Cue Up the World’s Smallest Violin
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.
62 Responses to “Cue Up the World’s Smallest Violin”
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.
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.
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.
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
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 – 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.