary, you have to win them over, taxpayers pay whether they want to or not. If a businessman saw that more trains were needed he would call in people to run extra trains and boost his revenue. A bureaucrat might look at the extra paperwork and either shrug or go through a long process of "proper channels".

DLS

Well, Kathy, you can call them crybabies or brats legitimately, but let's all note the real issue here, which was how crowded DC was with people, i.e., how many people actually came to DC. (Hint: It was crowded like that on Metro and elswhere in DC during the big anti-Bush, anti-war demonstration, even with record cold, one winter morning there not too long ago.)

kathykattenburg

So you're agreeing with me ("Yup") that it takes money to make a service efficient, and you're agreeing that a private company would spend the necessary money. Then you turn around and contradict yourself again ("The explanation is privately run.")

The explanation is not "privately run." The explanation is money, and you admit that the explanation is money, but you would prefer, for ideological reasons, that public services like the D.C. Metro be privatized.

You also contradict yourself by agreeing that running the Metro efficiently takes money, and then suggesting that the Metro is lying, and doesn't really need money.

You say that "stockholders demand returns to a greater degree than taxpayers," but you are a taxpayer and you're demanding returns on the tax money you spend. You point to the significance of taxpayers who go to a rally in D.C. to demand returns on their tax money, and you praise them to the point of exaggerating their significance, while simultaneously insisting that taxpayers are not as demanding of returns on their money as stockholders are. You say that stockholders' payments are voluntary, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who use public services like the Metro are not stockholders and would have no say-so or voice whatsoever in how a private corporation would run the Metro. You say that stockholders must be "won over," while conveniently not mentioning the fact that taxpayers have to be won over, too -- it's called "elections." You say, "If a businessman saw that more trains were needed he would call in people to run extra trains and boost his revenue," ignoring the fact that boosting revenue has to be weighed against spending money, and many "businessmen" will decide that the expense isn't worth the revenue, OR, they will attempt to minimize the expense and maximize the revenue by hiring under-qualified workers whom they can pay less, thus risking passenger safety to make a buck. And you say that "a bureaucrat might look at the extra paperwork and either shrug or go through a long process of 'proper channels' " (whatever that means -- maybe it's a euphemism for making sure safety isn't compromised) without offering any evidence that this is a legitimate concern.

In other words, you employ arguments that are factually incorrect, logically dubious, and morally empty.

RememebrNovember

Boo friggin hoo. Ever been on a NYC subway at rush hour? Or even trying to wade through the gawkers in Time Square during the holiday season ? Deal with it , b**ches, or stay home.

TheMagicalSkyFather

Yup it was crowded 70,000 people kinda crowded and it was covered HEAVILY by the media unlike the million plus anti-war rallies that were ignored. Sorry but I will start paying attention again once a legit gripe hits the right wing but right now it is all identity politics and whining, what they used to mock the dems for.

mikkel

"If the D.C. Metro were privatized, Leonidas, it would have had the necessary money spent on it to make it work more efficiently."

I don't see why you figure that. If it were privatized then as ridership fell then prices would rise and once they rose to the point that people complained then they would reduce service. So either it'd be so expensive that it would put a burden on those that need it, or else it'd be more crowded than it is now. Look at the airline industry.

There is no mass transportation in the US that can turn a profit consistently and is why they are all heavily subsidized by the government.

DaGoat

Sounds like the system was overwhelmed unexpectedly, hey that stuff happens. I don't agree with the implication that people who are against expansion of government have no right to complain about current government programs though.

HemmD

I think both you and Kathy both missed the systemic reason for the crowding:

"metrorail ridership was double compared to an average Saturday. "

I won't matter who ran the train, public or private, if the expected ridership for a given day doubles, it's going to be crowded. It's not like they checked the station and said, "Hey Fred, add a couple more cars, those tea baggers are in town today!"

T-Steel

What HemmD said...

DaMav

Wow, imagine that. 60,000 people overwhelmed the DC Metro. Isn't that the number the liberals have been pushing? The lefties can't even keep their own spin straight.

HemmD

DaMav

And when you can cite some reference that the usual Saturday traffic for the metro is 30 thousand, you may have a better chance at spinning yourself. The teabaggers sure have a hard time counting people; maybe they're counting the voices in their heads instead of bodies.

EEllis

"spoiled-brat crybabies invaders teabaggers" (I'm sure I missed a few but I tried)

Yep that 80 yo b**ch should shut the f**k up.

Partisanship aside do you people not realize how ugly you are getting?

