Peanut Gallery, April 2013

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

Thursday, April 4, 12:38 a.m.: Adam P. from Winnipeg asks me how I feel about this. I tell him that proponents of a boycott of Israeli professors have a one-sided viewpoint and don’t appreciate what they’ll be missing out on if they take Israeli boycotts to their logical extreme.

Monday, April 8, 6:56 p.m.: I tweet how much I enjoyed ranking former MP Martha Hall Findlay (Willowdale) first and MP Justin Trudeau (Papineau) last when voting for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Some guy named Alim tells me to go to hell. I tell him to go to hell. As he is still tweeting this stuff at people he doesn’t like, I can say neither of us has gone to hell.

Friday, April 12, 10:43 a.m.: Ann Coulter is herself. Brian from Massachusetts and I briefly decide whether we should refer to her as a “bitch” (my idea) or a “sad, desperate huckster” (his idea).

Thursday, April 18, 1:24 p.m.: I ask if the Massachusetts National Guard plans to prevent the Westboro Baptist Church from crossing the state line to protest. Someone who may or may not be a church employee claims they’re already there. This happens.

Saturday, April 20, 7:08 p.m.: I get the impression from Twitter that people have been comparing Boston on lockdown to a “fascist police state” and ask others if they’ve seen this. I mention that my grandmother is very familiar with fascist police states. Alyssa from Illinois is intrigued and asks how to buy her memoir. (Here’s how.)

Wednesday, April 24, 1:16 p.m.: Daily Beast columnist Megan McArdle (a recent favorite) retweets my comment that “She’s so good at telling people why they’re wrong.” I can’t really tell if she recognized that this was a compliment. Others did, though.

Friday, April 26, 6:42 p.m.: I solicit opinions on Cass Sunstein, former administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), as his new book interests me. Steve from Winnipeg advises me to read his previous book, Nudge. As of this writing, I have bought Simpler and I’m enjoying it, and I probably will buy Nudge soon.

Monday, April 29, 2:36 p.m.: This happens, I link to it and everyone reacts. (OK, not everyone, but a hell of a lot of people.) I’ll give a special mention to Pamela from Edmonton, who said a bunch of stuff about white privilege but ultimately didn’t really make a point. I also shut up Adrienne from Thunder Bay by breaking out the term “bona fide occupational qualification.”

Disposal Day #171: The Intartube

STORY #1: Tax reform, sort of

I still haven’t figured out why the state of the buyer will take in revenue from his or her online purchase, as opposed to the state of the retailer. But that’s the plan under the Marketplace Fairness Act, which is up for a Senate floor vote on May 6, whether senators who want to a) offer amendments or b) review it in the Senate Finance Committee like it or not. The eagerness to bring this bill up for a vote is unlike anything I’ve seen for any other bill that would expand a tax base. But, I must admit, I too am happy to know that this loophole may close, even if I don’t understand why it’s being closed this way.

The bill has sparked something else that we’ll need to keep an eye on. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) announced his retirement this week, which will make Democrats very happy given his history of voting according to Montanans’ preferences. Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) is in line to replace him; like Baucus, he has come out against this bill, as both represent states that have no sales tax. Wyden also has these reasons, not all of which I take very seriously. But, as he represents a fairly blue Northwest state, don’t expect Senate Democrats to have much trouble with him after this.

STORY #2: Hack be nimble

Remember that tweet from the official Associated Press (AP) account, claiming that two explosions at the White House had left President Obama injured? Turns out a Syrian group on the side of President Bashar Assad – I can only guess they’re working for him, because who else would be on his side? – has claimed responsibility for the hack, which sent markets temporarily reeling on Tuesday. What’s the appropriate response? Should media outlets invest more in their own cybersecurity? Should the U.S. do more to crack down on Assad? Yes, and yes, if we know who our friends are.

But Bart Chilton, one of five commissioners on the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), suggests that the problem is traders’ use of social media; he wonders if new “safeguards” might be in order to protect markets. Frankly, I would find it pathetic if new, on-the-book rules were needed to enforce this principle: “Wait until an official source confirms earth-shattering news, then change your trading activity, or not.” Clearly traders have the same conclusion-jumping problem as John King. (No, I’m not letting that go.)

STORY #3: Well, it’s a start

The good: Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are sponsoring legislation that would require a warrant before police can access e-mails, Facebook messages and the like, which may later be expanded to include GPS data. The bad: It would include an exemption for wiretapping and foreign surveillance. I give it a C.

