Idiocy on the Rise

Yep, Theocracy is on the Rise, Palinism is on the Rise, and what about the latest DC fascination with idiocy over the weekend with the "White House gate crashers" event. I've seen really stupid DC obsessions, but this has to top them all. It puts new meaning to CTG, that's for sure. I can ignore the idiocy of this story for a few days, but when CNN now goes on the romp for prosecuting them and putting them in jail for a year, I can't resist but yell out YOU FRIGGIN IDIOTS!

Prosecute them thinks Ed Rollins?  For what, trespassing? How would that even stand up, given they were granted entrance?

Who really cares?  These parties happen all the time, and taxpayers pay for them. It seems at the least that some sort of lottery ticket system should award ordinary people access to these events-- since ordinary people are footing the bill. They got in, had a good time, and the only story is that the SS screwed up. The good thing about this is that those that think they are the "royalty" whom go to these events (is there anything more boring?) get to wait in line even longer the next time.

Stories like this make the internet is a waste of time.

Update [2009-11-29 11:19:42 by Jerome Armstrong]:

OK, I found something even crazier. Dick Cheney should run for President according to the tabloid Newsweek:

In the quest to sell magazines, evidently Mr. Meacham thinks train wreck journalism is the way to go. So, he’s turning Newsweek into The Onion, with no offense intended to the far superior latter named, whose mission is actually purposefully on point. The title tells it all: Why Dick Cheney Should Run in 2012.
John Judis has a good post on the insanity.

Tags: Ed Rollins, Jon Meacham (all tags)



Re: Idiocy on the Rise

Well, this should be a wake up call that the problem was not just Bush's presidency.

by bruh3 2009-11-29 06:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

You could argue that we have been dealing with the problem of the Bush's since the '70's. Certainly Bush Sr was the first 'globalist' president, and that what started off as mutual neo-liberalism under Bush I & Clinton morphed into neo-con globalism with George Bush-- whose agenda of bailouts to preserve the status quo of wealth and enduring war is thoroughly being maintained by Obama.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-29 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

Yes, this is true - one thing begat the other begat the other. Reagan begat Clinton who begat Bush II who begat Obama, and, each time moving the ball to the right so that the center now is probably the far right.  No one is asking what will Obama's accommodation of the extremist  will create next if you say it is okay for "banks to be too big to fail" and "health care mandates without cost containment is acceptable." What comes after that when the right predictably will move further right? As an old school moderate, I hope that the American people are shifting leftward which will act as a counterweight to restore a real American center, but I am not certain. Part of this is the two party system seems poorly structured to address the ideological and economic populism shifts that are occurring. Certainly, it is even messier when it comes to issues that are mixed up in the globalism tsunami.

by bruh3 2009-11-29 08:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

No.  It's an opinion, which you agree with, which means it's pretty much a lead-pipe cinch that it's untrue.

by lojasmo 2009-11-29 08:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

I had someone say to me "well just because you have facts to back up your opinion does not mean your opinion is better than mine."  

So when I say accommodating extremism, it is not opinion like do you like hot dogs or whether you like the color blue or red. This is part of the American Idolization of American politics. Not all opinion are equal. You regularly offer nothing here but what you believe. I regularly posts with links to back up the assertions I make.  Which is more valuable?

One example to illustrate my argument here: We already know as a practical matter that the administration is willing to pass the health care bill with mandates, but without cost containment in the form of the public option.

Here is a fact:

"The legislators' reluctance to control premium costs comes despite the fact that they intend to require virtually all Americans to get health insurance, an unprecedented mandate -- long sought by insurance companies -- that would mark the first time the federal government has compelled consumers to buy a single industry's product, effectively creating a captive market."

This appeared in the LA Times in October. Thus, my questions are not just opinion. They are coming about in very real policies. We know that the White House entertained the idea of too big to fail with the banks. This again is not opinion. It is something Geithner has mentioned. We also know the impact of such an approach from the recent bailouts. So, what you call opinion is just Orwellian language in your hands.

by bruh3 2009-11-29 08:47AM | 0 recs
It's not about the facts you state...'s about those you omit, and the deeply cynical and narrow interpretations you make.

The bruh world is a very dark one -- I wouldn't want to live there.

One need not look much farther than your post, above.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-29 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

You disagree with "the right predictably will move further right" part?  Seems pretty self-evident to me.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-29 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

 The self-evident is questionable only when President Obama is mentioned or his strategies are implicated.

by bruh3 2009-11-29 10:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

And we are about to learn more about Tiger Woods than we ever would want to know. We distract ourselves with the inane and fail to attend to that which should matter.

The reality TV shows are a problem though. They are incentivizing loons and loons are not a small demographic.

by Charles Lemos 2009-11-29 07:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

Could it be that we are all contestants living in a reality show and perhaps don't realize it?

by MainStreet 2009-11-29 08:01AM | 0 recs

Meacham's fawning book on Andrew Jackson, which undeservedly won the Pulitzer, is dedicated to praising a president who was dedicated to expanding executive power at the expense of the rule of law, and who was, as Daniel Walker Howe points out in his book on the era (which deservedly won the Pulitzer), perfectly willing to make his own reality at the expense of facts and truth. He also worked hard to politicize the government and insisted on loyalty to the president above any concept of public service. After Jackson left the White House, he was succeeded by Van Buren, his vice president who had, during Jackson's tenure, pulled the strings behind the scenes and earned wide-spread loathing for his amoral pursuit of his and the president's political agenda. Given all that, I can't for the life of me see why Meacham would support a run by Cheney.

by thesleepthief 2009-11-29 08:29AM | 0 recs
A concern that 'strangers' can crash the Pres

Sorry folks - I DO think it's a matter of concern that 'strangers' made it into the President's party!

What if they really WERE bad guys? What if they had bad intentions, lady with the idea of taking a knife to the Pres.

One would hope that the Secret Service had a good enough system to know, actually, really, who is coming to dinner...

Not an inconsequential matter, given that the safety of the President and his family are at stake.

by MS 2009-11-29 09:11AM | 0 recs
Re: A concern that 'strangers' can crash the Pres

what if... what if.. oh the horrors!

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-11-29 09:24AM | 0 recs
I certainly hope you're not belittling the horrors

I assume not. But for others reading along at home...

I do not believe a security breach at the White House is any small matter, especially with Barack Obama as President.

The Secret Service currently fields a fourfold increase in the number of threats over the previous administration. Not to mention the present fragile and tenuous state of the recovering U.S. economy.

Any danger to the President, regardless of party, is a danger to the (at least short-term) well being of the country. I think it is fairly safe to say that Barack Obama is in greater danger than normal and with so much at home and abroad pinned on him, I cannot even begin to fathom the extent of the consequences should harm come to him.

If these party crashers were allowed in, then the breach of security is disturbing.

If these party crashers made false statements to the Secret Service to gain entry, however, then that is a felony, and they deserve to do jail time.

by NoFortunateSon 2009-11-29 10:48AM | 0 recs
Re: A concern that 'strangers' can crash the Pres

I think convincing the Secret Service that you ought to be on the guest list and convincing them that you ought to be allowed to skip the metal detector are two different things.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the Prime Minister of India carries a knife, since he's a Sikh and all.

by Steve M 2009-11-30 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Idiocy on the Rise

Thanks for writing this Jerome.  Finally, somebody who agrees with me.

by SuperCameron 2009-11-29 01:15PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads