Waiting for some videos to finish the editing process, so I finally got around to this excellent Matt Taibbi piece discussing the teahadists in Rolling Stone:
Scanning the thousands of hopped-up faces in the crowd, I am immediately struck by two things. One is that there isn’t a single black person here. The other is the truly awesome quantity of medical hardware: Seemingly every third person in the place is sucking oxygen from a tank or propping their giant atrophied glutes on motorized wheelchair-scooters. As Palin launches into her Ronald Reagan impression — “Government’s not the solution! Government’s the problem!” — the person sitting next to me leans over and explains.
“The scooters are because of Medicare,” he whispers helpfully. “They have these commercials down here: ‘You won’t even have to pay for your scooter! Medicare will pay!’ Practically everyone in Kentucky has one.”
A hall full of elderly white people in Medicare-paid scooters, railing against government spending and imagining themselves revolutionaries as they cheer on the vice-presidential puppet hand-picked by the GOP establishment. If there exists a better snapshot of everything the Tea Party represents, I can’t imagine it.
I know some of you can’t stand him, but for my money, there is no one better than Taibbi at what he does.
mikefromArlington
It was a pretty good article.
I still can’t stand him personally though. :P
Billy K
What you said. We need more Taibbis.
The Republic of Stupidity
By and large I find Taibbi a little too… contrived… trying waaaaaaay too hard to be the next Hunter Thompson… but the except above?
It’s good… very good…
Mnemosyne
Taibbi’s a good writer, but he’s not much of a reporter. He needs a Bernstein to get the facts and statistics for him so he can write great essays that are entertaining and get the numbers right.
James Hare
@The Republic of Stupidity:
The medium is the message. He IS writing for Rolling Stone. I think Taibbi would be a little bit different writing for another publication.
realbtl
As a 62 year old ex-DFH (or maybe I still am, I dunno) these people have been puzzling me but the line “imagining themselves revolutionaries” made everything fall into place. These are the folks who always wanted to be radicals/hippies but got locked in early into the family/job thing. Now they can finally let their freak flag fly.
Of course, it could just be that they are idiots. Occam’s razor anyone?
Peter
The whole thing is good, not just the excerpt. I wonder if Rand Paul reads Rolling Stone.
MikeBoyScout
That’s good writing.
Taibbi and I don’t live very close to each other, so I don’t need to worry about the having a beer with him thing, I just read…. and that’s good writing!
Anonymous At Work
If I could wish anyone upon my enemies, it wouldn’t be him. But if I could wish anyone to write a take-down article about my enemies, it *would* be him.
Bubblegum Tate
@Peter:
Seriously. It kind of eliminated the need for anything else to be written about the teabaggers. His list of the 5 characteristics all teabaggers share is absolutely perfect.
W. Kiernan
Mark Ames is very good too, and in the category of what they do, their old Russian eXile was the Beatles.
catclub
@realbtl:
“imagining themselves revolutionaries”
Actually they each imagine they were the ONLY conservatives
who were complaining about all the deficit spending during the Bush years. Never mind that they want to extend tax cuts NOW for billionaires.
Taibbi points this out.
Roger Moore
@realbtl:
I think that’s exactly backward. They aren’t revolutionaries; they’re counter-revolutionaries. They’re the people who weren’t radicals or hippies and have been pissed off at the radicals, hippies, and civil rights campaigners from the get go. That’s the essence of the culture war, and the teabaggers are culture warriors at heart. They talk about small government and deficits because that’s the way the anti-civil rights and anti-hippie movement has been talking for a long time, but the core of the movement is cultural resentment.
cleek
he’s an entertaining writer, for sure. and this topic was perfect for his style: the overabundance of hypocrisy and stunning lack of self-awareness in teabaggerdom gave him plenty of the eye-rolling exasperation that fuels his best stuff.
Daddy-O
Taibbi is the shit. End of story.
Montysano
He stole that right out of my brain, where it’s been churning around since about March 2009.
Brachiator
I agree that Taibbi is quite good here. Without belaboring the point, he leads a reader to the inescapable conclusion that the greatest fear of these self-style revolutionaries is not that the government will spend too much, but that the government will spend money on the poor and nonwhites, instead of on “real American” white people.
patrick II
I don’t know why people don’t like Taibbi, perhaps because the disdain he shows makes us uncomfortable. But the disdain is earned. No essayist writing today illustrates the core rot of what is going on in this country better than Taibbi. You can put him with Thompson and Carlin as people who tell truth so directly it makes us squirm.
Console
It’s love-hate for me with Taibbi. As said above, sometimes he feels contrived. With Thompson you get the feeling that as crazy and ridiculous as he is, the real world was infinitely more insane, and that resonates a lot. With Taibbi it feels like he’s just being hyperbolic.
But they’re both two different people, and I wish I could read Taibbi without constantly trying to view him threw the prism of someone he isn’t, because he is a good writer in his own right.
bkny
one of the things that drives me nuts about those scooter commercials is that the elderly people in them always appear to be financially well-off — but each an every one proclaiming how they ‘didn’t have to pay a dime for it’ because medicare paid picked up the tab.
Joshua
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/218982/83512
Taibbi recently also put up a blog post in response to the news that the American Hero of Rugged Independent Alaska named Joe Miller was just another welfare queen for a long, long time.