Davebo

"metrorail ridership was double compared to an average Saturday. "

Err..No

eptember 12, 2009

Metrorail: 437,624

Comparable Metrorail Ridership 1 Year Ago: 362,773

And keep in mind the increase must be divided in half as each protester likely made two trips (in and out)

PWT

Is there any difference between calling a person a 'tea bagger' and calling a person a 'n****r'? Just a thought since the majority of the TEA Party activists were white, could 'tea bagger' be considered a racial slur? Certainly, with its homosexual connotation, it has more sting than 'whitey'. I'm still partial to 'white trash' personally, but I am PWT afterall.

GeorgeSorwell

As for Brady…John Cole points out that when a bill containing $150 million for emergency maintenance funding for the DC metro system came up this summer, Brady voted against it.

LOL!!!

It's like reality doesn't actually exist for these folks.

VeratheGun

Haven't any of you ever rode the Metro on a regular basis? There's times when it's full. Wait another 10 minutes and another train comes by. Sheesh.

Talk about a bunch of yokels let loose on the city.

tidbits

PWT - Never thought about your screen name till now...very nice. Anyway, the teabaggers named themselves, or at least gave rise to the name by calling their events teabag paties. And , for what it's worth, teabagging isn't limited to homosexuals...or so I'm told (blushing slightly).

DaGoat

I've never rode the Metro on a regular basis. I'm just a yokel.

HemmD

PWT

"could 'tea bagger' be considered a racial slur"
Only if you listen to the voices in your head instead of the voice of reason. For this to be a racial slur, I think I'd have to be non-white to use it in the way you hoped I was. Sorry.

If you don't like "teabagger" how about psychotic, hypocritical, ignorant, or merely confused. Let me know which you prefer, and I'll be happy to use that term in the future.

"Certainly, with its homosexual connotation, "

If you wish to imply a negative sexual connotation, understand that the sexual act you refer to is neither hetero or homosexual in nature. I did mention "ignorant" as one the the labels to use instead of teabagger. Do we have winner?

Zzzzz

I went to a gay DC march in 1993, where the official estimates were around 100,000 (the same source that gave the unofficial estimates of 65000-70000 for the tea party march. They stopped giving official estimates because they were too politicized). The subways were packed to capacity for hours, but people weren't running around whining and complaining about it. How pathetic and spoiled!

Zzzzz

You are missing the point, Mikkel. Government exists to serve the people, not turn a profit. The goal of public transport is to reduce congestion, reduce polution, and subsidize transport for poor people. The goal is met when they maximize ridership. Raising prices reduces ridership, which is the opposite of what they are trying to do. Private industry exists to turn a profit. If the maximum profit is achieved by having the smallest number of riders, then so be it. Either you agree with the purpose of public transit or you don't, judging the system based on criteria that is completely at odds to its mission doesn't make any sense.

tidbits

HemmD - "Do we have a winner?" Yes, the winners are the ones who can make a point without calling other commenters names.

mikkel

No I'm not missing the point at all. Kathy said that if it were privatized then it would have had the money...I'm disagreeing. I'm saying that for a variety of factors the private industry would cut back during the recession if they ran the metro and that's why it's not privatized.

rfyork

Could someone please find the cave out of which Brady, Wilson and their ilk climbed? Maybe we could cover the entrance with concrete leaving a hole for them to breathe (through their mouths, of course) and eat. The biggest worry we should all have is that, given their usual behavior, the Democrats are probably making it easy for more of these idiots to get elected.

Plus ca change.....

kathykattenburg

You're right, Mikkel. I stand corrected. For any public transportion system to run efficiently and well, that takes money. But the fact that it takes money does not mean that privitization would result in that money being spent. And I know that, because I have had direct experience with government-run services (like the DMV) being run more efficiently than under private hands.

kathykattenburg

LOL, good point, Hemm.

kathykattenburg

"You people"? Since when is one reader's comment "you people"?

You people make such sweeping generalizations.

kathykattenburg

Is there any difference between calling a person a 'tea bagger' and calling a person a 'n****r'?

Yes.

Next question?

kathykattenburg

And "tea bagger" does not have a homosexual connotation. And if it did, it would not have a "sting." There is no "sting" in being homosexual.

JeffersonDavis

I'm pretty sure he read it Kathy.
It is a classic example of privatization! The DC Metro is underfunded. Yes. If a private corporation were to be given the SAME money, it would make it successful, more efficient, and profitable - something your beloved bureacracy cannot do. Bueracracies take money and spend it. And that's pretty much it.

And for the point of the article.... I'm still waiting on it.
People complain about being in a dead standstill in a major US city. Big deal.
People probably complained about the lack of toilets too. Your point?

kathykattenburg

Well, I don't know if that's *why* it's not privatized, but I do agree that if it *were* privatized, it would not have more money. I was wrong on that point.