Peanut Gallery, March 2013

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

March 6, 5:50 p.m.: Gordon from Michigan makes a Senator Stackhouse reference (if you don’t know what that means, you have terrible taste in television) while Sen. Rand Paul (R-FL) carries out his talking filibuster on domestic drone use. I ask him if Paul has read out a recipe yet. Gordon says he doesn’t know, but does know that Paul is showing “real leadership” on the drone issue, which I agree with.

March 11, 9:02 a.m.: I admit that both sides in Toronto’s Assgate have plausible stories, and only they know what really happened. Some guy named Eric argues with me about this, but fails to convince me that either party is definitely lying or not – just that one has a more believable story than the other. I tell him sexual harassment requires a higher standard of proof.

March 16, 10:43 a.m.: I post an article about provincial health officials ordering a woman to stop cooking chili for the homeless without a permit. Everyone gets mad, especially Steve from Winnipeg, who can’t remember when he’s been more mad.

March 19, 5:22 p.m.: I post a picture of some gun magazines (Special Weapons, Personal & Home Defense, AK-47) spotted in a Winnipeg convenience store, and express surprise that they would be sold there. Jeff from Winnipeg wonders why I’m surprised. I tell him I would expect the government on some level to ban them on public safety grounds. (See above.)

March 23, 8:49 a.m.: Anne-Marie from California asks how to describe the face she puts on whenever someone says “niceness” among politicians will solve their gridlock. I figure out that she means this face, which I call the “peanut face”: “. . . it reminds me of someone who smiles, taps you on the shoulder and calls you “peanut” when you say something dumb.”

March 24, 10:31 p.m.: I link to this column by Jeffrey Simpson, in which he outlines the problems with the Canadian government’s practice of creating more middle-class tax expenditures to rack up votes. Tony from Winnipeg complains that Simpson is a boring writer. I admit that his style does lack a certain punch.

March 25, 10:56 a.m.: I link to this article, in which an opponent of same-sex marriage claims that legalizing it would “discourage heterosexual couples from marrying.” Dan from Winnipeg expresses deep sadness that a human would call that a good argument. I encourage him to always look on the bright side of life, in this case referring to the fact that he is smarter than that.

Peanut Gallery, February 2013

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

February 2, 8:58 a.m.: Charlotte from Nebraska responds to my negative review of former Sen. Chuck Hagel’s (R-NE) confirmation hearing; she says she thinks he would do a good job as Secretary of Defense, and she got to know him when their kids went to the same school. I say he must have lost some of his “governing mettle” since he left the Senate.

February 4, 2:01 p.m.: I post an article about rumors that Tagg Romney will run for Secretary of State John Kerry’s vacant Senate seat. Brian from Massachusetts says he hasn’t heard about this guy being floated as a candidate. He also says Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) is not a shoo-in for the seat and a number of Democratic “hacks” could prove challenging for him.

February 13, 8:08 p.m.: As is becoming something of a tradition, Chris from Texas and I watch the State of the Union (SOTU) “together” (meaning, we live-tweet the speech at the same time and exchange quips with one another). Sample: Me: “A voting rights commission. Hope it delivers better results than the last few commissions!” Chris: “He’s got a great track record on following through on the recommendations of those panels of erudite experts. Oh wait.”

February 14, 10:28 a.m.: I laugh at a media advisory from Liberal leadership candidate David Bertschi: “FALL IN LOVE WITH DAVID BERTSCHI’S ECONOMIC PLATFORM.” I remind everyone that this guy exists. Brandon from Ottawa: “He does?”

February 20, 5:50 p.m.: I warn opponents of the drone program that they will be shocked to learn that drone operators are eligible for military commendations. Graham from Winnipeg is unsettled by my use of the word “opponents”: “. . . it makes it sound like there is a legitimate other side of the debate.” He gets it after I point out that I could have used the word “haters.”

February 21, 1:08 p.m.: I post a study showing that Canada has more state-owned business than previously thought; I ask if this surprises anyone. Gabe from Winnipeg says it must have, due to the use of the phrase “previously thought.” Actually, unlike previous studies, this one counted government-owned businesses on the provincial and municipal level, so I think the surprise factor was lost a bit.

