Gideon Rachman is a good guy. He’s a smart guy too. And knowledgeable! But man oh man, does he not understand the Tea Party. And sadly, he’s not too clear on what the European Union needs either. Yesterday in the Financial Times, he wrote, Watch Out for the Rise of a European Tea Party. (It is behind a pay wall.) He is fearful that because of the way the European Union is set up, a crazy party from a small state could gum up the works like Ted Cruz just managed to do in the United States.

You have to understand: Rachman is a conservative in the old sense of the word. He doesn’t like the chaos of revolution. He prefers that the technocrats take care of things because they know what they’re doing. And I am much in agreement with him about these things. The problem comes in with the question of who is thought to be an expert. It is too often determined not by skill and knowledge but by affinity to the interests of the ruling elite.

We have seen this in the European Center Bank, which has long acted as though the only possible policies they could pursue are those preferred by Germany. So in my opinion, the European Union could use a little shaking up. As it is, the whole thing is little more than a plutocracy, with all the establishment types on pins and needles over the thought that the people might do something rash like vote for governments who are really looking out for their interests. I wrote about one example of this last month, Disingenuous Technocrats.

One of the towering figures in the EU is Olli Rehn. He’s one of the oh so Serious People—a technocrat who will make all of Europe take that bitter economic medicine that it needs. He is perhaps the loudest voice for economic austerity. Yet when the new French government decided to balance its budget with tax increases instead of spending cuts, Rehn wasn’t happy. They weren’t balancing the budget the right way! The question is who defines the right way to balance a budget and in Rehn’s case, it is the German bankers. I know of no reason to choose spending cuts over tax increases other than that spending cuts hurt the poor and tax increases hurt the rich.

But it’s in talking about the Tea Party that Rachman goes most astray. Like most outsiders, he mistakes the Tea Party for its rhetoric. As I discussed earlier today, the base of the Tea Party movement is racism. But this isn’t typical poor people’s xenophobia that comes out of fear for their jobs. The Tea Party is made up of fairly wealthy (upper middle class) people. And it is funded by billionaires. So members of the movement may claim to be against elitists, but that’s just because in the conservative world, an elitist is a liberal college professor, not a conservative billionaire who inherited all of his money.

Rachman is right about the movement being anti-immigration. There are two elements to this. First, it is cultural. They see America as a white man’s country and they don’t want that changed. But even more important, they are concerned that immigrants will vote and thus the white Tea Party supporters will lose power. So the movement is an elitist reaction to the barbarian hoards at the gate. This is distinct from what is going on in Europe.

I also don’t see these small parties in Europe causing the problems that the Tea Party does in the United States. The party only has power here because the conservative movement is terrified of them. Given the parliamentary system, I don’t see how such an intransigent party could ever cobble together a majority. If it did happen, it would mean that all the technocrats that Rachman trusts had failed miserably at their jobs. Hopefully, a gradual liberalizing of the European Union will take place with more Francois Hollandes, less Angela Merkels, and no Gabor Vonas.

<%image(20131022-armed-security.jpg|475|262|armed-security.jpg)%>

According to a CNN, a survey of the nation’s teachers indicates that “nearly three-fourths of the nation’s teachers say they personally would not bring a firearm to their school if allowed, but most educators believe armed guards would improve campus safety.”

If we truly want to keep our children safer while they’re at school, metal detectors and armed security personnel are not the panacea. Our country needs to pull it’s paranoid head out of it’s red, white and blue ass and prove that lives are more important than guns. We wouldn’t need to look to the government for gun reform if people who own guns would treat that “right” as a serious responsibility. It isn’t up to the schools or the government to raise children who are less likely to become violent. It’s up to parents and guardians to show kids what being responsible and respectful mean. Empathy and compassion are learned at home, not in our Lord of the Flies school system.

Our society is failing to address the underlying causes of gun violence — ignorance, poverty, and inadequate mental health care. Forget the Christian Right and their bullshit family values. Stop listening to the inflammatory rhetoric of the fearmongers. We are losing the sense of trust and community that a society needs to flourish.