BTW 100% of right wingers I talk to were against Bush’s spending. A lot of them even call him a RINO. I mean 100% – you will not find a single right winger who will honestly admit they were fine with Bush’s spending. And when I challenge them on that, they usually just start yelling about John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi.
ruemara
I posted the shite out of that article, because it was too good to ignore. Maybe we should send it to Villagers, so they can get a clue?
Violet
I love me some Taibbi. I don’t care what his personality is. He writes well and takes down hypocritical people and thieving institutions like no one writing today. He’s much needed.
Danton
Taibbi is Hunter Thompson’s heir.
Bubblegum Tate
By the way, I would heartily endorse making this Taibbi quip a tag here:
“Medicare-motor-scooter conservatives”
Aet
Great title. Fan of Psych?
One of the better fiction books I’ve read recently is Stephen King’s “Under The Dome”. One of the main villains of the story is pretty much the iconic image of the people described in this article. He isn’t actually a tea partier, but he comes across as someone of the tribe.
The character taps into a classic theme of morality that I see at these rallies: the idea that, to some people, morality only exists to justify their selfishness. Their prayers aren’t actually believed, but an incantation or a password. If I recite these words, if I praise this deity, I will be blessed.
Since these are people who confuse the political and the religious, they weaved their own twisted morality into their politics. Their authorities tell them that spending is bad, so they recite the mantra. They aren’t actually against Medicare: that would require thinking about what they say. They are just trying to be saved.
beltane
@realbtl: Many of the teabaggers are members of the so-called “Silent Generation” who have waited until now to break their silence. Funny how the election of a black president just happened to be the thing to rouse these silent, apathetic people out of their eternal slumber. Assholes.
paradox
Thanks for the link, it will be good to read him again. His blog at Rolling Stone is good.
I don’t understand in the least the personal animus against this great writer. His profession is in utter disgrace and tatters, and Taibbi is one of our few real journalists who truly care about the little people.
Yet his alleged offenses on style are serious sins in our confusing world? [shakes head]
I like his style and profanity and ability to entertain. It isn’t that far off the mark from my own, and I’m not stupid, I’ve seen shimmers of my work in Taibbi’s stuff before. I’m not anywhere near his level, okay, but I still saw it.
He’s a very good man. It confuses me that he would be seriously disliked, neutral maybe….but not real animus for one of our best journalists. Maybe when these fucking critics are in Rolling Stone I’ll take them seriously. Ya.
MattF
I think the teasters are just confused– cognitive deficit due to early retirement, cortical degeneration due to insulin overload. They’re resentful, angry, isolated, Fox News is their main link to the outside world– and someone, somewheres is having a good time.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
Taibbi rocks. Linking to his pieces is far more productive than even vaguely referring to anything that dribbles out of Sully’s mind much less link to him.
The Dangerman
I’d love to see an in-depth analysis of how this rescue effort in Chile came to be; it sure in the fuck wasn’t a private enterprise operation. Yes, a lot of goods and services were donated and I’m sure there were some NGO’s involved, but, at the end of the day, it was a Chilean Government operation. With a lot of support from other Government entities (NASA, etc).
I’d love to see this analyzed and have the teatards explain how Government was the problem (other than in allowing operations in a mine that was not safe).
Also, given how it is now coming out that Miller did some sketchy things in Alaska, where do they find these fuckers? Angle, O’Donnell, Paul, Miller; all have been hoisted on their own petards … and one or more will still win. Sickening.
ed
From an ’07 interview with Campus Progress:
What’s to not like?*
Anyone who doesn’t dig Taibbi either hasn’t read this awesomeness or is a dumbfuck Teabagger.
*split ’em while you got ’em!
TuiMel
@bkny:
My “favorites” are the commercials for the “Hoveround” which shows seniors doing synchronized scooter demonstrations. It is Gawdawful. I always think to myself, “And, this, is what we have come to.”
ItAintEazy
Waiting for “B-But he said the bailout was going to cost $23 trillion dollars!” That makes him a lier!” in 3… 2… 1…
Paul L.
Did Taibbi ever correct his statement about Bush and the Plastic Turkey?
Here is the NY Times correction
Lavocat
Taibbi is a master at turning outrage into hysterical laughter. He’s giving me an amazing coping mechanism to deal with 2010 America.
Cuz if ya can’t laugh, you’ll go postal.
John Cole
@Aet: You betcha. I was wondering if anyone would get the Psych reference.
Brian J
November is going to be bad for us Democrats. It was always bound to be, but it’s made worse by, mostly, the state of the economy. I still think we are going to hold the Senate, and while we may not hold the House, I don’t think we are going to lose 80-100 seats, but enough so that taking it back in 2012 or 2014 will be relatively easy.
I could be wrong, but if there’s a possibility that I am right, we will undoubtedly be helped by the incoherence of the Teabaggers. I can’t remember who said it, but someone mainstream said that if they ever tried to form a platform, they’d lose lots of members. I think that’s absolutely right. It seems, to this day, that people who are just angry, angry, angry are projecting whatever frustrations they have, no matter how irrational, onto what the Tea Party allegedly stands for.
The Republicans have too many people trying to do too many different things. Think of health care. They could try to block implementation and funding for various parts to throw a stick in the spokes, but outright repeal doesn’t seem likely. The public likes the parts that the insurance company hates, like those about pre-existing conditions, but the insurance companies, who are funneling money into the Republicans’ races, want to keep the part about buying insurance that the public doesn’t like. Who will they try to please?
