What to Call Tea Ba… ah, er… Tea People

It was pointed out to the recently that Tea Party Activists don’t appreciate the term “Tea Baggers.” I hadn’t really thought about the terminology much myself. I knew there was some reference to an obscure sexual preference, and I saw it discussed once in an out take from Sex in the City. I don’t really want to discuss it here. Go look for it on Wikipedia or something if you really want to know…

I put the whole thing in the same category as the iPad joke on Mad TV (see the video). Steve Job’s iPad is a few weeks old. The Mad TV clip is three years old. Maybe Jobs wishes there were more women in the room when the iPad was named. But no one’s going to change the name now. And iPad has become such a powerful brand name in such a short period of time that no one really thinks of any feminine products when you talk about the iPad now.

Where did the term Tea Bagger come from? There’s a picture out there in cyberspace from one of the early Tea Party events: a kid holding a sign that says "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You." What do you call people who “tea bag” people? Duh. Tea Baggers.

And the term stuck. I think some prominent figures in the movement used that term early on, but I can’t find the video. I could be wrong about that…

The movement has been around since February of 2008. And it’s made it into a few dictionaries. According the New Oxford American Dictionary, a Tea Bagger is "a person who protests President Obama’s tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as ‘Tea Party’ protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773)." The word was a finalist in 2009 in that dictionary's contest for "word of the year."

So the term Tea Bagger is probably here to stay. Tea People need to get used to it, and accept the fact that almost no one is thinking of some kind of sexual activity when they use the term (unless a Tea Bagger decides to remind everyone of that old – and now secondary – meaning for the term).

Is it a friendly term? That’s a different question. Obviously, any time you call an individual or a group by a name they don’t really like, that’s not a positive term. And to be perfectly honest, when I use the term Tea Bagger it’s not because of my profound respect for Sarah Palin’s intellectual abilities, or because I support the agenda of the Tea Party in general. I admit, Tea Bagger is a vaguely derisive term. And that’s okay on a blog. Blogs are supposed to have an agenda. Blogs are editorial in nature. I don’t like the Tea Party. You should be able to tell that when you read what I have to say.

That makes the term Tea Bagger inappropriate in a straight new context. So what term do you use on page one of a paper? I’ve seen Tea Partiers and Tea Partyers; I’m not sure who will settle the spelling dispute… Tea Party Activists? That probably also works. I actually like that better.

I occasionally write other places where my political opinion isn’t supposed to impact the content. So I use that term there. When you see the term “Tea Party Activists” in my writing you’ll know I’m trying to appear objective about the movement.

So if I use the term "tea bagger" from time to time, I have the dictionary definition mentioned above in mind, and it's not some weak attempt at a double entendre. I won't make too much of an effort to appear objective (by confining myself to terms like "tea party activists") very often. That would be hypocritical of me…

Morgan Griffith Running in the Ninth District

I recently submitted the following letter to the editor to a number of local and regional papers...

Dear Editor:

Morgan Griffith (R-Salem), the current Majority Leader for the Virginia House of Delegates, has decided to run for Congress. And he wants to represent us here in the Ninth District, even though he’s never actually lived in the Ninth District. I guess after getting little Willie Morefield elected out here with their money, Republicans from the Eastern part of the Commonwealth think they can just start sending us their candidates! Well, as a resident of the Ninth District, I resent it.

Why does Morgan Griffith believe the people of the Ninth are incapable of representing themselves? The Census hasn’t even been taken yet and state GOP leaders are already preparing to redraw our lines to fit their political needs. They can’t find a resident Republican in the Ninth District to run for Congress here, so they’ll import someone.

Morgan Griffith is a city boy who will serve the region poorly. He has little insight into our needs or our values. We don’t need his hypocrisy out here; Griffith is one of those GOP ideologues who likes to talk about how much he hates the stimulus and then show up at ribbon cuttings for projects funded with stimulus money. His home town of Salem has benefited more from Stimulus money than any place in Virginia outside Richmond. He’s gotten $1287 per person in Stimulus dollars for the people he represents there.

We don't need a political opportunist from outside the Ninth District to represent us in Congress. If Griffith wants to run for Congress, let him run in the Sixth District, where he lives. We don't want a stranger representing us.