JeffersonDavis

Come on, MagicSky......
Did I read that correctly?
"it was covered HEAVILY by the media unlike the million plus anti-war rallies that were ignored".

The only network to cover the DC Tea Party rally was Fox which covered the anti-war rallies as well.
The rest of them didn't report a word, other than a token blurb on their webpages. But they had celebrity cameos and every camera they owned at the anti-war rallies.

And the whining may have come from a few attendees and a Congressman or two; but the VAST majority (99%) did not whine, managed to remain civil, respectful, and left no trash behind (not one of which can be claimed by those in the anti-war rallies).

kathykattenburg

You're pretty sure who read what, JD?

What is a classic example of privatization?

And where is your evidence to support the assertion that "If a private corporation were to be given the SAME money, it would make it successful, more efficient, and profitable"?

The point of the article is that it's pretty stupid to complain about overcrowding on the D.C. metro when (a) big events create big crowds (have you ever tried driving to NYC on Route 3 when the Giants are playing at the Meadowlands?), and when (b) you are ideologically opposed to properly and appropriately funding government services like public transportatioin and when (c) you actually voted against an appropriation of funding for public transportation.

JeffersonDavis

Kathy,
I'm actually FOR public funding of transport systems. It's one of the services that government SHOULD provide (defense, education, infrasctructure). Sometimes, though, the government system cannot run it correctly.

However, in my defense, we have a privately owned mass-transit system where I live. It has made a profit consistently since going private. The only government help it gets is low interest loan guarantees (a form of zero-cost subsidy). To me, that is a "classic" example of privatization. Without it, our mass transit system would have been abondoned by our city - they just couldn't afford to run it. The private corp. has run it pretty well, has advertised it better, and has made many routing changes that the city would not.
Classic privatization.

And I agree with your assertion about the complaining and the irony in who said it.

And to condemn myself..... I wrote that off the cuff prior to reading the entire thread and other replies.
I try to admit when I'm wrong.

HemmD

tidbits

check the thread. I merely pointed out the ridiculous nature of the faux slur. I merely explained possible solutions to the perceived criticism.

tidbits

HemmD - I respectfully disagree. Many times I have worked the "Like"
button on your comments, but this went beyond pointing out the ridiculous
nature of a faux slur. Frankly, yor comment was mean spirited...and I was
surprised to see that from you. Perhaps you meant it in the manner you
describe, but that's not the way it came across.

Look, I understand that PWT can be pretty provocotive, including having
comments edited by moderators and having at least one comment removed
entirely. Still, I think your response was over the line and you should
take responsibility. For myself, I'd like to know why PWT posts some of
the the comments posted
, but have no desire to demean that commenter.

I have gone over the 'line' myself, and hurt other commenters in the
process...and felt shame for having done so. It isn't worth it. It
demeans you, not the other. You're smart and perceptive and worth reading.
Don't fall into the trap of becoming an ideological bombast that loses the
respect of other commenters. No matter how offended you may be, don't
lower yourself to the level of demeaning others. I don't sense that is
what you are about, and don't allow yourself to become that.

Take responsibility for a mistake and commit to not repeating it.

My thoughts. Thanks for listening.

tidbits

----------------------------------------

Dr J

You people make such sweeping generalizations.

Kathy, don't go making me suspect you might have a sense of humor.

kathykattenburg

Kathy, don't go making me suspect you might have a sense of humor.

Oh, please. My therapist tells me I crack her up all the time.

mikkel

Where do you live and what system is it? I haven't heard of a totally private one.

Leonidas

So you're agreeing with me ("Yup") that it takes money to make a service efficient, and you're agreeing that a private company would spend the necessary money. Then you turn around and contradict yourself again ("The explanation is privately run.")

The explanation is not "privately run." The explanation is money, and you admit that the explanation is money, but you would prefer, for ideological reasons, that public services like the D.C. Metro be privatized.

You also contradict yourself by agreeing that running the Metro efficiently takes money, and then suggesting that the Metro is lying, and doesn't really need money.