Plus, the quality of the candidates is really, really awful. It’s not simply that they have values I don’t share. It’s that they are, in a lot of cases, almost unhinged. And if victory will almost certainly act as an impetus to double down, at least in public, on the crazy comments.
I don’t think it’s as easy as I make it out to be in my more hopeful moments, but I think a crack up is all but likely.
Redshirt
The perfect phrase to describe our times: “Gummint hands off my Medicare!”
eemom
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage:
OMG, even Rude Pundit links to Sully today. Cue the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse galloping our way…..
Dennis SGMM
@Roger Moore:
Yep, it made them furious that we were all out getting laid and having a good time while they were working their way up the ladder at Piggly Wiggly.
PS
Taibbi’s article was good, but his latest blog post may actually be better, since more focused:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/matt-taibbi/blogs/TaibbiData_May2010/218982/83512
Martin
@realbtl: If they’re on Medicare, they’re pre-boomer. They’re the group too young to have fought in the war, but old enough to have suffered due to it, and too old to have been hippies because they were already in the job market and raising kids, terrified at the social unrest of the 60s.
They missed everything good, hit everything bad, but they hit Reagan in their midlife crisis 40s, when they were all dealing with paying for college for their kids. They’ve been giving a big fuck-you to the American people for 30 years running.
cleek
@Brian J:
some days i believe that. other days i think “these people are too stupid to figure out that all of the spending they complain about amounts to even a pimple on the ass of the overall budget; they don’t know what ‘mandatory spending’ is; they don’t know what ‘marginal’ tax rates are; no, they won’t bother analyzing what their people are doing, they’ll just switch to defense and everything the GOP does will be A+ 100% Super Awesome, as usual.”
Brachiator
@The Dangerman:
I think that even more than whether it was government or private enterprise, the main thing to me was that experts, people who knew their stuff with respect science, engineering, medicine, psychology, were involved. And yeah, competent government. What you didn’t have were witchcraft, “common sense,” or reliance on a magical deity to pull the miners from what might have been a grave.
And here is one of the few times when I heartily endorse the digging of the rescue shaft with the words, “Drill, baby, drill!”
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@realbtl:
I don’t think hippies, exactly, more they see themselves as courageously standing up against tyranny, the shadow of a tree limb falling across their bedroom wall that they think is a monster. The most interesting interviews are when they’re asked what rights have been taken away from them; the dumb ones just babble, but every once in a while there’s a glimmer of thought and they’re left stammering and confused. A conservative flipside of the Naderite poo-flinger who thinks s/he (but I think usually he) is Keepin’ It Real on sell-out progressive blogs, but these people are backed by unlimited financial resources and amplified by a cowed and confused media, both of which inflate their already considerable delusions of courage and insight.
On Taibbi: He’s like those American Idol singers who are always reaching for those Whitney Houston dramatic notes (not a musician, but I think you know what I mean). He’d be more effective a writer (and thinker) if he started at five or six and dialed it up to eleven only every few paragraphs. IMHO.
eemom
in other news, a certain “man of principle” joins forces with one of Fucker Tarlson’s, um, “reporters” today wrt to the Chamber of Commerce issue. Since I will no doubt be accused of misrepresenting what he said, here it is:
Enter Robert Gibbs, hypocrite-in-chief.
FlipYrWhig
There was A Thing in the 2004 primaries… I’m trying to remember the specifics… something about Taibbi going to a Wesley Clark event and acting weird for weirdness’s sake. It was in The Nation.
Rosalita
I love a Taibbi rant. I just wish this article (and it’s contents) would get more exposure. The hypocrisy of these teabaggers is just too much.
David
When Teabaggers receive government subsidies it’s not called Welfare, it’s called Enhanced Assistance Techniques.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Martin: Gawd, I hope us GenXers don’t end up that way.
The Dangerman
@Brachiator:
I suspect that if you ask the Chileans, a highly Religious country, they would attribute the “experts, people who knew their stuff with respect science, engineering, medicine, psychology” are indicative of the existence of a Deity.
I’m not saying they are right, I’m not saying they are wrong; I’m saying that using words like “magical deity” is disrespectful to them (and others)…
…and doesn’t help in the larger political culture wars.
Aretha had it right: R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Even if it isn’t reciprocated (Golden Rule, etc.).
EmmATX
Actually, the reason I don’t like Taibbi personally is that he like to use sexist language and rape analogies, which is not only offensive but just lazy writing. But otherwise he’s a good writer with an invaluable platform, and I love reading his rants.
Edit: also, in his Rolling Stone headshot he has a major case of doucheface.
Dennis SGMM
@David:
I’m only surprised that they haven’t petitioned the government to provide them all with Buicks because they can’t get their fat asses into anything smaller.
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: And here I disagree. I don’t feel too much need to respect ideas that are not provable, yet have far too much influence and respect in society.
We’ve been “respecting” religion since 1993 by ceding the rule of law to religious feelings about gays, only to allow people to start openly advocating for gays to be killed. So, no, no respect. I may not be as openly disrespectful as that, but respect is to be earned.