February 24, 4:33 p.m.: Sol from Nebraska and I debate arming Syrian rebels. He’s in favor of it, as they would form a superior regime to that of President Bashar Assad. I oppose it, since there are al-Qaeda-linked elements in that group. The debate is unresolved as of this writing.

Peanut Gallery, January 2013

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

January 7, 9:27 p.m.: Chris from Texas finds out from me about the now-legendary Alex Jones vs. Piers Morgan smackdown. (I’d link to it here, but you’ve seen it.)

January 14, 6:18 p.m.: While watching Erin Burnett OutFront, I criticize a guest who recommends that the U.S. borrow more for the purposes of “reinvestment.” The guest, Daniel Altman, responds by sending me his case for it. I still don’t buy it and tell him so. He doesn’t respond after that.

January 15, 6:00 a.m.: Brigitte from Ottawa links to an article about a particularly hilarious federal venture capital program. I suggest that Prime Minister Stephen Harper establish the Canadian Retail Action Plan (CRAP) to “close the gap” between my available funds and the price of a pair of shoes. Brigitte appreciates this. (For the record, I can afford my own shoes.)

January 20, 3:07 p.m.: Many people retweet, favorite and reply to my cynical and slightly unhinged tweets during the Liberal Party of Canada’s first leadership debate.

January 21, 9:57 p.m.: I link to an article suggesting that MP Justin Trudeau’s (Papineau) star power is more of an advantage to the Liberal Party than a disadvantage. (It’s not. Their goal should be to be taken seriously again.) Tristan from Winnipeg agrees that the obsequious tone of the article is “too much.”

January 23, 5:10 p.m.: I announce that David Frum will be speaking in Winnipeg in March and ask who else is going. Steve, Gabe, Dave and Ben (all from Winnipeg) are. I organize a pre-lecture dinner.

January 25, 9:42 a.m.: Gordon from Michigan informs me that “Toronto Mayor Robert Ford” (see below) is trending across the U.S. I wonder who is calling him “Robert Ford,” as we just call him “Rob” when we’re not tossing epithets at him.

January 25, 12:37 p.m.: I solicit Fail of the Week nominations. Bryce from Winnipeg, who nominates this, and T-J from Winnipeg, who nominates some MMA crap, force me to remind everyone that nominations must be a) American and b) political. Aggie from Winnipeg nominates this; by then I’ve already written the post, but I credit her for having the right idea.

January 27, 6:39 p.m.: I express deep skepticism of Obama’s sudden love of skeet-shooting. Brian from Massachusetts insists that it’s completely plausible, as Obama is an American male, and American males love shooting for the hell of it. I don’t dispute the plausibility, but continue to harbor doubts about the authenticity.

Peanut Gallery, December 2012

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

December 6, 11:39 a.m.: News breaks of Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) leaving the Senate to head the Heritage Foundation. Dan from Winnipeg wonders why DeMint thinks people should be “dependent on God.” Gabe from Winnipeg, who identifies as a pantheist, says it’s impossible for anyone to be independent of God. Thankfully, we are spared a theological debate, which both Dan and Gabe have been known to get into more than once, at times with each other.

December 15, 11:26 p.m.: I link to an article in which someone suggests that the Republicans target female “low-information” voters by slipping fluffy/female-centric articles into women’s magazine websites. Steve from Winnipeg and I agree that the need to appeal to low-information voters is real, and that’s why neither of us has any intention of running for elected office.

December 16, 11:22 a.m.: I warn everyone that the Westboro Baptist Church is planning to picket Newtown funerals. Nine people express disgust in various ways. Alyssa from Illinois hints at wanting to run them over with a bulldozer.

(By the way, if you haven’t heard The Henningsens’ “American Beautiful” yet, check it out; Alyssa is the daughter of one band member and the sister of two others. I’m not much of a country fan and I’ve been playing this multiple times a day.)

December 20, 5:29 a.m.: I link to an article about Prime Minister Stephen Harper using direct business subsidies to rack up votes in Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Brigitte from Ottawa agree that we are unfazed by his “job creation and economic recovery” rhetoric whenever he does this, which is constantly. (Conservative, our asses.)

December 21, 8:16 a.m.: I post my latest round-up of fiscal news. Darren from New York laughs at Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) objections to the Sandy bill, since Ryan is a known earmarker. I point out that even hypocrites can be right sometimes. Then Darren tells me that my idea of giving some D.C. land to Virginia is a non-starter, since the two halves of Virginia are divided enough already. This disappoints me.