A better future is something we should all be working toward together if for no other reason than a united and sincere desire to be decent human beings.

I have a good young friend who is way into skydiving. That’s right, one of my friends is a crazy person. And I cannot image ever jumping out of an airplane myself unless it is absolutely, positively necessary. That makes me want to never go up in a plane again. Regardless, I was very excited last night to see that Google had created another doodle, this one in celebration of 216th anniversary of the first recorded parachute jump by Andre-Jacques Garnerin. He jumped from a height of 1,000 meters. That’s interesting, because my understanding is that skydivers are now supposed to open their chutes at that altitude. I’m sure that Garnerin wasn’t skydiving himself, and so he too opened his chute at the same height. I think that’s just a coincidence. The doodle is a little game, so click on over and check it out! (And, yes, I know that I am perhaps too fond of Google Doodles.)

The great journalist who covered the Russian Revolution, John Reed was born in 1887. He died soon after in 1920. It would have been interesting to see how he would have reacted to how badly the revolution went after the death of Lenin. When I was kid, I was very impressed that a local grammar school was named after him—after an avowed communist who fled the country! But I was being silly. “John Reed” is a common name and apparently, the school was named after some local developer. Oh well.

The great actor Derek Jacobi is 75 today. He is best known for playing the title character in I, Claudius. I know him better as the title character in the Cadfael television movies (I own them all). He is always wonderful. But when I think of him, my mind immediately goes to his fantastic performance of Chorus in Henry V. Now I could write a rather long article about how brilliantly Kenneth Branagh includes the character into the movie. But you can see it in this opening scene. Effectively, Chorus is explaining how the players will do their best to present a whole war on the tiny stage. It’s the sort of thing that could easily have been removed from the film. But I am so glad the Chorus stayed, because it is the best part of the play. Also notice that this two minute scene is a single take. “Who prologue-like, your humble patience pray; gently to hear, kindly to judge our play”:

Other birthdays: actor Sarah Bernhardt (1844); comedian Curly Howard (1903); actor Joan Fontaine (96); poet Doris Lessing (94); Timothy Leary (1920); author Ann Rule (78); “Squeaky” Fromme is 65, so she won’t be trying to assassinate any more presidents; comedy writer Bob Odenkirk (51); and the great film director Spike Jonze (44).

Look, there were a lot of great birthdays today. The day, however, belongs to the great Romantic composer Franz Liszt who was born on this day in 1811. As you probably know, I’m not a great fan of this period. But the great Romantic composers are still great. And Liszt is wonderful and playful. He is also engaging and often challenging. But let us enjoy one of his very fun compositions, Hungarian Rhapsody No. 2. First done by humans:

Second done by a rabbit:

Happy birthday Franz Liszt!

Last night I read a bit of Parker and Barreto’s Change They Can’t Believe In. It looks at the Tea Party movement from a political science standpoint. It is a dense book and I’ve only read a small amount of it. But the base conclusion is that what makes the Tea Party movement distinct is a shared racial animosity—specifically toward President Obama. This isn’t to say that all Tea Party members are racist. But what distinguishes the group from a conservative who does not associate himself with it is racism.

This conclusion is freeing. I’ve long felt that the base of Republican appeal was racism. A very large percentage of those who vote Republican do so not because of the policies that politicians talk about, but rather because it is understood they favor policies that will do the “right” thing, “Screw the darkies!” And look at who is in the Tea Party. Mostly it is older white people who directly benefit from the two most costly government programs: Social Security and Medicare. So clearly they aren’t for small government except in the sense that they define it as ending programs for the poor, who they see as our darker skinned neighbors.

The conclusion also explains something that has long bothered me. Why is Rand Paul a star of the Tea Party? After all, he’s an isolationist who wants to gut the military. Most people in the Tea Party are freakishly pro-military. They want a strong military, a strong dollar, and a strong rendition of “You’re a Grand Ol’ Flag” at all sporting events! But again: that’s true of all conservatives. So in that regard, Rand Paul is outside the mainstream of conservatism, including the Tea Party. So why is he a Tea Party favorite?