Brian J
@cleek:
I try not to talk politics with certain people. It’s not because I can’t get along with people who disagree with me; most of my friends from college and at least half of my family members are conservatives. Instead, it’s that there’s what appears to be a lot of confusion about certain topics that I just can’t get past. And considering I bottle up my anger to the point where it looks like I am talking to myself in a fit of rage or running at the gym with peoples’ faces behind my feet or imagine Karl Rove dying in a fiery blaze, I often end up wanting to say outrageous things to convey how angry I am at this.
My boss is a pretty independent guy. He’s probably more to the right on economic issues and to the left on most social issues, but I believe him when he says he would have voted for Clinton if she had been the nominee. I wanted to scream last week when he started to talk to me about Pelosi and food stamps and getting people jobs. I said if he wanted more people to have jobs, he should be clamoring for more stimulus. He responded by suggesting we have tax cuts, and I told him why this wasn’t the best course of action. He also mentioned how the stimulus seemed like money wasted and how it went to fund pet projects. He was, however, open to infrastructure spending, which is, as best I can tell, a distinction without much of a difference.
He’s not a genius, but he’s not an idiot. He seems like a reasonably well informed guy, and while I know a lot, I don’t know nearly enough, so it’s not as if I am perfect. But how I am supposed to respond when someone suggests that infrastructure spending is radically different than other types of stimulus spending? There are clear differences, of course, but in the end, it’s the government spending money for a particular purpose in order to jump start the economy. That’s what stimulus is, no matter what form it takes.
Steve
@eemom: Do you think Greenwald has a point?
Phoenix Woman
Taibbi was pretty much the only writer worth reading on the Michael Jackson court cases. While every other alleged journalist was talking about how Jackson was doomed to spend his life in an orange jumpsuit, Taibbi was the only one to point out the really bad job the prosecutors did putting together their case together; he was saying, almost from the start, that Jackson was probably going to walk. And so it proved.
That’s when I knew he was somebody to watch.
jrg
Reading stuff like this, I can’t help but think that the “culture wars” are one Palin presidency away from heating up – big time.
I’m just waiting for the day when someone like Palin decides to punish the blue states that voted for the other guy, inviting a backlash that stops the gravy train these red-state slobs are riding.
Something’s got to give. I don’t pay taxes to cover the medical costs for some octogenarian ingrate who thinks I’m a n*****-loving communiss.
Barb (formerly gex)
@EmmATX: To be fair, sexist and pro-rape isn’t too far off from the right wing politicians he’s talking about. It may just be the most accurate way to describe their motivations.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@eemom:
OH NOES!!!!!!!
The asteroid is about to strike. Either that or the alien pod people have taken over The Rude One. We’ll have to confirm that and if so, kill him. For sake of humanity an all that.
Martin
@Barb (formerly gex): I don’t think we will. We’re still young enough to enjoy iPhones and unlimited online porn. Sure, we’re totally economically fucked, but we can dial up porn and Angry Birds anywhere. I’m hoping that’s enough to carry us through.
Adam Lang
@Paul L.:
No, no. The poultry was real. It was the one holding it who was the plastic turkey.
Mnemosyne
@eemom:
Link? From the way you posted it, it sounds like you’re saying that Robert Gibbs wrote a piece accusing himself of McCarthyite behavior, which seems, um, not correct.
Brachiator
@The Dangerman:
I’ve been watching the rescue on the local Spanish language TV stations here in Southern California. I’m sure that the Chileans believe in various deities, and have given thanks. And the Pope has even stepped in to give a blessing.
Still, it is manifestly evident that even here, the idea is that providence worked through experts and competent human beings.
The Dangerman
@Barb (formerly gex):
Fine; disrespect those that abuse Religion (since 1993 or whatever). Phrases like “magical deity” disrespect all religions.
If your goal is to disrespect all Religions, you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Davis X. Machina
After eighty years, the left-wing Mencken.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Martin: I sure hope so, but I’m fearful. GenXers are actually more anti-gay than the group right before them and the group right after them. So we seem to be psychologically similar to the Silent Generation, and it seems, were almost immediately disappeared from the zeitgeist by those who came after in similar ways.
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: Did you not read the part where I said I wouldn’t be openly disrespectful? I am allowed to have my own opinion, am I not? Should I be required to respect religion? Or should I just refrain from being openly disrespectful? I guess that’s not enough for you. Whatever.
Interestingly, any critique of religion leads to exactly these sorts of attitudes towards the non-religious. It isn’t enough to not be disrespectful to religion. I must respect it.
I don’t really get your point. But kudos for finding something to attack me about anyway, Mr. Respect!
Gary K.
If you have never seen Taibbi’s takedown of Tom Friedman, just
drop everything now and go read it.
maus
@Roger Moore:
Not true!
Some of them might have been the date rapists / misogynists in the commune, or at least grew the long hair out as a gimmick to get “easy liberal chicks”. There were plenty of fake hippies, and I’m sure plenty of them still to this day.
I certainly know of a few douches that seem to mold their public political beliefs based on what won’t get them problems in the dating scene.
ricky
One of the best, most telling points in Taibbi’s piece is Rand Paul’s explanation for why doctors such as himself should not be forced to accept cuts in Medicare compensation because they deserve to make a comfortable living.
Throughout the debate over health care people liked to point to what the polls showed a majority of Americans favored. Here is one you rarely saw quoted.
“Public opinion about doctors’ incomes was examined in a national random sample of 843 respondents; 70.1 per cent of those questioned felt physicians are overpaid. There was a high degree of agreement among various groups that physicians are overpaid, but older people and Whites were more likely to think so than younger people and other ethnic groups.”