Greg Cruey
Adria, Virginia

Since submitting the letter, I've realized that the US Constitution allows any resident of Virginia to represent the Ninth District - regardless of where they reside in the state. Griffith doesn't need redistricting to redraw the Ninth around his house, after all.

Boucher's Vote on HR 3940 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act)

HR 3940 (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was passed by the House of Representatives yesterday by a vote of 219 in favor to 212 against. My Congressman, Rick Boucher, voted against the bill. I'm told that he waited until after the bill had its required 216 "yes" votes (and had passed) before he cast his "no" vote.

Boucher published a statement on the reasons for his vote. Takes some time to read ther, here.

---

I understand Boucher's complaints about cuts to Medicare funding. I'm sure there are a number of people in Congress who are now looking around and thinking that it would be nice to find ways to restore those losses within the budget process. There will be time to do that; maybe it will happen. As the economy continues recovery, Federal revenue will increase. Budgeting is an ongoing process...

Did the original Senate Bill include some distasteful deals? Yes. But it was also clear that the reconciliation package would remove those.

It is disingenuous and problematic for Rick to say that he is voting against the bill (HR 3590) because it doesn't include meaningful tort reform or relieve the disparity in Medicare funding between urban areas and rural areas. It is disingenuous because we certainly wouldn't get either of those things if the bill hadn't passed. It is problematic because Rick will probably be provided with many more opportunities now to vote against other bills because they don't contain those things. In fact, if he continues to use those criteria he may never vote in favor of another bill for the remainder of his time in Congress.

I was asked repeatedly by one of Rick's people if I'd be unhappy with a "no" vote from him if the bill passed anyway. Wonder what Rick would have done if it hadn't passed without his vote - 215 to 215 with his vote left to cast...?

Is President Obama a Socialist?

Business Week (we all know what a liberal rag that is) ran a story last year that I recently stumbled upon and thought was both entertaining and informative. It asked the question: Is President Obama a Socialist?

The simple answer is no. And, judging from the article, no is also the complicated answer, the short answer, and the long answer. It’s the reasonable answer.

Let’s define Socialism. Socialism is an economic and political theory that advocates state ownership of major industries as a tool for distributing wealth more evenly in a society.

While Rush Limbaugh and others like him on the Far Right get political mileage out of implying that President Obama is a Socialist, the real Socialists of the world beg to differ, according to the Business Week article.

They say if the Obama Administration were establishing a true socialist state, we'd have at least a $15-an-hour minimum wage (instead of the current $6.55 federal minimum) and 30-hour workweeks. Every American would be guaranteed employment and health-care coverage. Oh, and homeless people would be occupying vacant office buildings in cities and vacant McMansions in the suburbs.

Business Week talked to Frank Llewellyn, national director of the New York-based Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the largest U.S. Socialist party, and to Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science at City University of New York (CUNY) and an honorary chair of the DSA. They also talked to a representative of the International Socialist Organization (ISO) in Chicago and the Socialist Party USA in New York. In their view, President Obama is not trying to take over private sector industry and turn it into something run by the state to benefit the masses. Instead, he is “scrambling to rescue and preserve capitalism.”

How influential are these Socialist political groups? The Socialist Party USA has 1,500 members. The much larger DSA has a whopping 7,000 members. By comparison, Wikipedia says there are about 55 million registered Republicans and 72 million registered Democrats in the US. The Coffee Party has 172,000 fans on Facebook and the Tea Party Patriots page has 115,000.

On Mar. 6 (2009) a New York Times reporter asked Obama whether his domestic policies indicated the President is a socialist. Obama laughed, replying "the answer would be no." In a later telephone call to the paper, Obama said enormous taxpayer sums had been injected into the financial system before his election. "The fact that we've had to take these extraordinary measures and intervene is not an indication of my ideological preference, but an indication of the degree to which lax regulation and extravagant risk-taking has precipitated a crisis," Obama told the newspaper.

While the bailouts of 2009 may have given the federal government an ownership stake in a few industries, the Obama Administration never tried to take over the decision making process in at any major company. At worst, the administration may have stepped in and voiced an opinion on some management practices (particular those tied to executive compensation).