Two words: states’ rights. According to himself, Rand Paul doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. He also claims that he thinks racism is a terrible business strategy. But he thinks that people ought to be allowed to discriminate against different races in their businesses. And he thinks that the federal government should have very little power. The power should be yielded to the states. From a racists’ perspective, it doesn’t matter what Rand Paul actually believes, although they surely think he too is a racist, but just can’t come right out and say it because of all the political correctness around. His belief in “states’ rights” means that Mississippi can go back to the good old days when it was almost impossible for blacks to vote.

Now I know that Paul would say he is against that. But there are lots of ways that a state can stop a group of people from voting without passing a law that says “blacks can’t vote.” We saw this in the past with poll taxes and “literacy” tests. And we are seeing it today with voter ID laws. But the senator doesn’t see a problem with these laws. At best, this represents willful ignorance.

So the Tea Party movement is distinct and should be called something like the “racist conservative party.” And Rand Paul is at least an apologist for racism. So he may be an apostate of the conservative movement in many ways. But in the one way that matters, Rand Paul is right in line with the Tea Party movement.

Afterword

Even when I considered myself a libertarian, I didn’t understand the “states’ rights” people. What does it matter if the federal government doesn’t oppress you if the state government does? And if you look at history, the states are far more likely to behave badly than the federal government. Libertarians often claim, “Well, you can move to a different state!” And that’s libertarianism all over: if you are wealthy you’ll be fine. There’s nothing like a political movement that is dedicated to afflicting the afflicted and comforting the comfortable. Good job guys!

Marijuanna is safer than alcohol.

It’s true. There are actual, scientific reasons why you can get a doctor’s prescription for marijuana but not bourbon.

That so many people are more deeply disturbed by someone smoking marijuana than they are by children accidentally shooting themselves is truly baffling.

Dan Riffle is a former assistant prosecutor and the director of federal policies at the Marijuana Policy Project, the primary financial backer of the 2012 campaign to regulate marijuana in Colorado. From his CNN Opinion piece today:

I would rather see college kids toking up once in a while rather than indulge in the binge-drinking that is far too prevalent.

7 Things You Might Not Know About Calvin and Hobbes

Watterson to Spielberg and Lucas: Thanks, but no thanks.
[Good news!]

Calvin and Hobbes…and Robotman?
[Robotman was actually very funny.]

The Complete Collection isn’t quite complete.
[Are you serious? I paid a lot of money for the complete collection! Now I am displeased.]

Watterson did license. A little.
[Who hasn’t?]

Urine trouble.
[South Carolina isn’t all bad.]

Spaceman Spiff was originally the whole idea.
[Not staying that course was a good call.]

The last Calvin strip wasn’t Watterson’s swan song.
[Bill’s a charitable guy.]

Last but not least interesting: An original Calvin and Hobbes Sunday strip sold for $203,150.

People throughout this country enjoy their constitutional right to bear arms, armed with an arsenal of reasons why they aren’t to be blamed when someone gets shot and killed. I would not deny anyone their right to have a gun if that’s what makes them feel safe or manly or free or whatever the hell guns do for some people’s psyches. But please. If you need to have guns in your house, find a better hiding place. There are guys who hide their non-lethal pornography better than they do their weapons.

So today, we have yet another sad story about a two-year-old who managed to find her father’s gun in a place no one would expect a two-year-old to peek — under the couch.

Typically is not a word one wants to find in a story about a dead toddler, but “ain’t that America.”

Then we have yet another middle school shooting, this one in Nevada and in a town where I actually attended elementary school. (Sparks has the unfortunate tourist tagline of, “It’s happening here!”)

At this point it seems that he shot two other students and then shot and killed a teacher who was trying to intervene, after which the boy shot and killed himself.

Now there are four families whose lives have been damaged or destroyed because one unhappy boy found the gun his parents probably kept to protect themselves. The gun advocates are right though. It isn’t guns that kill people — it’s access to guns.