You say that "stockholders demand returns to a greater degree than taxpayers," but you are a taxpayer and you're demanding returns on the tax money you spend. You point to the significance of taxpayers who go to a rally in D.C. to demand returns on their tax money, and you praise them to the point of exaggerating their significance, while simultaneously insisting that taxpayers are not as demanding of returns on their money as stockholders are. You say that stockholders' payments are voluntary, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people who use public services like the Metro are not stockholders and would have no say-so or voice whatsoever in how a private corporation would run the Metro. You say that stockholders must be "won over," while conveniently not mentioning the fact that taxpayers have to be won over, too -- it's called "elections." You say, "If a businessman saw that more trains were needed he would call in people to run extra trains and boost his revenue," ignoring the fact that boosting revenue has to be weighed against spending money, and many "businessmen" will decide that the expense isn't worth the revenue, OR, they will attempt to minimize the expense and maximize the revenue by hiring under-qualified workers whom they can pay less, thus risking passenger safety to make a buck. And you say that "a bureaucrat might look at the extra paperwork and either shrug or go through a long process of 'proper channels' " (whatever that means -- maybe it's a euphemism for making sure safety isn't compromised) without offering any evidence that this is a legitimate concern.

In other words, you employ arguments that are factually incorrect, logically dubious, and morally empty.

No Kathy I apply arguments that are grounded in reality and from an understanding of how business and government work instead of some fantasy land.

It takes money to make things work, I agree there, but Private enterprise spends its money more carefully because they have profit as a motive. It also has more flexibility than a government run enterprise of the same funding as far as operations, especially if it isn't handicapped by unionization which cuts into efficiency.

TheMagicalSkyFather

First off its how they are covered. The antiwar protesters were openly mocked while two guys debated the best way to move forward on Iraq(bombing or straight invasion, hows that for balanced coverage) whether it was Fox CNN or the big 3. The tea parties have been covered by every station that I have seen as "oppisition to Obama, can he survive with this muscular showing by conservatives" which is over stating the situation in a rather large way but gives them back the politics as a ball game feel that they enjoy. The antiwar rallies were also always treated as kooks AND were spied upon photographed and surveiled by our nice president W. When some jerk showed up wearing police issue boots and began picking fights with police they follow them with cameras shouting "provocateur" so that no confusion is made between the actual protesters and the guy the cops sent in to give them a reason to break it up. The media seizes on the provocateur and they and their actions become the story which deligitimizes the protest, do they whine? Nope they did that in the 70's now they have strategies to combat it. This gets me to the whinning, I am not talking about at the protest, nor the protesters I am talking about the after effects of the megaphone of conservative media and posters all over the internet whinning that they dont like the numbers(then get more people involved) and that they are unfairly maligned(welcome to the life of protesting in the US) and that they are being defined by a minority in their numbers(do what the left did and deal with them). Fox coverage was constant, for god sake they are the backers I would expect no less, what station has had constant coverage and updates from antiwar rallies?? Maybe it happened in the 60's or 70's but not in my lifetime.

HemmD

tidbits

I've re-read your comments a couple times before responding, and you certainly are entitled to a fuller explanation of my thought process. I've been commenting at TMV for less than a year, and I came here because of the well reasoned, tightly argued debates taking place between politically opposite commenters. My first real exchange took place between CStanley and me clarifying a proper analogy between the the Wall Street financial breakdown and an Emergency Room triage. We never totally agreed, something I have come to expect when she and I debate :-), but I know that I learned a new perspective from CS. I am a firm believer that the purpose of a debate is not to win so much as it is a method to find solutions neither side was previously aware of.

Maybe it's always been this way, but since the election, I have seen another type of comment have become more and more common place. The bomb-thrower is a commenter who insists upon outrageous, insulting comments about "the other side" that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. These bombs are merely tossed to cause emotional turmoil. Their purpose is not for discussion, clarification, nor counter-point. I believe their purpose is the same as people who deface artwork because they have no talent to create something themselves, so they destroy as their "act of creativity." Bomb throwing does nothing positive, and the game of tag that ensues fills threads with pointless insults that detract from the subject others wish to discuss.

Given this analysis, I believe I have two choices for responding to these infantile "contributors." The bombs thrown in my general direction, I simply ignore and go about my business. This itself is not always easy as some of the crap tossed into real discussions distracts many of the people I actually wish to engage. When bombs are tossed specifically in response to one of my comments, I react differently.

As my analysis above explains, a bomb "with my name on it" comes from someone who is either unable or unwilling to carry on an intelligent discussion about the topic. At the same time, they wish to distract the ongoing debate with obfuscation. If I do not respond, their destructive act passes for artful debate. The bomb I return to them is on a scale many times greater than that thrown. Please notice that its effectiveness can be measured by the lack of response. I do my best to make it a smart bomb, one that hits only its target. I don't try to smear opposing views, I merely use the terminology that my target likes to employ to shame its absurdity.