It is from 1985. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1646197/
kay
@Brian J:
I don’t know. They always say that. They always like the Democrat we didn’t nominate, or the Democrat we used to have. It’s another way of blaming Democrats for everything. When Bush voters got buyer’s remorse, they told me they would have jumped ship BUT FOR John Kerry. It was my fault they voted for Bush. Okey doke.
Real time voting for the actual Democrat always trips them up.
Mike in NC
Taibbi is the anti-Andrew Sullivan.
celticdragonchick
@Martin:
My folks were born in 1938 and 1940.
Definitely not Boomers and not fans of the 60’s.
Phoenix Woman
@Steve: Actually, Glenn was apprised of the Think Progress article on the subject and has since updated his post:
Now, I do have problems with his simultaneously admitting that the TP allegations turned out to be well documented and then saying in the very next breath that the President shouldn’t be “tossing accusations and innuendo at private actors that he doesn’t know are true”. The injection of foreign cash into Republican election efforts has been a semi-open secret for several decades, whether by AmChams or by (in the case of Haley Barbour’s RNC Chair tenure) the government of Communist China (go Google “barbour ambrose yacht hong kong”, or “katrina leung republican parlor maid” sometime). But at least now he’s admitting that this isn’t something that has no basis in reality. He does admit when he’s wrong, every now and then — though as with every other mortal you have to all but wrestle him to the ground before that happens.
celticdragonchick
@Mike in NC:
Sullivan on a good rant about torture is one of the best things you will read in a month…so I can’t go with you on that.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Barb (formerly gex): Interesting discussion on respect here with Dangerman. I’m not even allowed my own opinions, because that is disrespectful. But to tell me that by having those opinions, I am part of the problem is not disrespectful at all.
I fucking give up. This frankly this kind of up is down, the house (religion) always wins thing tires me no end. I’m not the one who is driving policy based on unprovable beliefs. I just like to point that that those beliefs rely on some really huge unprovable assumptions over which humanity has disagreed for millennia. Which obviously makes me the problem.
nepat
@Danton:
Gag. Taibbi is a Hunter Thompson wannabe and poseur. He’s exactly like all the other villagers in pedigree, but hides it in his totally predictable schtick (e.g. using the f-bomb as punctuation).
Half the commenters at BalloonJuice are sharper, funnier, and better writers than he is. In fact, Cole himself is a better Taibbi than Taibbi is.
The Dangerman
I did. From your other words, I read it as the same as the teatards that claim that their use of the word “n*****” doesn’t mean that they are racist. A distinction without a difference.
Of course, obviously.
Obviously, it depends; do you want to be part of the problem or part of the resolution?
Again, obviously, it depends; do you want to be part of the problem or part of the resolution?
What is, or isn’t, enough for me is meaningless; all I am saying is respect for others on a macro scale, regardless of Color, Creed, Orientation, etc., is a useful ideal. Now, on a micro scale, if people prove to be idiots are worthy of disrespect (teatards, etc.), so be it. I suspect I’m a idiot to you (and, frankly, I could give a shit). Bottom line, macro level, we’re all in this together andI don’t see how showing respect is a bad thing…
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@kay:
That’s true of a lot of Democrats too: Howard, Kucinich, Hillary, Cuomo, for all I know Clean Gene McCarthy and in a different vein, RFK (I fall for that sometimes myself, even though I was one). They all could have magically accomplished what the actual nominee/office-holder couldn’t.
Phoenix Woman
@Gary K.: The Moustache of Understanding = Sirius Cybernetics Corporation.
Brian J
@kay:
I think he does lean towards the right, but he’s definitely more of an independent than a lot of people are. That might not be saying much, but he’s not one of the types that merely wears the label to show off. In his case, for better or worse, he’s genuine.
Roger Moore
@Dennis SGMM:
I don’t think that’s exactly right. I don’t think they secretly wanted to be out doing what the hippies were doing but couldn’t because they were trapped in a conventional life. Rather I think that they valued conformity as something worthwhile in and of itself and resented anyone who didn’t go along regardless of the details. They would have resented nonconformist acetic do-gooders just as much as they resented fun loving hippies.
The Dangerman
@Barb (formerly gex):
Oh, come on, it’s not a binary; the choices are not limited to “disrespect” or “respect”. Calling it a binary is silly.
Citizen Alan
@The Dangerman:
In my personal opinion, it is the purpose of religion — all religions, without exception — to enslave the minds of believers in order to condition them to submit to authority. I perceive no “solution” offered by any of the world’s religions that outweighs the problems that they cause, and since the forces of religious zealotry and intolerance are poised to take over this nation and tear it to shreds, I’m not particularly inclined to show respect for their tender fee-fees. If the Invisible Sky Buddy has a problem with it, He can strike me down himself.
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: Well quit putting words in my mouth. I don’t think you are an idiot. I did not have any problems with religion until it started getting uppity on gay issues. And the anti-gay movement has proceeded precisely because we as a society respect people’s religious beliefs a great deal. And so I am less inclined to show undeserved respect to religion. Not the same as being disrespectful. I will take it on a case by case basis. Where as you seem to just demand religion be respected, end of story.
@The Dangerman: ETA: saying I won’t be openly disrespectful to religion is not the SAME as saying I disrespect all religion either. Sheesh. Perhaps you are the one who thinks it is a binary, not me. Civility should be shown, but respect must be earned.
