Category Archives: Hypocrisy

Romney’s disability bullying

Anyone who has made his or her way to this backwater in the blogosphere must have seen the Washington Post article on Mitt Romney’s history of cruelty and bullying at his prep school.  The event that has gotten the most attention is Romney’s bullying of a nonconformist classmate — a kid with dyed blond hair — that had overtones of gay bashing and homophobia.  But what about this incident:

One venerable English teacher, Carl G. Wonn­berger, nicknamed “the Bat” for his diminished eyesight, was known to walk into the trophy case and apologize, step into wastepaper baskets and stare blindly as students slipped out the back of the room to smoke by the open windows. Once, several students remembered the time pranksters propped up the back axle of Wonnberger’s Volkswagen Beetle with two-by-fours and watched, laughing from the windows, as the unwitting teacher slammed the gas pedal with his wheels spinning in the air.

As an underclassman, Romney accompanied Wonnberger and Pierce Getsinger, another student, from the second floor of the main academic building to the library to retrieve a book the two boys needed. According to Getsinger, Romney opened a first set of doors for Wonnberger, but then at the next set, with other students around, he swept his hand forward, bidding the teacher into a closed door. Wonnberger walked right into it and Getsinger said Romney giggled hysterically as the teacher shrugged it off as another of life’s indignities.

How does this speak to Romney’s views on people with disabilities?   There are many measures of how far the Republican party has sunk — from William F. Buckley to Sarah Palin, say — but in my neck of the woods, it couldn’t be sharper than the contrast between the man who signed the ADA and someone with so little respect for people with disabilities that he would humiliate his own blind teacher.

Would any of us be elected if judged by our adolescences?  Perhaps not, though mostly due to lingering squeamishness with recreational drug and alcohol use.  I cannot think of any friends or classmates who did anything close to the cruelty of assaulting a fellow student to cut his hair simply because he was different or physically ridiculing a disabled teacher.

Two other things strike me.  First of all, of course, the homophobic bullying has received far more attention than the disabiliphobic bullying.  Part of that has to do with the fact that the article was published within a day of both North Carolina’s shameful vote enshrining marriage discrimination in its constitution and President Obama’s declaration of his support for marriage equality.  But I’m concerned that that casual tone of the quote above indicates a greater societal acceptance of disability-related “pranks” than homophobic “bullying.”

I’m also struck by just how uncivilized Romney’s behavior was.  And not just once, but apparently over and over.   We Democrats are supposed to be the party of the uncouth, unwashed hippies, and the GOP the party of Brooks Brothers, using the proper wine glass, and not wearing white after Labor Day.  But the behavior described in this article is deeply uncivilized, and the fact that it was laughed off at an elite prep school speaks volumes.

How on earth could we trust this man to run our country?

Yes, we have a voting problem, Part Deux

Just last month I was being cynical about Republican efforts to prevent voting fraud by making sure that students and poor people don’t vote.  But thank goodness the Republicans are on the ball, so we could catch poor student Charlie White and punish him for his voting transgressions.

Oh.  Wait.

Jury finds Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White guilty on 6 of 7 felony charges

Do you love that his name is Charlie White as much as I do?   And it’s really a Republican hypocrisy two-fer, because it turned out that his vote fraud, er, “confusion” was, well, I’ll let IndyStar.com break it to you gently:

The charges stemmed from confusion over where White lived when he campaigned for secretary of state in late 2009 and 2010. White claimed that he lived at his ex-wife’s home on the east side of Fishers. But the jury convicted him based on allegations that he actually lived in a townhouse on the opposite side of town that he bought for him and his then-fiancé. The townhouse was outside his Fishers Town Council district.

Note that it’s “confusion” when a conservative politician bails on his wife, shacks up with his fiancé, and fails to notify the secretary of state so he can stay on the city council of the city in which he no longer lives, but potential “fraud” when an 84-year-old woman who has voted in every election since 1948 doesn’t have a birth certificate because she was born at home in 1927.

It shouldn’t be about choice; it should be about respect.

Cynthia Nixon has spurred an interesting dialog by embracing the concept that being gay or lesbian can be a choice.  In the civil rights world,the it’s-not-a-choice-it’s-an-inborn-trait position is an attempt to connect being gay with other protected classes defined by immutable characteristics, such as race, gender, and disability.   It’s also embraced as a counter to the common homophobic position* that if you can choose to love people of your own gender, you can equally easily — like choosing a different flavor of ice cream — choose to love people of the other gender.   Or perhaps choose to live a celibate life.

But Nixon makes I think the precise right point:

I say it doesn’t matter if we flew here or we swam here, it matters that we are here and we are one group and let us stop trying to make a litmus test for who is considered gay and who is not. . . .  It seems we’re just ceding this point to bigots who are demanding it, and I don’t think that they should define the terms of the debate.

