It’s kind of terrifying to watch the spin around this Brown story. Further down you can read the post I made about Scott Brown’s nastygram. In it I said this:
So yes, according to the Senate, Scott Brown isn’t a “lobbyist.” But I submit to anyone else in the world, a former Senator joining a “law and lobbying firm” to help with Wall St’s “business and governmental affairs” is to make him a lobbyist.
This quote is now being use to state that I’ve admitted the statement is a “lie.”
So here’s the blog post where I insist that the honest reader admit that I have “admitted” no such thing.
What I’ve said is this: According the ordinary way in which people understand the term, selling your influence to affect “business and governmental affairs” within government is lobbying. It is so even if it is not how the Senate’s rules define it. Ketchup is not a vegetable, even if Congress says it is. What Brown did is lobbying, even if Congress says it isn’t.
So I don’t view the mailer created for our campaign as wrong, or as a “lie.” Instead, I view the whole idea that the Brown campaign wants to have an argument about whether the level of influence peddling that Brown has admitted to constitutes “lobbying” as just bizarre. Truly, absolutely bizarre.
You are being sold to and lied to even more often than you realize, and by even the most established and credible of publications. The media outlets you trust are under such (self-imposed) pressure to serve up more and more content that they’ve turned their sites into promotional platforms.
1. Not a single word about Criminal Justice Reform.
2. Not a single word about the War on Drugs.
3. Not a single concrete proposal for reigning in the NSA.
4. A complete failure to take any sort of responsibility for the disasters of the American drone program. I doubt “prudent restrictions” will include dropping the magical reclassification of dead civilians as “militants.”
5. Shameless use of a disabled veteran as a political prop.
6. President’s tie was sharp.
7. The minimum wage debate should be interesting to watch as it develops in the legislature.
8. After his tax speech, It appears that literally everybody wants to reduce corporate tax rates now. Notwithstanding the merits or cons of that decision, it seems to be yet another point of contention removed from between the parties.
9. Glad he’s still pushing to close Guantanamo Bay. Credit where credit is due.
10. Seriously, that was a sharp tie.
Other than that, meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
I’m done with all of it. Been a little surprised of late at the speed with which I attained critical velocity regarding my political apathy. We’re so fucked.
It’s true that we don’t know for sure whether certain ills conservatives have warned about will occur once Obamacare is fully enacted. For example, will we truly have the same freedom to choose a physician that we have now? Will a surplus of insured patients require a scaling back (or “rationing,” as some call it) of provided healthcare services? Will doctors be able to spend as much time with patients? These are all valid, unanswered questions. The problem is that people like Sean Hannity have decided to answer them now, without evidence. Or worse, with fake evidence.
Some of the rules are lies.
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived, and dishonest—but the myth—persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought
Something smells here. If this is the best the White House can come up with to make a case for starting a war with a country that poses no threat to the US, at a time when a majority of Americans opposes starting yet another war in the Middle East, and when most of the world, including America’s closest allies, are backing away from support for an attack, the conclusion has to be that there is no real case against Syria.
Rather, President Obama appears to have oratorically backed himself into a corner by saying he would bomb Syria for what he insists is a war crime it has committed, and now he feels he has to attack, committing an even more serious war crime, in order to defend his “credibility” as a leader.
There were worse options available, I guess.