December 22, 9:08 a.m.: I post my column about the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) press conference. Brian from Massachusetts says the need for humility on the NRA’s part is moot, since they don’t consider themselves responsible. I say behaving like you do constitutes effective issues management. An argument over conciliation (his word) vs. a simple messaging reset ensues.

Peanut Gallery, November 2012

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

November 2, 10:04 a.m.: Charlotte from Nebraska sends me this, which is a great comfort because I would have given Donald Trump the Fail of the Week otherwise, and I hate writing about him.

November 5, 8:05 a.m.: I post my presidential endorsement of former Gov. Gary Johnson (L-NM). Alyssa from Illinois admits she’s not crazy about former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), but he’s America’s best hope of getting rid of Obama. She says very few of the Republicans she knows voted for Romney in the primaries.

November 7, 5:50 p.m.: Speculation arises about a Rubio-Christie or vice-versa ticket in 2016. (I know, we’re horrible.) Laura from Florida doubts that’ll happen, because it has two East Coasters. We agree that Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) will be in the next Republican administration.

November 8, 6:09 p.m.: I share one of those “Obama Clinton texting” memes which implies that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will run in 2016. Gordon from Michigan thinks she will, because he lives the same kind of ambition that she does. I point out that she’s older and more tired than he is.

November 12, 6:06 p.m.: Chris from Texas and I agree that we’d like to see Gov. Chris Christie (R-NJ) join the Democrats, just because the speech would be awesome.

November 14, 9:19 a.m.: I ask my tweeps what would happen if Sen.-elect Angus King (I-ME) chose not to caucus with anyone. Gordon reminds me that he technically could do that, but the real legislating happens off the Senate floor and he’d need to be a participant to effect anything.

November 23, 10:02 a.m.: Brian from Massachusetts comments on this by saying Grover Norquist was right in that the voters of Georgia would be betrayed if Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) turned his back on the anti-tax pledge. I disagree, because Chambliss hasn’t voted yet and whatever he does vote for could be of greater benefit to Georgia than the pledge.

November 26, 1:24 p.m.: I link to an article in which Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) says a less “one-sided” approach to Israel on the U.S.’s part would cause “lasting change” between them and Gaza. Graham from Winnipeg says, yes, the current approach is a problem and Paul is the only one saying it. I call Paul’s approach a Band-Aid. Gabe from Winnipeg thinks changing course would amount to the destruction of Israel. I anticipate their fight. At the time of this writing, it hasn’t started yet.

Post-election analysis: You’re doing it wrong

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Rachel Kleinman of YourTango.com. If you’ve never heard of that writer or that company, I’m not surprised; Wikipedia describes it as “a media company focused on romantic love.” (HORK.) But even they felt it incumbent upon them to write something about the election. That “something” is quite possibly the most vapid thing I’ve ever read with the word “election” in it, save the average “go vote, it’s your right” tweet:

Headline: “How ‘Four More Years’ Of Obama Will Affect Your Marriage”

Reminds me of “How to Have a Baby in an Atom Bomb Shelter,” which, according to The Feminine Mystique, happened.

. . . what will “four more years” mean for you and yours? Well, if we are to believe Obama’s campaign platform, we can expect an important impact.

As opposed to those impact-free years most platforms promise us?

. . . Obama explicitly set a goal to create a million new manufacturing jobs by the end of 2016. If he makes good on this promise, and your family is among those struggling . . . your marriage will likely benefit from Obama’s extended reign . . . at least on the job front.

Well, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) promised 12 million new jobs! The benefit to your marriage would have been 12 times as big! Those promises always come true!

If your family earns over $250,000 per year, expect a tax increase. . . . if your marriage is prone to financial feuding, this Obama policy could cause friction on the homefront.

So, upper-income tax hike = spouses feuding over money. Wait, what?

On the campaign trail, Obama promised to end the war in Afghanistan in 2014. And while intelligent minds may disagree about the democratic president’s foreign policy, we all want our soldiers home safe and sound.

“Democratic” has a capital D. And what’s up with this “SOLDIERS HOME YAY!” tone? Is that all Afghanistan amounts to? Not PTSD? Permanent injury? The geopolitics?

And then there’s a paragraph about how awesome it is that Planned Parenthood won’t be defunded. I guess pro-life women aren’t their target market.

This article was just fucking useless.

