Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Eloquence on a truck













Spotted on June 26, 2010

***

While on the subject, this year's gubernatorial race in California promises to have plenty of talk about welfare. The Republican nominee, Meg Whitman, has been positioning herself as a welfare reformer, bemoaning the increasingly welfare-state-like status of California (hear this ad).

This attack is part of her larger push to reduce governmental spending by cutting entitlements; an approach that has earned her the enmity of many unions - the California Nurses Association has dubbed her Queen Meg (with reference to her personal wealth and demonstrated capability of buying elections).

***

During the primary race for his presidential nomination in 1976, former US president Ronald Reagan popularized the term welfare queen by making oft references to a woman in Chicago who milked the government's support program to live a lavish lifestyle.

What is it with welfare and queens?

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Political circus or lynch mob?

To anyone who closely follows American legislative happenings at the federal level, one of the more entertaining phenomena would undoubtedly be House and Senate hearings. Legislative hearings are organized by committees in either houses to inform legislation, investigate public policy affairs, question nominated officials etc.

While most hearings are run-of-the-mill bureaucratic affairs, some pertaining to emotion-laden issues offer very entertaining political histrionics. Some instances from the recent past were those where legislators questioned the big three auto-makers (where the latter were whipped for flying their private jets to Washington) or the numerous hearings following the credit crisis involving bankers, policy-makers, federal officials etc.

On these public-passion-generating topics, it is clear that the purpose of the committee-members is not to investigate or inform themselves, but simply use the platform for political posturing and venting of public emotion. These hearings sometimes turn brutal, with committee members heaping scorn and sarcasm on the questionee, barely maintaining parliamentary decorum.

Case in point was the grilling of Tony Hayward, BP CEO, by the US House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee. There are plenty of sources where the entire hearing can be perused, but a representative snapshot is this one below (link to picture source) of Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana brandishing a picture of an oil-soaked pelican, apparently to exhibit the tragedy of the damage caused by the Deepwater oil spill.










One wonders what purpose dramabaazi like this fulfills in what is supposed to be an investigative hearing besides shaming the 'defendant' in front of a millions-strong audience.
The affair is analogous to a lynch mob because the purpose of mobs baying for blood is exactly what motivates such passionate legislative hearings - the venting of public anger against a perceived crime. As it goes with mobs, facts take a back seat.

While the political drama such hearings provide is certainly entertaining, it does bring to mind the question whether public shaming like this is constitutional. If BP is indeed found guilty of civil/criminal defaults as the result of a judicial process, they will certainly end up paying the due penalties. Is this scapegoating/humiliation then a subversion of the judicial process, and does it constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" (or worse, because the crime has not yet been proven)?

Thursday, June 03, 2010

Mexicans / Palestinians

Yesterday, Los Angeles County voted in favor of cutting business ties with Arizona-based firms and banning publicly funded travel to the state, to register its opposition to the new Arizona law which gives police in the state the authority to detain anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. The law is targeted at illegal immigrants from Mexico.

While personal emotions against the law are understandable, what duty or authority does a county government have to take any kind of stance against a (yet) non-constitution-violating law in another state? Of course, this is a rhetorical question - Los Angeles is thickly populated with people whose love and loyalty lies across the border in Mexico; this is purely a political statement.

One shouldn't be surprised. This is America, where the nation's flagship foreign policy is defined by the influence of a few whose love and loyalties lie seven seas away. Think Zionist Americans. Think Israel.

***

Also of note is the California Governor's position with respect to the law. Thanks to his large support base of people who oppose the law, Schwarzenneger does likewise, and joked the other day (a good joke, to his credit) that if he were pulled over in Arizona he would likely be deported for his accent.

Yet, the Governor also ardently supports the nation of Israel, which has imposed a three year-long blockade against its own neighbors/semi-citizens after a democratic experiment gone wrong (well, it didn't really go wrong, but certainly did not have a "favorable" outcome). Said he, at an event marking Israel's 60th birthday:
Israel has become a staunch ally and a friend of the United States and, I'm very proud to say, a great friend also of our great state of California.
Friend indeed. Such cynical love.

***

In justification of its killing of people on the supply flotilla, Israel insisted that its soldiers acted in self-defence, after the people on the ship manhandled the Israeli soldiers who boarded the ship via a helicopter. Which is true, the altercation started when Israeli soldiers rappelled down on board the supply ships via helicopter (video here).

If you are on international waters in your own boat, and some unwelcome guests forced themselves on board, what would you do?
free html hit counter