Hostage Crisis

[digitaldiscipline]

Let's call a spade a spade, folks.

The Republicans are holding the United States Government hostage until Congress meets their demands. That's it.

There is no nuance, no negotiation, and no excuse.

They are terrorists.

Shameful. And, of course, the Democrats will eventually capitulate (if they don't, I'll be pleasantly surprised).

Comments

[mschaos.livejournal.com]

that, I have to say, is brilliantly put

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

I was thinking basically the same thing, except substitute "assholes" for "terrorists". My observation is not quite so contemporarily poignant as yours, though. ;)

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

I disagree-- and first, I don't want you to think I'm attacking you, I'm a gigantic nerd, so I really have a lot to say on the subject, but it's really nothing personal, I promise, it's just my geeking out. I'll just apologize for the long-windedness right now, but here's why I think Etcet is right to call them "terrorists":

1. I think that our public discourse is having the equivalent of a "market failure" (setting aside for the moment Žižek and my beef with the term "market failure") right now. "Wrong" has become a four letter word and the media are afraid to speak ill of anyone, even if they are obviously actively trying to push the country off of a cliff, which the Republicans are doing. I think we should call them on it. They are arguably terrorists for threatening to block legislation on which people's lives genuinely depend* unless they get an obscene giveaway to the superrich that will massively increase the deficit, rendering our currency virtually useless**.

2.(Arguably marginally OT, but also hugely important and really my main reason for agreeing with Etcet's choice of words) the middle class and the unemployed are not the only hostages here. The Republicans are also obstructing the START treaty, making it significantly easier for anybody to get ahold of a nuclear weapon, and that's not just being an asshole, that's what you call "material aid and comfort" right there, and that does definitely make them terrorists in my book, and we should call them what they are.

3. That doesn't even go into the Tea Party & militia movement.

-------------
And another thing, about START, the fact that the media are spending more time on earthshattering revelations like: Karzai is weak and corrupt; Berlusconi is a flake; and Sarkozy is a thin-skinned control-freak (to pick just a few), than they are on the fact that a US Senator is willing to hand Ahmedinijad and/or Bin Laden and/or Kim Jong Il, and/or anyone else who has enough money nuclear capability on a silver platter; for his own selfish political purposes, only proves to me that American journalism is well and truly dead.


*(see http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/26/suicide-rates-up-since-re_n_658668.html, and countless other articles on suicide rates). The suicide rate doesn't even count the people who die of exposure, overdose, lack of medical care, undernutrition, family violence, which is also up (see e.g. http://www.houstoncriminallawjournal.com/2009/03/articles/criminal-law-1/family-violence-rises-during-a-recession/); turn to sex work out of desperation (in the real world, people who have other options rarely turn to sex work) and are murdered by Johns or pimps, and/or contract HIV, among other things -- for more information, see http://hips.org/, which is, incidentally, a deserving choice for those who want to make a donation on someone's behalf but don't want to support a religious charity in light of the recent behavior of some of the more prominent "faith-based organizations" in the US)-- you get my drift.

**unless one is superrich, in which case one immediately moves one's ill-gotten gains to a more stable form, thus preserving far more value than the little people, could even if they had enough surplus money to engage in currency speculation (or, in many cases, even had enough money in their accounts to make the currency exchange fees worthwhile)-- you see, one has people for these things, and the little people do not.

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

Uh...I wasn't disagreeing, just saying I hadn't managed to be quite so precise in my thoughts as Rafe was with the appropriate term.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

I know you substantially agree, and I'm sorry if I came off as mean. That was not my intention-- it really was intended to be more riff than rip.

It was pure geeking out because I'm partly avoiding and partly working on ideas relevant to, a paper right now.
Honest, I don't think you're some awful Republican or anything, I just feel that if I would use such a strong word and wanted to say so, I owed you an explanation as to why.
Because it is a very strong word, and I felt that I should justify why I endorse that choice of word in the current situation.

It was really not my intention to seem to flame or do anything more aggressive then maybe bore you to tears, it's just I'm chronically longwinded, and that's how I talk. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, and please know it wasn't my intention.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Moved to a reply-to-myself.
Looking at it, I just feel I should clarify more.
#1. I'm sorry it seems so harsh-- especially the thing about sex work and "the real world"-- I was thinking of Imperial Rome, and Nevada, and Sunset whatever-her-name-is and that's the picture so many people have of sex workers, but HIPS is a really deserving charity, and please don't judge them by my bad habit of coming off snarky in the footnotes-- I'm not affiliated with them in any way other than as an occasional donor.


2. It was specifically because you are right about "terrorist" being a strong word, because you raised a valid point, that I felt I should explain why I reached a different conclusion. Honest, I gave you such a long explanation because you were owed one (and because everything I write is too long)

3. The "and another thing" also sounds awful when I look at it-- I only moved that bit elsewhere to break up the giant wall o' text, and I didn't mean to make it sound like an argument, just to note that issue again, because I think it's hugely important, while still leaving my chronically longwinded post marginally readable.

[lil-m-moses.livejournal.com]

No offense taken or anything. I was just a little startled by the length and violence of your agreement to what was, for me, a glorified "me too." ;)

[cheez-ball.livejournal.com]

This post gets three snaps in Z formation.

[normalcyispasse.livejournal.com]

Agreed.
My biggest complaint -- and it is a big one -- about the current administration has been its repeated unwillingness to stand firm and demand progress.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Now that one is complicated, because I do think that Obama really should not be trying to appease the right at all-- but Obama is also in a much more difficult situation than most citizens realize on a whole lot of levels.

Firstly, the media grossly exaggerate Presidential power and always have. While I wish he would do more, there isn't really all that much he can do without Congress's approval, which has not been forthcoming.

Secondly, he really has to walk a very fine line. He needs to be angry, he should be angry-- but he cannot be seen to be angry-- and that's a whole other can of worms I'm not even going to touch right now. I've written on the subject or tried to, I think I have something up.

[hermine-93.livejournal.com]

Brilliant post. Want to link you next time I have a minute to update-- I'm avvoiding a paper ATM.