So, in this case, if you believe that PWT was actually conjecturing that using the term "teabagging" was a racial or sexual slur, my explanation will fall short in defending my actions. If however, you tend to agree that his conjecture was merely an attempt to stir the pot, please notice that he ceased to interfere with the discussion. The bomb seemed to hit its mark.

Let me know if this makes sense.

DLS

It's a shame so few people grasped the real issue. To repeat, it was

how crowded DC was with people, i.e., how many people actually came to DC. (Hint: It was crowded like that on Metro and elswhere in DC during the big anti-Bush, anti-war demonstration, even with record cold, one winter morning there not too long ago.)

tidbits

HemmD - Thank you for the explanation. One substantive point, then I'd like to respond more philosophically. The substantive point is that many on the extreme right actually do believe that "teabagger" is a derogatory term with sexual connotations, fashioned by liberals to demean them. This actually is no surprise given how some liberal talking heads like Keith Olberman used the term, in all its sexual inuendo, to marginalize them.

Onto the philosophical. Many years ago, I have since changed my mind, I had a personal credo "Be nice to everyone, but if someone isn't nice to you, show them how it's done". That sounds similar to your bomb-gets-bigger-bomb explanation. Over time I became very good at "showing them how it's done" until an event that caused me to ask if that was the person I really wanted to be. And, I will confess that the "show them how it's done" side of me still rears its ugly head on rare occassion. The difference is that where I once took pride in my ability to crush others, I now view it with shame, or a self aware knowledge that I f***ed up if you prefer.

Yes, there are bomb throwers on this site and in life. Some are flat out mean, some like to be outrageous to stir the pot, and some throw bombs because they fear intelligent discourse. But, when you or I or anyone else responds in kind we are "playing on their turf"...they have already won because they have reduced us to their level. Here's a political example for you. When the Patriot Act passed, I told my wife the "War on Terror" was over and the terrorists had won. You see, in my view, we had reduced ourselves to their level by compromising the principles of a free people and adopting authoritarian methods to respond to an authoritarian threat. We became more like them; they were not convinced to become more like us.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi understood that real strength does not come from responding to violence with violence; it comes from suffering the violence of others with moral dignity, that moral dignity is more powerful than violence, that it takes more couage to take a punch than to throw one.

We may not yet agree. Before ending, however, I want to say how much I like some of the things you said: that the "purpose of a debate is not to win so much as it is a method to find solutions neither side was previously aware of"...well said...that antagonistic comments, including bomb throwing, have "become more and more commonplace"...I share that view...that TMV tends, more than many other sites, to be a place for "well reasoned, tightly argued debates"...the same reason I'm here. The bomb throwers here are the outliers, and please understand that the editors will, if necessary, block at least the most offensive of them eventually.

Best,

tidbits

DaGoat

The substantive point is that many on the extreme right actually do believe that "teabagger" is a derogatory term with sexual connotations, fashioned by liberals to demean them. This actually is no surprise given how some liberal talking heads like Keith Olberman used the term, in all its sexual inuendo, to marginalize them.

It's not just the "extreme right" that thinks that. When this whole tea-bagging brouhaha began I had to go to the Urban Dictionary to see what the hell they were talking about, and at that time by far the most common definition was the sexual one. The term was obviously being used as a derogatory double-entendre by the left for some time. There were snickering posts posts on left-wing boards saying "heh heh, those hicks don't even know what we're talking about, heh heh" as well as the comments from Olberman and others in the media.

I would liken it to as if we suddenly started to call a group of people "blow-jobbers". There isn't any racial aspect to it, and probably not any homosexual accusations, but it's just kind of an odd thing to tag someone with. The demonstrations had nothing to do with tea bags and called themselves tea parties, so it's a misnomer.

Now since that time the term has gained wider use and I believe I've seen some people actually identifying themselves as teabaggers in the political sense and not the sexual one, so maybe the term has taken on a new meaning and is not being used as derogatory. My personal feeling is I think many on the left are still using it as an insult, with the sexual connotation at least partially included.

tidbits

DaGoat - I agree with your amplification of this phenomenon. The only, and it's very small, quible would be that I do recall those at the protests referring to them as "teabag parties" and recall seeing some of those present with teabags hanging from hats, vests etc. The libs obviously took advantage of the double entendre to create a derogatory term to disparage those who protested.

Just a quick thought. This is an example to those on the left who claim that conservatives are the ones who use all the hostile language that this sort of thing goes on with both sides.

TheMagicalSkyFather

I am unsure but I could have sworn they called the protests "teabag" protests at first until the left began snickering. I could have my timing wrong but I think they did not realize the connection and then it became a left wing talking point. If I am wrong than it is pretty insidious, if I am right though the left still needs to let it go since its over and everyone saw the joke...its time to move on. I think I may be right though as that is what was commonly said on the 912 website before the protests launched and I am guessing Glenn Beck missed the reference, it is just a guess though since I am a paranoid freak that is convinced that Glenn Beck is just trolling the Repub party and is in the process of destroying it or at the least isolating it. Either way "tea party" with tea bags was a bit of a marketing snafu. The joke is old though, I may just be saying this though since those protestors represent the part of the Repub party that I have respect for and I was horrified when they tied themselves to Beck and the term tea bag both.

kathykattenburg

Private enterprise spends its money more carefully because they have profit as a motive.

Exactly, Leonidas. You have made my point for me. Private enterprise has profit as a motive, not public service, or the public good. The phrase "more carefully" in your reply is a euphemism. It doesn't mean "more to the benefit of the public." It means "more to the benefit of the corporate bank account."

t also has more flexibility than a government run enterprise of the same funding as far as operations, especially if it isn't handicapped by unionization which cuts into efficiency.

Good golly, you privatization fetishists do love the creative use of euphemisms, don't you? Allow me to rewrite your sentence to reveal, rather than obscure, its meaning: "It [private enterprise] also is free to cut employee wages and benefits, hire only for part-time work at minimum wage, hire temps who can be paid less and fired at will, reduce its work force to save money, skimp on safety measures and on the manufacturing end, because sound construction done by quality manufacturers costs money that can be put to better use for the CEO's and senior management's personal needs and wants. Of course, it's a lot more difficult, if not impossible, to do all of the preceding if you've got unions in the workplace, so one expense that actually pays off for the bottom line is hiring union-busting law firms to get rid of those pesky unions that make you pay workers fair wages and give them health insurance."

I know that's a lot more words, but it's actually more accurate and, if I may be so bold as to to say this, it's what you had in mind, but of course would not say in plain language.

There is no way that privatizing public transportation is going to result in a better outcome for the public (defined as more trains, shorter waiting times, seats for everyone on days when tens, or hundreds, of thousands of extra riders are in the system because of a special event, etc.), because those things cost a lot of money and cut too deeply into profits.

HemmD

Tidbits

Your substantive point is understood, but not agreed to. Ignorant beliefs do not require me to acquiesce to that ignorance. It's similar to the congresswomen some years back who called the use of the word "niggardly" in an economic discussion racist. I cannot take responsibility for someone else's paranoia; nor must I change who I am based upon the false reading of my personality by those who don't take the time to ask. As you may have hopefully noticed, I'm happy to discuss any manner of personal opinion if someone asks.

Your philosophic point requires a little more. You appear to have reached a place in your life where you no longer believe that "showing them how it's done" is an appropriate way of living. Likewise, you point to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi as examples of worthy individuals who demonstrate a better response to violence in act or word.

You may well be correct that this is a more noble way to approach the bomb throwers, but both the individuals you cited led groups that were majorities within a suppressed society. While I honor their non-response to negative factions in their environments, I believe its fundamental to understand that they headed populations that by their sheer numbers could affect the opposition by their very non-action. Ignoring those who wish to incite the crowd or mislead the public discourse used to lead to shunning in small, like-minded, communities in the past. I don't believe that technique is effective at TMV.

TMV is an intellectually diverse community, and the binding commonality we seem to share is the intellectual rigor we apply to our own comments as well as those of opposing viewpoints. More than once, I've been handed my head for conveying a poorly argued idea, and for that, I'm grateful for the lesson that taught me to make sure what I wrote here underwent closer scrutiny prior to publishing. It's that closer scrutiny that makes me keep coming back to TMV.

Personal attacks, implied racial slurs, etc; the bombs we have been discussing, have no standing within that rigor, but unlike shunning where one can merely turn away from the disingenuous individual in the crowd, here their voice forces its way into the conversation. The bomb is designed to distract, and almost every bomb entices someone away from profitable discourse. It's the collateral damage that is the real problem, not the bald-face lie or exaggeration of the bomb itself.

If we all were standing in a crowd somewhere, physically turning or moving away from someone would be an option I would take. Here in the electronic salon where everyone's volume is the same, I believe my response is both appropriate and measured. As you said at the outset, we may disagree about this whole subject, but I've chosen my words to you based upon the care you have used yourself to voice your criticism of my actions. I completely agree you should voice that criticism based upon your understanding; please understand that I respond to the bombers on this site with the words I believe they understand the best as well.

Thanks for the chance at self-examination. It sounds like we both may have learned something from this exchange. It's the reason we both show up.