David Brock has a new book out with Ari Rabin-Havt and the Media Matters staff, The Benghazi Hoax. It is an e-book, but for just 99¢ it is probably worth checking out. I just read an excerpt from it on Huffington Post, The Benghazi Hoax. It is a great teaser, because it leaves the reader wanting more.

The book is about all the hoaxes that the right wing media have pushed trying to turn a tragic event into something they could beat up Obama with. But what was most interesting in the bit that I read was to learn about what actually happened in Benghazi. With all the misinformation that was spewed out, the story of what actually happened has only gotten out in the vaguest of ways. And the story itself is dramatic and heroic. Here’s just one example:

The feelings I have about this and the way that the Romney campaign used it are familiar. I remember it very well from the 2004 campaign. Remember the “swift boat” ads? That was a very big moment for me. I’m not big on the military. They do an unpleasant job that is unfortunately necessary. I think we have them do a lot of evil things we shouldn’t be doing. But I respect them even if I don’t think that every man who puts on a uniform is a hero. But the Republicans claim to love the military. Yet they were more than willing to shit all over the reputation of an American war hero just to gain a little advantage in an election. I’ve never had a good opinion of the Republican Party, but that was when I decided that it was an actively evil group.

So the Benghazi “scandal” was very much the same. But in that case, the conservative media and the Republican campaign were more than willing to shit all over the whole military to win that election. If it were the other way around, it wouldn’t be so bad. The Democrats certainly give a lot of lip service to the military. But they don’t bloviate about the military and our national “power” the way the Republicans do. The hypocrisy is stunning. And I would go so far as to say that this is not just about the elites. The base is more than willing to go along with this too. But we really need to do more to get out the word to the people who are not really into politics: don’t believe the nonsense about the Republicans caring about the military. All they care about is power and they will sacrifice anything for it.

Afterword

Here is a clip of the authors on Karen Finney’s show:

Ed Kilgore is worried about the newest court challenge to Obamacare, The Gift to the GOP That May Keep on Giving. But I’m not worried. It is a very clever challenge, however. The law says that people qualify for federal subsidies through each healthcare exchange “established by the state.” But what if the state didn’t set up an exchange and the federal government was forced to do it as is the case in 36 states? The intent of the law is clear, but the letter of the law indicates that the federal government can not subsidize low and moderate income health insurance purchasers in those states.[1]

I don’t see the problem with this case. There is no doubt that just like with Medicare, all states will eventually accept government funding. And disallowing the federal government to give subsidies to the middle class would create a political firestorm. I’m sure that those 36 states would very quickly set up their own exchanges so that their people could get the money. It’s a different thing with the Medicaid expansion. That only affects the working poor. Politicians never listen to them. But a bunch of middle class people will be listened to.

I can’t imagine that there aren’t a fair number of conservatives who understand this. So I doubt that this case will get the broccoli treatment. It was one thing when a case could destroy the law with a single decision. It is quite another when it only weakens it in the states where it is already weak. If I were a conservative, I would think of it as, “The Give Money to Blue States” law. Because that’s what they’d be turning it into.

Now as a liberal, I don’t want this. Depriving support from low and moderate income people is a bad thing. But it isn’t any worse than all the poor who are being screwed by the spiteful refusal of the Medicaid expansion. But the main thing is that I just don’t think this will happen. There are two ways that the case could affect the law going forward. The people effected would either get mad at their state level politicians or at Obamacare. But they won’t be any worse off than they were before. They’ll just see that their states are not allowing them to get thousands of dollars from the federal government.

Who would you blame?

[1] It will be interesting if the case makes it to the Supreme Court. Supposed originalists like Scalia and Thomas ought to throw out the challenge because they are so hung up on “original intent.” But I doubt they would. Maybe Thomas would, because frankly, he’s been more consistent. But Scalia is all over the board. The whole thing just shines a light on the absurdity of originalism. It is such a slippery concept that it could mean anything. In practice, it is just an excuse to accept the most conservative reading on a case.