The Dangerman
@The Dangerman:
And now I’ll correct myself.
I don’t see how refraining from disrespect is a bad thing. Originally, I made it a binary; my bad.
kay
@Jim, Foolish Literalist:
Or, they get so much better! Bill Clinton turned into a civil libertarian, a miraculous transformation from what he really was, which was southern state AG who happily exploited law ‘n order issues to get promoted, all the way up the ladder. Janet Reno? Good Lord.
And I liked Clinton, but I saw him, you know? The real Clinton? Not the revised version?
MBunge
@Phoenix Woman: It’s nice to see The Last Honest Man acknowledge an error, especially when he does it in such a way that confirms he just flat dislikes Obama.
I think the problems that folks have with Greenwald and Taibbi stem from the same basic thing. Both writers treat every issue and every dispute as though they were all the same. So, you can either say people don’t like seeing their own sacred cows get slaughtered or that Greenwald and Taibbi are indiscriminately self-righteous in their ranting.
Mike
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: And refraining from disrespect was what I said originally in the “not openly disrespectful” comment. So what was the point of your argument again?
The Dangerman
@Citizen Alan:
Fine; different strokes for different Folks. All I’m saying is good luck in solving any culture related problem with that attitude.
stuckinred
@Dennis SGMM: I remember a Sgt Major when I was mustering out at Oakland. Three days on a warehouse floor after the flight from Bien Hoa-Guam-Travis. I had my Dress Greens unbuttoned and this lifer went all ape shit on me talkin about court martial and shit. I buttoned it and said, “see ya in the streets next week top”! Ten to one he’s in one of them scooters now!
Martin
@celticdragonchick: My folks were born in 46. They’re *barely* boomers, but they also pretty much missed the whole scene. My mom went the tea party route (mild, though), but my dad sounds exactly like Taibbi now and if given the choice would prefer the country look like Cuba than look like it did under GWB.
She broke with the previous generation, he with the later. They’re my political petri dishes.
Citizen Alan
@The Dangerman:
Bullshit. In this country, anything less than groveling submission to the beliefs of the religious is considered disrespect. Meanwhile, it is completely noncontroversial to suggest that anyone who doesn’t believe in God is unAmerican and unelectable in American politics. That’s about as binary as you can get.
The Dangerman
@Barb (formerly gex):
Same answer as previous; a person that uses the N word can’t claim to not be a racist. You can’t claim to “not being disrespectful” after being disrespectful.
And, with this comment, I’m done.
Citizen Alan
@The Dangerman:
How exactly do you propose to solve any culture related problem by being more “respectful” towards people who think that homosexuality is, at the very least, a termination offense and at worst something that should carry the death penalty?
The Dangerman
@Citizen Alan:
OK, I guess I’m not done. One more.
I call Bullshit to your Bullshit.
I’m sorry, that’s a steaming pile of crap.
Now, I really must go.
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: Not true. Saying that I would refrain from being disrespectful is not the same as being disrespectful. It’s called the hypothetical.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@kay: Orrin Hatch, who voted to convict Bill Clinton in an impeachment trial, now claims he longs for the days of a moderate president he could work with. And I trust in his stupidity and general lack of character that he really thinks that.
The Boss who would’ve voted for HRC is another prime example. As soon as it was clear she was fighting a losing battle, FoxNews and Republicans and Villagers all became very Concerned about sexism and unfair treatment. She became a very effective moderate et cetera et cetera. Had she won, she would’ve been the crusading socialist radical lesbian who had Vince Foster killed because he was going to reveal their affair and the Clintons’ secret commodities deals, while Barack Obama would have become the post-partisan hope for the American future and I’m not saying Dems are racist but isn’t it curious they ran back to the Clintons rather than vote for this inspiring young black man….
The Dangerman
@Citizen Alan:
Oddly, I probably fall into the Religiously category and I neither feel homosexuality is a termination offense nor feel that they should be killed. I would suggest the majority of Religious people (fuck the extremists in all Faiths) feel the same.
So, broad brush comments like the one highlighted show a very narrow mind.
Mnemosyne
@Barb (formerly gex):
I have to disagree with you there. I know plenty of atheists (primarily older people) who are anti-gay, not because Gawd said so, but because they think it’s icky and that’s the way they were raised. There’s nothing magical about atheism that makes people pro-gay, unfortunately — they just come up with other excuses for it, like, “It’s unnatural.”
The really vocal, creepy, let’s-put-them-to-death people usually give religious excuses for it, but it’s not like atheist China is a haven for gays and lesbians.
morzer
@The Dangerman:
Excuse me one moment, but are you telling us that rappers who use the N-word are therefore racist?
The Dangerman
@Barb (formerly gex):
Same answer, sorry. Comment 1 appeared to be the same broad brush comment as Alan made. Perhaps I read it wrong; if that is the case, this really is the end of the thread for me, huh?
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: So if I am civil to religious people with whom I disagree, even if I do not have any respect for their positions, I’m just as bad as someone who is outright disrespectful, got it.
Nice of you to misrepresent what I’ve been saying and then scoot without addressing the fact that what you said is *exactly* what I started out saying.