HemmD

Tidbits

Your substantive point is understood, but not agreed to. Ignorant beliefs do not require me to acquiesce to that ignorance. It's similar to the congresswomen some years back who called the use of the word "niggardly" in an economic discussion racist. I cannot take responsibility for someone else's paranoia; nor must I change who I am based upon the false reading of my personality by those who don't take the time to ask. As you may have hopefully noticed, I'm happy to discuss any manner of personal opinion if someone asks.

Your philosophic point requires a little more. You appear to have reached a place in your life where you no longer believe that "showing them how it's done" is an appropriate way of living. Likewise, you point to Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi as examples of worthy individuals who demonstrate a better response to violence in act or word.

You may well be correct that this is a more noble way to approach the bomb throwers, but both the individuals you cited led groups that were majorities within a suppressed society. While I honor their non-response to negative factions in their environments, I believe its fundamental to understand that they headed populations that by their sheer numbers could affect the opposition by their very non-action. Ignoring those who wish to incite the crowd or mislead the public discourse used to lead to shunning in small, like-minded, communities in the past. I don't believe that technique is effective at TMV.

TMV is an intellectually diverse community, and the binding commonality we seem to share is the intellectual rigor we apply to our own comments as well as those of opposing viewpoints. More than once, I've been handed my head for conveying a poorly argued idea, and for that, I'm grateful for the lesson that taught me to make sure what I wrote here underwent closer scrutiny prior to publishing. It's that closer scrutiny that makes me keep coming back to TMV.

Personal attacks, implied racial slurs, etc; the bombs we have been discussing, have no standing within that rigor, but unlike shunning where one can merely turn away from the disingenuous individual in the crowd, here their voice forces its way into the conversation. The bomb is designed to distract, and almost every bomb entices someone away from profitable discourse. It's the collateral damage that is the real problem, not the bald-face lie or exaggeration of the bomb itself.

If we all were standing in a crowd somewhere, physically turning or moving away from someone would be an option I would take. Here in the electronic salon where everyone's volume is the same, I believe my response is both appropriate and measured. As you said at the outset, we may disagree about this whole subject, but I've chosen my words to you based upon the care you have used yourself to voice your criticism of my actions. I completely agree you should voice that criticism based upon your understanding; please understand that I respond to the bombers on this site with the words I believe they understand the best as well.

Thanks for the chance at self-examination. It sounds like we both may have learned something from this exchange. It's the reason we both show up.

tidbits

HemmD - As you said "the bomb is designed to distract, and almost every bomb entices someone away from profitable discourse." Sort of like your bomb distracted us from the subject of this post and onto teabags and comparative philosophic responses? :-) Though I would not say that our discourse was unprofitable. Did PWT, in a sense, win?

I'll agree to disagree with you on how to respond to bomb throwers and look forward to more and varied intelligent discussion in the future.

On the subject of the post, from which I was so rudely distracted by the bombs bursting around me: There is an old Chinese proverb...or at least there should be...that he who votes against buying the instruments should not complain about the quality of the music.

TheMagicalSkyFather

TidBits & HemmD I actually agree with both of you, letting it go and not replying ends in someone reading the comment string and possibly believing something that is a talking point our sheer propaganda(these are the things I tend to get into arguments about so I am using myself as an example here). When I am doing so though I am highly conscious of things that may "turn peoples brains off" like insults or for instance demmies/repukes/repugs/socialists and other such names. I instead attack like I am trying to grab for the throat in the nicest way humanly possible and I at least try to keep it to historical fact or state when something is my opinion. I have seen and dealt with bomb throwers many times and in many ways but thats the most effective means that I have found. As for not lowering myself to their level I am very careful to admit when I am wrong and apologize for it and I refuse to spread information that I know to be false or propaganda, short of that I have little to no line but that distinction is what allows me to sleep at night. Of course propaganda and re-writing or misrepresenting history are my pet peeves so it is pure self interest but I do agree with both of you on many points but they are close enough I would have to sit on the fence. In the interest of full disclosure the person that "liked" TidBits comment saying the insulter loses was me, I still agree with that though I have had many flip out moments where I did not follow that rule.

JeffersonDavis

MagicalSkyFather,
I see your point on the coverage. And yes, the provocateur tends to become the story as it is how networks get their ratings. A peaceful protest is, in their eyes, boring. A guy getting hosed down by cops or, a fight breaking out, or an idiot with a sign that has nothing to do with the protest - they get the ratings.

However, in the 60's and 70's the protests were covered in the same manner. Of course, mom & pop conservative didn't like the coverage, but the media no less covered the protests with a bit of favoritism.