Peanut Gallery, October 2012

Peanut Gallery columns, in which I summarize the last month’s worth of online political discussion between me, my friends and annoying people who aren’t also friends, will be featured on the last Tuesday of every month. If you want a mention here, talk to me about politics.

October 1, 4:46 p.m.: I challenge my friends to pass a U.S. citizenship test. Alyssa from Illinois scores 80 percent. (Government structure lost her.)

October 6, 10:04 a.m.: I link to a column in which some idiot complains that Romney was too “masculine” in the first debate. Adam S. from Winnipeg asks why we’re talking about American politics as if we get a vote.

October 10, 9:29 a.m.: I post my column on Iran’s currency woes. Graham from Winnipeg, who is a big Glenn Greenwald fan, posts his column about how economic sanctions hurt the citizens of the receiving country. We argue very briefly about the end game of said hurt.

October 13, 11:06 p.m.: I post a link to Lindsay Lohan endorsing Romney, on the ground that “employment is really important.” Jordan from Winnipeg calls for her to OD. I laugh.

October 18, 8:53 p.m.: I post my column on women’s issues in the second debate. Gabe from Winnipeg presents “The Law of Conservation of Debate Fumbles”: “[I]f one candidate loses voters for insubstantial reasons in the first debate, the other candidate will lose voters for the same reason during the second debate.” Seems reasonable.

October 20, 3:54 p.m.: I post a picture of MP Justin Trudeau (Papineau) onstage at a campaign rally I attended for the hell of it. Ben from Winnipeg approves of my “curiosity and interest.”

October 22, 1:43 p.m.: I ask my Facebook friends why they have endorsed whoever they’ve endorsed. Most name third-party/joke candidates. Sol from Nebraska posts a picture of himself with Vermin Supreme. Presumably, Tiffany and Lisa from Winnipeg, who also endorse him for the sake of free ponies, swoon with jealousy.

October 22, 7:08 p.m.: I find a quote from a local campus paper blaming liberal democracy for a dearth of government accountability. Brian from Massachusetts and Dan from Winnipeg: “Bwuh?”

October 25, 9:30 a.m.: I post my column on energy drink regulation. Steve from Winnipeg announces his tentative plan to write about it (he’s a policy analyst). His take is that energy drinks have a solid track record compared to other “dangerous” foods and beverages, but is fine with an FDA investigation, although they should have stressed the precautionary nature of said investigation for the sake of Monster’s stock.

Please don’t feed the Troll-ter

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by everyone who decided this letter was a cause for kudos. Reviewing old posts, I realize that I have written about Ann Coulter, even in the form of minor sarcastic swipes, many, many more times than I care to admit. To that end, this will be the very last time her name appears in this blog for any reason. This I vow. But anyway: Why is this letter not a cause for kudos? Because letters like it have been written to Coulter since the 90s, and they never have any real effect except to garner her more press attention – the red sun to her Superman, essentially.

The reason it was written because of her repeated use of the word “retard” in reference to President Obama on Twitter. If you remember her use of the word “faggot” in reference to then-Sen. John Edwards (R-NC) at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in 2007, you have probably already figured out that this is the exact same thing, with a different slur. The mentally disabled and LGBTs are/were merely collateral damage in attacks on politicians with whom she is unable or refuses to engage intellectually.

And therein lies the reason for her use of those slurs. She knows the ensuing visceral negativity will get her all sorts of headlines and, with them, paid media appearances. (Ever wonder why she doesn’t hold the title “Fox News contributor” despite contributing there constantly? It’s because that would require a contract with Fox, and she doesn’t want to put all her eggs in their basket. Wise decision, actually.) And with her influence within conservative circles waning due to the onslaught of the Tea Party brunettes, she can’t have too many of those.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything the letter writer, John Franklin Stephens, had to say in his letter. But it has the same message as every other “open letter to Ann Coulter” letter ever written, ever: Stop being such a heinous bitch. She won’t. No matter how many attempts one may make to change her heart, she won’t. Because being a heinous bitch has been very profitable for her, and I have no doubt it comes naturally as well.

So don’t call Stephens’s letter powerful or inspiring or any synonym thereof, because it’s been done to no avail already. And you’re just walking into her trap the more you condemn her. The best thing to do is shrug it off. The more people do that, the less headlines she’ll make, the shriller she’ll become, the more turned off her audience will be, and the less lucrative her shtick will be. (And we really should stop worrying about every idiot with a slur, anyway.)