I said “. I don’t feel too much need to respect ideas that are not provable” which you have decided must necessarily mean that I disrespect them, even though you ALSO protest that respect/disrespect are not a binary. So whatever. What I’m getting from you is demands that I respect people the vast majority of whom will CHANGE CONSTITUTIONS to deny me rights.
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: I like how you selectively excluded the point where I mentioned I was speaking HYPOTHETICALLY. Quote mine much?
catclub
@Roger Moore:
“They would have resented nonconformist acetic do-gooders just as much as they resented fun loving hippies.”
These are the drivers who are angry at bike riders, especially when the bike riders might be enjoying themselves.
Something about American puritans, anger, and enjoyment
that continues in the US psyche.
The Dangerman
@morzer:
No.
Next question?
Citizen Alan
@The Dangerman:
You know, I might have a great deal more respect for organized religion if all the millions of anonymous blog posters who talk about how they can be religious without being bigoted or sanctimonious or hysterically afraid of socialism or whatever were to spend less time complaining about non-believers painting them with a broad brush and more time standing up in church to condemn the bigotry, sanctimony and hysterical fears of socialism among their fellow religionists. I seem to recall a Bible verse about the mote in your neighbor’s eye vs. the beam in your own, or something like that.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Mnemosyne: Fair enough. In my mind, I feel like America’s atheists anti-gay stance comes from the environment. So for example, when atheists showed up as knowing more about religion, the explanation by some religious people was that it is due to the fact that they *were* religious, or their parents were religious, etc. It’s in that sense that I feel that religion is behind that. And recent polling shows that atheists are now 90% in support of SSM, quite a contrast from religious Americans.
The Dangerman
Huh?
Tell ya what; I’m gonna go down to the hood and yell “you’re all hypothetically N****** ” and see what happens (it’s a Kentucky Fried Movie reference, FWIW).
stuckinred
@The Dangerman: The next question is why in the fuck do you keep popping up after you dramatically announce you are done? Furthermore, who cares?
Barb (formerly gex)
@The Dangerman: I said I “would” refrain from outright disrespect. As in I “would” if I felt disrespect. Thus the hypothetical. I did not SAY I have disrespect for religion. I said I would refrain from outright disrespect. Perhaps I needed to add “if I felt it” for people who wish to willfully misconstrue what I am saying and have said.
The Dangerman
@stuckinred:
A high degree of masochism? A few extra minutes to burn before I have to leave? Bored with my porn? What does it matter?
It’s a blog. People post stuff. People can care or not care. I don’t care if you care or don’t care.
Mnemosyne
@Barb (formerly gex):
Honestly, I think you’re over-exaggerating the influence of religion, and I do think that exaggerating that influence is hurting some of the strategies that people are coming up with to battle for gay rights. If you look at the demographics for those atheist numbers, I guarantee you two things:
(1) The average age of self-professed atheists is lower than self-professed conservative religious people; and
(2) If you look at the views of self-professed conservative religious people in the same age cohort as the self-professed atheists, you will find that their views about gay people conform closer to those of the atheists who are around their age than they do with the older people that they share a religion with. IOW, support (or not) for gay rights is far more closely tied in with age than it is with religious beliefs.
You’re overdetermining religion as a factor in being anti-gay and overlooking that an older person of any religion or non-religion is statistically more likely to be anti-gay than a younger person, even if that younger person is religious.
I’m not trying to argue you out of being anti-religion, but you’re better off assuming a 60-year-old atheist is anti-gay than you are assuming a 20-year-old professed Christian is.
Andrew
@Citizen Alan:
Only if the religion is a flavor of Christianity or Judaism. It’s perfectly acceptable to dump on the Hare Krishnas, the Muslims, the Hindus or any number of other religions you can name for political purposes and/or cheap laughs.
gil mann
@EmmATX:
Yeah, I can see where you’re coming from.
And I can see where you’re not coming from– the etymology department.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Mnemosyne: I can agree that religion in America is using existing human flaws to gain power using gay issues. But when there’s an appeal to a universal truth backing it, those people are trying to give their opinions greater authority than other people’s. In atheist China, at least it is still people battling people over the issue. Here were battling the wishes of an unknowable being.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Mnemosyne: That is true. But religion has been bankrolling the political campaigns. And all the followers have funded that, regardless of their actual positions.
I’m sure the PTSD I experience when religion is brought up will subside. But it will be a very long time from now – when the Catholics in Anoka, MN are more than happy to let 4 kids kill themselves rather than “promote homosexuality” in schools to prevent bullying and that is supported by the people and the politicians of the district. It’ll be a while. I’m definitely working on challenging myself on this, and I hope you can see that in how I am presenting my arguments now as opposed to even a few weeks ago.
Brachiator
@Mnemosyne:
This is a good point. I am pretty much non-religious. And one of the things that keeps me non-religious is that I reject any religion, and any interpretation of religion, that says that a group, people, or gender is to be mistreated, shunned, discriminated against simply because a deity or that deity’s representatives says so.
And so, when a person tells me that God considers homosexuality to be an abomination, my response is I don’t care. My view of a civil society is that gay people are citizens with all the rights of any other citizen.
But yeah, I know atheists who are racist or homophobic. Being an atheist does not automatically confer enlightenment.
Barb (formerly gex)
@Brachiator: Exellent points both. From a universal truth standpoint, religion is not the problem. Politically here in the US, it is part of the problem.
scav
One funny thing about many of the religious is that they insist they be judged, nay, respected, for the theoretical principles of their religion and not their actual actions and, furthermore, they they be judged using only those rules that they, in fact, have set up as worthy of respect. “Hey, I’m an ‘x’ I’m good and meretricious because I say so on this promotional material written on the box! (please ignore the mere mortal behind the curtain. . . )” Moreover, they interpret respect as equal to abject agreement, rather than treating them like any other actor in a social contract that occasionally gets called on their moments of bullshit and has to argue their positions, maybe even compromise or try to get along with others of different opinions. Nope, it’s like a preference for mango ice cream has been placed above the mortal sphere and need not play in the scrum of actual proving anything or allowing vanilla, chocolate, bubblegum or chunky monkey to be acceptable dessert options.
Citizen Alan
@Brachiator:
I forget where I read this, but someone on a blog recently said something that has been sticking with me. If there were no such thing as religion in the world, good people would still do good things and bad people would still do bad things. But what you would not have (at least, not as regularly) is good people doing bad things. Because generally, you need religion for that. You need religion to make a good, loving mother reject her gay son or a good, loving father reject his daughter for having an abortion. You need religion to persuade otherwise good people that a social safety net is bad because it might lead to soshulism which will make Baby Jesus cry. You need religion to make good people go into screaming hysterics over the threat of Sharia law (and for that matter, you need religion to make people in other countries accept the necessity of Sharia law).
I’d like very much to hear someone make a credible argument that religion, in general, has done more to make bad people do good than it has to make good people do bad.
les
@The Dangerman:
Now, I won’t go so far as to say this exemplifies all “you must respect my religion” arguments, but…
Shorter Dangerman: How dare you not tolerate my religion based intolerance!
les
@les:
And be damned the blockquote intolerance of paragraphs. Line 2 above following immediately from line 1.
Brachiator
@Citizen Alan:
Sorry, I just don’t buy this. Religion and philosophy are just some of the ways that people use to try to understand and to live in the world.
But the sad reality is that people rarely need a reason to do evil, or worse, create reasons after the fact to rationalize or justify what they have done.
And I don’t even know what the point would be to try to quantify an answer to your question: “I’d like very much to hear someone make a credible argument that religion, in general, has done more to make bad people do good than it has to make good people do bad.”
Does it really matter what the score might be?
And also keep in mind that a huge amount of evil is done in the name of tribal, caste, ethnic or community loyalty, often without any religious consideration.
PS
@Citizen Alan: I guess I can see what you are trying to say, in terms of the whole “God tells me we must slay the infidel” mode, but where on earth do you get this nonsense about “good people” not doing “bad things”? One historical example: Sex selection used to be practiced by the “accidental” smothering of baby girls. This was reflected in the parish registers of medieval England. It was also deniable, so the murdering parents could maintain their self-image, and social image, of being “good.” Religion did not tell them to kill baby girls. Possibly, economic circumstances did. In fact, religion compelled them to dissemble and pretend they were not doing that; and quite likely did prevent some people from so doing.
Now, that’s not an argument that religion has “done more” but I think that’s a pretty foolish approach. How on earth do you propose to quantify ethical activity? Oh, and I suppose I should note that I am atheist. But spiritual. On good days.
Cain
The thing I don’t understand is that these people who are dishing out on government healthcare. They are campaigning to end it while using it extensively. What happens when they get their wish. I wish Taibbi would ask them that. I mean if you can no longer be able to ride around in a scooter “for free”. If they didn’t actually need the scooter than why the fuck are they wasting my money?
cain
Adam Lang
@The Dangerman:
Just an FYI… anyone who isn’t actually actively involved in this discussion can see that you and Barb have different definitions of the word ‘respect’. And that yours is pretty much synonymous with something that Barb said earlier (i.e. ‘be civil to’) which she already said she was willing to be.
Her definition of respect is the dictionary definition, if I don’t miss my guess: a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements. You can’t force someone, least of all yourself, to feel that. And if you’re insisting that both sides must feel deep admiration for one another in order to make any progress, then you’re not only quite likely to be disappointed, you’re also just flat wrong.
The Dangerman
@les:
I wish I was shorter; would make clothes easier to buy (nearly 6’7′, great for bball and vball, but sucks for everything else).
Other than that, I really don’t have a clue as to your point; my intolerance is for intolerance, I suspect, but that’s the extent of my position.
Don’t like meat? Don’t eat meat. But don’t diss those that choose otherwise.
Don’t like Religion? Fine. However, when the time comes, perhaps it is better to leave some things unsaid.
Really easy, huh?
The Dangerman
@Adam Lang:
Nope, not my position at all.
Just for shits and grins, I think DADT is an abomination. I think Gays should have equal marriage rights to heterosexuals. I am about as far from a homophobe as one can reasonably be expected to be for a straight person.
Yet, if I ask for “civility” (stealing your word now), I get attacked quickly … and look how fast how that attack is defended based on gay issues. I think it was the second or third reply to me. And, obviously, it pisses me off that somehow I get lumped in with “those other people” like Palin, et al. Pretty sad…
Will
It is with great pride that I disclose that the man Taibbi describes as tracking Rand Paul in the caveman costume–“NeanderPaul”–is none other than my dad.
p mac
“giant atrophied glutes” FTW!
Thank you Matt Taibbi and Roget’s for coming up with that synonym for “big fat asses”.
It’s right up there with “burning rings of fire”…