Similarly with the scandals from then until now. That's the biggest tell-tale concerning coverage. When Repbulicans fall to temptation and find themselves in a scandal - it's a free for all media frenzy. When democrats fall to the same temptation within a scandal, there's a more reserved "that has nothing to do with character" slant toward "journalism". That's just the way it is. No one in the media or on the left will admit that but there it is.
Fox is a different animal. And I'm glad they are there. Otherwise we'd already have a Soviet-style "no questions asked" form of press in America. They covered the Tea Parties fairly (or at least made up for what the others refused to do).

And for the record: To all here.....
I've been to every Tea Party here locally. Not once have I heard anyone attending refer to themselves as "Tea Baggers". Nor did I here our rallies called "Tea Bag Parties". Yes, several adorned themselves with Lipton Tea bags, but that was because it was a Tea Party. I agree with several of you when you say that the left coined that term and used it accordingly to demean the parties involved. Much like the Senators and Representatives demean those calling them into account at Town Hall meetings.

We're all just "astroturf". Right?

TheMagicalSkyFather

You have brought up an interesting point, and I agree to a point. They are covered differently, the repubs get hit for sex scandals and the dems usually get hit for corruption involving money. Cases exist where the media did not follow this rule but I think they are more focused on hypocrisy since it gets eyeballs on the show more then a partisan split. The exception I make to this rule is Sarah Palin who I still believe was put in the VP slot to keep her from fixing the big oil corruption scandals in Alaska and I think it was a bipartisan issue. I say this as someone that despises the woman but from what I have seen if that guess is correct it worked. She was liked and adored by all but the politicians but they allowed her to work in a bipartisan fashion due to her poll numbers and message. Once she ran the way she ran the Dems despised her and the Repubs slowly withdrew their support (AK Repubs) and I would bet that big oil is right back to the same old tricks that it was before she was in office now.

JeffersonDavis

Good point on Palin. That's the way politics works, though. I do not hate the woman as you do, but I (and I think most Americans) reacted positively to her because she had a history of no-nonsense politics and took on many "goliaths" in Alaska. We all prayed she'd do the same in Washington. Her politics aside, which I presume is the reason for the dislike on your part, she strikes me as a good person. I could be wrong on that, but it's been a long long time since I've had that feeling about a politician of any party.

You're probably right about the big oil companies in AK. Back to the same now that the "sheriff" has been run out of town. However, I agree with their precepts. They should drill (cleanly) in the ANWR and everywhere else, until some green alternatives are PROPERLY developed, and without yanking a knot in our economy.

TheMagicalSkyFather

My dislike of her stems from the way she presented herself not her bio. She did so in my opinion at the urging of her handlers as that nastiness is how Repubs run especially in districts in the south(I am saying she was playing classic southern strategy politics which makes me insane and irrational in response). She also crossed my other red line though, social conservatism. Combine those things with the fact that it looked like identity politics from the party of anti-identity politics and it made me want to rip my own head off. If they would have not tried to "defend" her so much and just left it alone I probably would have had less of an issue but instead they looked like they were pulling Al Sharpton's but badly.

Here's my take on ANWR, dont touch it. Leave it alone until the other wells are tapped dry or close to it and then open it up and we have one of the last supplies, this is a classic paleo-conservative position. Drill for it now and we lose all strategic advantage. I still cant believe the dems would never go there I just think we had a valid excuse to not, which the world would deal with and then we could have a stock pile of oil. If we really wanted to bring down prices Bush should have stopped filling the strategic oil reserve at the rate he did which made the oil industry, his family connections included, a huge amount of money that you and I paid for slowly every time we filled our tanks.

JeffersonDavis

You are correct on the "handlers". They totally ruined any chance for her acceptance. I personnaly was drawn to the social conservatism side. Again, one of the reasons I'm conservative.

Let's put it this way:
I'm a conservationist (not an environmentalist).
I'm for labor (but a proponent of LOCAL unions not National - I belong to USW).
I am for government provision of military, unlimited unbiased education, and infrastructure; but against government provision of individual needs (a libertarian belief).

Those are a few of my Democrat qualities.
My conservative all surround social issues and fiscal policy.
Regarless of the party, I wish all would act in accordance with the Constitution. And very few do.

As far as ANWR goes. Did you realize that the many (on both sides) in the US Government have arranged for us to use up everyone elses oil first, before tapping into ours. It's a way to make us more secure later. It actally makes sense. Many of the Arab nations are running out of oil (UAE, QATAR, etc). But ANWR, to me, is second fiddle, to national security. And we are not secure as long as we are dependent on those that wish harm upon our culture and people.

blog comments powered by Disqus