It has always seemed bizarre to me that religious folks stress that this protected class — gays and lesbians — is based on choice, when the most mutable, chosen-not-born protected class is religion.  You don’t choose your race, disability, or national origin, and most people don’t choose their gender.  But if you can choose to be Christian, you can just as easily choose to be Jewish or Muslim, right?  Why on earth should we protect Christians against all that discrimination** they face when they could simply elect to be Jewish or Muslim and get away scot-free?***

Seriously, we shouldn’t be discussing choice vs. innate; we should be discussing respect.   And in the discrimination context, relevance.  What on earth relevance does it have to someone’s ability to do their job who they sleep with?  What faith they practice?  Their gender?  Their race?

***********

* Did you know there is something called Conservapedia?  Me neither.  It’s precisely as informative as the name suggests.  For example, this is the only substantive information it provides on the ADA:

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is a broad federal law that requires places of public accommodation to comply with numerous regulations relating to access by persons having disabilities. The Act encourages lawsuits against restaurants, schools, retail stores, hospitals and other small businesses by providing for the recovery of attorneys fees by successful plaintiffs.

Go forth and be informed, young conservatives with homework projects!

** Clearly Conservapedia is going to be my go-to source for links to straw-man conservative arguments.  They make it so easy!

*** Can I say that?  Does that discriminate against Scottish people?  Or is it OK because I’m a Jewish-Scottish-American?

Yes, we have a voting problem.

Republicans spend a lot of time these days trying to protect the vote against nonexistent threats and potential non-Republican voters, like students and poor people.  But if you gave Michael Moore psychedelic drugs he couldn’t have parodied the GOP’s voting problems better than they have on their own.

For example, you thought Romney won Iowa, right? At least that’s what Fox News announced the next day.

Hold on!

The certified numbers: 29,839 for Santorum and 29,805 for Romney.

Oh, then Santorum won by 34 votes, right?   Um . . .

THE RESULTS: Santorum finished ahead by 34 votes
MISSING DATA: 8 precincts’ numbers will never be certified
PARTY VERDICT: GOP official says, ‘It’s a split decision’

Except the 8 precincts’ votes that the GOP regards as “missing” are online for non-Republicans with ordinary math skills to analyze.

If those results are added to the certified results, Santorum’s 29,839 votes would become 29,920, and Romney’ 29,805 would become 29,851 — for a “final” result of Santorum winning the caucuses, by a margin of 69 votes.

And then there’s the very democratic process by which a bunch of evangelicals got together and decided to endorse Santorum.

It was not until the third ballot, after some of Gingrich’s supporters left, that Santorum cleared the three-quarters threshold, receiving 85 votes, to Gingrich’s 29.   . . . [A]ll the participants had been bound by an agreement not to speak for 24 hours.  . . . “It wasn’t a consensus and it wasn’t an endorsement,” added former representative J.C. Watts (R-Okla.), who was also at the session and also expressed concern at how the outcome was being portrayed.

And these guys are asking us to trust them to run the country?

I don’t think those words mean what you think they mean.

Newt Gingrich asks: “Do you want to move towards American exceptionalism, reassert the Constitution, reassert the nature of America, or do you, in fact, want to become a secular, European, sort of bureaucratic socialist society?”

Evidently his own answer is, “neither, thanks; I prefer a dictatorship.”

How do we know this?  Because he has decided to abandon the rule of law, one of the key things that makes America exceptional.

On “Face the Nation,” Gingrich announced not only that court decisions that are out of step with popular opinion should be ignored, but that as president he might have judges arrested by the Capitol Police or the U.S. Marshals.

Ignoring court decisions and having judges arrested is what dictatorships do.

He was referring to a decision to keep a public high school graduation secular, something required by the Constitution.  But ignoring unpopular opinions would not only let us establish government-ordained religion and reinstitute racial segregation, it would let undermine one of the pillars of our economy.   I’m thinking foreclosures are fairly unpopular decisions these days — shall we be allowed to ignore them?  How about evictions?  Don’t want to pay a judgment for breach of contract?  Form a mob and show how unpopular it is!

In my field, decisions tossing ADA cases based on procedural grounds such as standing or mootness are unpopular.  Shall we ignore them and bring our sledgehammers with us when we visit inaccessible facilities?  (Do NOT tempt me!)

Or are we only allowed to ignore decisions that are unpopular with conservatives?

And this guy is supposed to be the brain trust of the Republican party?

What’s funny is that Gingrich is smart.  He knows how important the rule of law is, which also means that he knows he’s full of shit.  But he has apparently decided that the only way to win this time around is graft the arrogance that has always been a side effect of his intelligence to some sort of random right wing slogan generator to create a FrankenCandidate who would be immensely entertaining if he weren’t so frightening.

And finally we have the Republican party 2011:  proclaiming conservative values while embracing a someone with three marriages and multiple affairs; decrying elitism while embracing a pompous windbag with a $500,000 line of credit at Tiffany’s; and proclaiming American exceptionalism while rejecting the rule of law.

This Week In Random Media Hypocrisy

Breaking News!  Did you know that the mayor of a  major American city said that treating African-Americans equally was an “inconvenience” that was “unfair to average people” because it made them “uncomfortable”?  You didn’t!?  What a scandal – how did the media miss this?

Oh, right, sorry — it was just the civil rights of people with disabilities.  Silly media consumers — you know that’s not the same thing.  So no reason to expect 24/7 handwringing, apologies, and navel-gazing talk shows about the state of civil rights in response to the MAYOR OF OUR LARGEST CITY SAYING THAT RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF HIS MINORITY-GROUP CONSTITUENTS IS INCONVENIENT AND UNFAIR TO “AVERAGE” PEOPLE.

In fact, I have to cut the intrepid reporters on the civil rights beat some slack on this because they were busy pursuing a much more important story.

Yes, leading liberal website ThinkProgress was far too busy tracking the astonishing news that  beauty queen got drunk and used a bad word.  In fact, the website was so on top of this story that they got an …

That’s right, an EXCLUSIVE.  You won’t read this important story ANYWHERE ELSE!   And in fact, ThinkProgress has the crucial details, too.  Miss Virginia’s roommate told the reporter that she was “extremely intoxicated” that night and seemed upset that she did not have the full house to herself, so she  “downgraded people based on their physical appearance and economic status.”  Now this is indeed breaking civil rights news:  college girl gets drunk, says something stupid and hurtful.

How on earth did ThinkProgress beat out The Onion to this important scoop?

Solving our voting problems with advanced technology.

Everyone’s trying to solve the wrong voting problems.  Conservatives are worried that people who can’t drive or people who go to college might vote.  Liberals are concerned that conservatives make campaign claims that aren’t, strictly speaking, true.  But checking driver’s licenses and bloviation accuracy isn’t going to solve the most fundamental problem:  voters who don’t have any clue wtf they’re voting for.   I’m not talking about whether your candidate will change this policy position or that.  I mean fundamentally what sort of world you’re voting for when you pick the person who doesn’t “believe in” evolution or thinks the military should fund itself through bake sales.*

What we need is a technology that is not going to be perfected until at least the 2370s:**  the holodeck. Before citizens are permitted to vote, they enter a holodeck, punch in the candidates or initiatives they’re voting for, and experience the world as it would be if these people or views prevailed.

I was inspired to propose this technology by the following photo:

Photo credit:  Unreal Americans  h/t Beau Weston.

So, for example, the Zero Taxes lady would enter the holodeck, type in “zero taxes” and have to spend, say, a week in a world with no police, firefighters, roads, sidewalks, or, of course (not that I’m making any particular assumptions) Medicare.  Or she could rent Mad Max.

Even generic business-oriented conservatives would have to try to run their businesses without the public highway system, the police to keep marauding bands stealing everything from their factory,*** or an educated workforce.

The folks voting to protest the Affordable Care Act would experience a world in which they work at Wal-Mart and their spouse has cancer.

The folks hoping the military has to fund itself by holding a bake sale get a choice of the Third Reich or the Confederate States of America.  Harsh?  Yes – get a grip.  Though honestly they can share a holodeck experience with the “cut taxes not defense” person in the photo.  If defense is not going to be funded by taxes, I think a bake sale might be her only option, too.

Any liberal breathing the name “Nader” gets the holodeck of the Rick Perry administration.

The anti-regulatory crowd gets the holodeck where they navigate the world of 1990 in a wheelchair and test their own food and drugs.  Toxic?  Ooops!  Now we know!

Tort reformers will incur expensive injuries due to a defective product — one that the company knew it didn’t have to improve or pull from the market because there was no financial exposure in maiming the occasional customer — but be unable to rely on the rule of law for recourse.

My usual half-assed humor aside, what do people think they’re voting for?  Zero Taxes lady, Grover Norquist who wants to drown the government in a bathtub, even Eric Cantor — what is their vision?  What does America look like in their minds?  Rich people in gated communities and Mad Max for the rest of us?  Besides political gamesmanship for its own sake, what do they want?

Even if they don’t know, with holodeck technology, at least voters could know before they vote!

*****************

* A word about equivalence:  buttheadedness seems to me to be fairly evenly distributed along the political spectrum.  Money and power, however, are not.  So while I like to make fun of both sides, it’s pretty clear that the people who are very far removed from reality on the right are now calling the shots for their team, while the reality-impaired on the left are not.  So, for example, there is a fair amount of evidence that the Koch Brothers underwrite the Tea Party, but most of the military-bake-sale bumper stickers tend to be on aging Ford Escorts.  Not that there’s anything wrong with old cars.

** You just knew that if you googled “when was the holodeck invented” there would be an answer.

*** I love Elizabeth Warren!  Preach it, sister!

Special Interest Groups

I finally have empirical proof that “Special Interest Group” just means “group that wants to do something conservatives oppose.”

I’ve always known this in a sort of episto-sarcastic way.  “Oh yeah right,” I’d say, sarcastically, “gays and lesbians are a special interest group because getting married, visiting your spouse in the hospital, and not having the crap beaten out of you are such special things to do.”  In contrast to companies that don’t have to pay taxes or answer in court when they violate the law – a very ordinary, unspecial approach to citizenship.

Indeed, any group advocating for civil rights – that is, the same rights that straight, non-disabled, white people take for granted – is a “special interest group” advocating for “special rights.”  For example, here’s Juan Williams,* with the standard line that people with disabilities are a “special interest group.”

But I finally found a naturally occurring example of the flexibility of the term “special interest group.”  To graduate from being a “special interest group” to “fine upstanding Americans,” you just have to find a group that annoys conservatives more.   Here is a Republican politician in New Hampshire, reacting to the fact that a liquor store has parking reserved for hybrid cars near the front entrance where the accessible parking usually goes:

To choose to display such blatant priority for special interests over seniors, wounded veterans and others who have mobility difficulty is deplorable.

Voila!

*******

*  This link contained a paragraph so classic I have to paste it in its entirety.  Here is Juan Williams making the all-important link between speaking respectfully about people with cognitive disabilities and the downfall of western literature:

That’s ridiculous. These special interest groups say you shouldn’t say retarded. You should say developmentally disabled. It’s silly to make a big deal about it. It’s like language police. You’re made into a villain. It’s being done to enforce a certain speech code. It leads to resentment, anger. It leads to people thinking we’re not allowed to read books by dead white men even if they’re great books. What a waste of time. Just have an honest conversation.

When is it OK to sympathize with terrorists?

When you’re a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado?  or when you’re writing for the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed page?

Here’s my tentative answer:  if you agree with the political views of a terrorist, the immediate aftermath of his terrorist attack is an excellent time to STFU.  We can all wait to hear your views, perhaps in a rationally argued piece, after a decent interval, that does not manifest the simultaneously revolting and self-promoting need to tie your views to those of the terrorist.

Yes I know these guys have First Amendment rights.  I’m not suggesting the government prevent them from putting their feet in their mouths.  I’m just exercising my First Amendment right to tell them:  Seriously, Ward Churchill, Bruce Bawer, STFU.

****

[Update: edited for typos.]

Cousin Itt and Airplane Security

Although it is with some trepidation that I wade back into the airplane security discussion, I have to relate this short but bizarre tale, one that would indeed be have been ameliorated by profiling.

When we fly, which we do often, Tim likes to devote the flight time to catching up on the sleep he loses each night composing new and more complex databases in his head.  To create conditions conducive to sleep, he drapes a blanket over his head.  He has passed dozens of flights over the past few years next to me, doing his imitation of Cousin Itt.

On our flight out to San Francisco, however, he was informed that this was not permitted.  Post-9/11 security precautions prohibit covering your head while on an airplane.

Why?  We asked.

“Well, since the Detroit flight when a would-be terrorist covered himself with a blanket and assembled a bomb, it has been illegal to cover your head on a flight.”

That would seem to suggest that covering his HANDS would be prohibited.  Could he perhaps cover his head but leave his hands exposed?

“No — it’s just your head you can’t cover.”

So, under this rule, he could in fact cover his hands and assemble a bomb so long as his head was uncovered?

“Um, right”

But this makes no sense!  He can’t even *use* his hands.  He couldn’t assemble a bomb if he wanted to.

“I could have the police and airline security waiting for you when the plane lands.”

Seriously.  This was the flight attendant who had seen us board the plane and seen the power wheelchair be wheeled out the galley door onto the belt loader.  (Don’t ask!)  And she was telling Tim he couldn’t sleep in his preferred cocoon because he might assemble a bomb.

Hey, Bruce, this situation calls for profiling:  of people WHO CAN USE THEIR HANDS.

Turns out that won’t be necessary.  When we landed at SFO, I quietly asked a different flight attendant whether he could tell us where we could find that rule so we could look it up and read it.  He quietly told us that there was no such rule, and that he had quietly told the first flight attendant that, and gently suggested that she apologize.

That’s right, she had woken Tim up, argued with us about quadriplegic bomb assembly, and threatened to have us arrested, all based on a rule that she invented out of whole cloth on the spot.