Of course, bank regulators come in and take over banks that are insolvent. Is that Socialism? We haven’t thought so in the past. And bankruptcy courts usually tell businesses how they can structure a plan to pay off their debts. Is that Socialism? Again, we haven’t thought so in the past.

It’s tempting to say that Rush Limbaugh doesn’t actually know what a Socialist is. But that’s obviously not true. He may be a Far Right ideology, but Rush is smart. He knows what a Socialist is. He knows Obama is not one. And Rush would like to expand the definition of Socialism to change that – at least in the public mind.

In the words that one prominent politician used recently, the idea that President Obama is a Socialist – well, that’s “barkings from the nether reaches of Glennbeckistan…”

Moderating Comments

I received a comment recently. It was anonymous. It said, basically, that I'm too much of an egomaniac to approve comments on my blog if they disagree with me. Of course, I've approved plenty of comments from people who disagree with me. Examples exist here, here, and here.

I've neglected this blog recently. I maintain about 20 blogs (it varies from week to week) and most of them pay me to write. This one doesn't pay me. It's my personal blog.

This one is also getting spammed. I had 148 comments when I decided to moderate the anonymous comment I discussed above (I rejected it). Most were in Chinese. Many advertized cheap drugs. Some wanted me to look at pictures of someone's girlfriend. I'm not going to unmoderate my comments.

My rules are simple. First, it's my blog and I approve comments because I see fit to approve them. Second, I generally don't approve comments that are abusive. Third, I don't approve comments that are both negative and anonymous. If you want to disagree with me on my own blog, get a Google ID.

Am I a Liberal

Am I a liberal?

Someone recently suggested that I was “a raging liberal.” It made me wonder if I actually qualify. So…

Abortion: Most Democrats consider me to be pro-life because I’m not convinced that abortion on demand is a woman’s right. The Evangelical Right preaches that the Bible clearly teaches that life (meaning our humanity) begins at conception. I won’t get into the theology here, but I disagree with them. My disagreement is based on my understanding of specific portions of the Bible. And in a discussion of the issue, we’d be discussing the meaning of Bible passages that we both consider inspired and inerrant. Does that make me a liberal? I haven’t formulated a law or policy. But I think the positions of both the Religious Right and the pro-abortion lobby are too absolute, too extreme.

Gay Marriage: I believe in the separation of church and state. I believe marriage is a religious institution. Gay couples can already live in the same house and think of themselves as partners in any state. With the help of a lawyer they can bequeath their possessions to each other – it’s just not automatic, like it would be if they were legally married. I’m not sure why government should be involved in licensing marriage at all. Leave it to churches.

Gun Control: I have several guns in my house. I even shoot them occasionally. It’s clear that the Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms. I’m not sure the Founding Fathers meant for that to include the personal ownership of a bazooka , a sawed off shotgun, or an Uzi.

Immigration: I don’t really have a position. I understand that most undocumented immigrants are something like economic refugees. I understand that they broke US law by crossing the border, but I don’t think that THAT alone makes them criminals in the same since that bank robbers and burglars are criminals. I understand the argument that they contribute to the economy. I understand the argument that they take jobs from citizens. I’m not sure how I’d balance those arguments.

Taxation: I think of taxes (and other forms of government revenue) on a scale with two ends – one progressive, the other regressive. Everyone (or at least the vast majority of adults) should contribute to the cost of government. A progressive tax is one that solicits a larger share of revenue from those most able to pay. A regressive tax is one that raises revenue from those who are less able to pay. Flat rates and sales taxes are generally regressive. I prefer progressive forms of taxation. But there is always room to simplify the paperwork and record keeping involved in any tax system.

Fiscal Responsibility: Like most Americans, I think it would be marvelous if the government could live within its means. Of course, it hasn’t been able to do that for decades. Efficiency and cost cutting have to be a focus of any government.

Health Care: We are the most prosperous society on Earth. And yet tens of millions of our citizens are reduced to going without basic preventative and family medical services because the lack medical insurance. The system currently in place means that those individuals show up at emergency rooms, run up a much bigger bill than could have been if they got regular medical care, and leave the rest of us to pay their bill. Those of us who do pay for insurance can have that insurance cancelled if we become “too much of a risk.” The cost of actual care keeps rising, but there are caps how much an insurance company is required to pay. Often, a profound illness (like cancer) can leave us bankrupt despite the fact that we pay for health insurance. Our health insurance can be in jeopardy of we change jobs, or if we go a period of time without a job. And then some of us can’t get coverage regardless of our ability to pay because we have “a pre-existing condition.” Healthcare reform is a matter of social justice, of making America a fairer society, of basic human rights. But more practically, it’s an economic issue that will shape our future as a country. We have a vested interest in health care because a healthy population is more productive. And health insurance reform (including some form of a public option) is in itself a matter of fiscal responsibility. It is fiscally irresponsible NOT to reform health insurance.

Energy & the Environment: I like animals and fresh veggies. I’m not sure I expect Norfolk to be flooded by melting ice caps in the next few decades; but I’m also not sure I don’t. If we can make cheaper energy, I’m in favor of that. If we can make cleaner energy, I’m in favor of that. Lower emissions and higher gas mileage sound like good things, to me.

So, am I a liberal?

Boucher, Hell, and Health Care

I'm watching an ad (paid for by http://www.EmployersForAHealthyEconomy.org/) about how RICK BOUCHER (D-Va) stood up to Washington on Health Care and voted NO on Health Care Reform that would have raised the cost of health insurance. The ad wants me to call his Washington office and let him know how much I appreciate him standing up for me.

Well, I'm the vice-chair for an itsy-bitsy little Democratic Party committee in Tazewell County. And if Rick doesn't vote

FOR

health care reform at some point, he can

GO TO HELL

in 2010 as far as I'm concerned. I won't vote for the Republican. But I'll vote for someone else in the primary (if he has an opponent). And I sure as crap won't vote FOR HIM in the general election.

His statements to the Party faithful say that the current bill isn't perfect yet. The ads on TV say he's protecting us against Washington. He needs to decide - soon. Until then, I've lost my interest in his re-election...

Fw: Bush and the Marines / Obama and the Marines

I got an email from one of my relatives today. It said, "You may enjoy seeing the reception and the appeal generated by our former & current presidents. I know I loved it..."

It had a link to this video:



Perhaps there's never been an occasion when President Obama got quite the round of applause the Bush got in this video. I doubt that Bush always received that enthusiastic a reception. And I suspect Obama has gotten more animated receptions at least once or twice. But the video's editors picked their footage for their own reasons.

As I watched the video, though, it occured to me the cart in it was before the horse. So I hit reply all and sent this back:

I've lived in Thailand, where there have been 18 military coups since that country got a constitution in 1932. I traveled in Indonesia in the waning years of Suharto's rule (32-years as the military-backed ruler there). I've traveled in the Philippines, where it's hard to count the number of coups and failed coup attempts since independence there. I've lived in Malaysia and Singapore - where political dissidents are often arrested and held for years without charge under the country's internal security laws.

When elements of the teabagging fringe speak hypocritically of patriotism out of the right side of their mouth and succession out of the left side of their mouth, I consider what their existences would be like in Malaysia or Singapore. I'm proud to live in a country where idiots like Glenn Beck are allowed to roam the streets free and speak what little mind they have, unhindered.

I support the military. We are a free country today at least in part because we have a strong, loyal military. I hope they all come home well, and come home soon...

Last I checked (a few days ago), President Obama still had a fairly high job approval rating.

In America, the President doesn't need the military's support (except as individual citizen-voters), the military needs the Predisent's support. I'm glad I live in a country like that.

Greg Cruey

I meant every word...

The Blame Game

It's come to my attention that Rene thinks I blame her for Woodard's loss in the Northern District Board of Supervisor race. What I wrote was analysis, not accusation. We mirrored statewide mistakes at the local level. I'd like to not make those mistakes again.

There's plenty of blame to go around. We wouldn't be in this situation if Bill Rasnick hadn't moved away: maybe it's his fault. Davy is not the perfect candidate; at least some of it's his fault. Vernon cost us a few votes. Mike and Dan cost us a few votes by letting Vernon hang around. Deeds cost us votes by making the statewide races personal and going after McDonnell instead of campaigning on real issues. And the Republican State Leadership Committee in Alexandria cost us a couple of votes in the Northern District by sending little Willie Morefield $40K two weeks before the election.

It would have been nice if Childress had come around a little earlier. But he eventually did his part. I know Rene talked to David a lot. I can't help but wonder how many votes it would have gotten Woodard if he'd had one of his signs in the Steele's yard. I'd say 75 if I had to guess. There was one in my yard. But no one expected it of the Steeles, because they only show up at party meetings when it serves their personal ambitions. I could be wrong. I'll say I was wrong if either of them shows up at the next two party meeting. I'll even sit with them.

I don't blame Tom Childress or Spot & Rene. There's plenty of blame to go around. I could have made more phone calls...

Do Democrats Eat Their Young?

I've talked already about the problem with marbles - how people in the Northern District seemed to pick theirs up and go home when the primary was over. Another problem we had was simple party unity in the county. And the lack of party unity managed to eventually be personified in one Charles Vernon.

Before I go on I should say that I count Mike Hymes as a friend. I endorsed him on my blog for the Southern District Board of Supervisor’s race. I'm glad he won. I feel much the same about Dan Bowling. I supported him in a letter to the Free Press. I wish he'd won.

I made my feelings about Mr. Vernon's political involvement plain to them. At the time, it didn't matter much. I don't know if it does (matter to them) in retrospect. If I make those feelings public now and perhaps criticize them on the issue, I doubt it will hurt Mike's reelection chances in 2013 or damage our friendships much.

I think of Charles Vernon as somewhat loud and pompous. He tends to use 11 words when seven would be eloquent and four would make the point. We all have our flaws, I suppose.

Vernon originally supported Woodard's campaign - and every other Democrat in the county, even though he makes a point of saying he's an independent. On September 3rd, Vernon published a "letter of non-support" at Rene Steele's forum. It was melodramatic; he "declared war" on Woodard. It was over personalities. Playing the chivalrous knight (the image he seems to want to project) he came to the defense of a damsel in distress: Amy Flick. Amy and Woodard had disagreed on matters concerning the town of Pocahontas. Flick decided she'd support Campbell over it. Whatever.

Vernon's post got just over 100 comments and the thread got just under 2000 viewings in the 61 days leading up to the election. Only seven other people posted to Vernon's thread - including Rene, who owns the forum. Over half the comments were by Vernon himself (who doesn't live in the Northern District). While the thread got about 30 views a day on average, most of those views were problem from the eight people who contributed to the thread.

I doubt Vernon did much to decide who got Rene's vote. I think I know who two of the anonymous posters ("Just a Taxpayer" and "GOP") are, and I don't think either of them live in the Northern District. Woodard lost by 61 votes. Maybe Vernon's thread cost the Woodard Camp one or two dozen votes. I'm sure Vernon will disagree verbosely with my estimate.

---

The more important effect that Vernon had, in my opinion, was that he was demoralizing to the party in general at county events. Every time Mike Hymes or Dan Bowling stood around at a public event with Vernon, it sent voters and party people who were familiar with the situation a mixed message. I have to wonder whether having Vernon around didn't cost Bowling as many votes as it gained him - if for no other reason than simple lost enthusiasm among county Democrats.

Vernon commented on my post from yesterday, since it mentioned his name. I told him he had other places where he could share his opinions and that I didn't really feel any obligation to let him post here. He copied that private email I sent him and published elsewhere without so much as informing me - something that doesn't surprise me.

I thought I said it rather well in that email, and since it's now public, I may as well quote it here:

Got your comment. Spare me the formal respect crap; it leaves a taste like eating the icing off a cake... too much sugar.

Don't flatter yourself too much. I don't blame you for the defeat of Woodard. Your credibility in the Northern District political arena was largely borrowed from others - Hymes, Bowling, etc. The day you published your letter of non-support for Davy they should have kicked your ass to the curb. But instead they fed disunity by continuing to associate with you in public, to the party's detriment.

Mike Hymes and Dan Bowling are nice guys. As the last Democrat standing at the moment on the Board of Supervisors, Hymes will become even more of a leader for the party now. And Charles Vernon, on the other hand, is a cancer in the party's side. Keeping him around after this because he serves one or two individual candidates - well, we may as well eat our own young...