Ballou HS Rocks the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade
Morning Roundup: Black Friday Edition
Photo of the Day: November 27, 2009
Caps Thankful for Varly in 2-0 Win
Thanks to This Week's Advertisers
Tucker Carlson: professional moron
If it were up to conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, American citizens would still pay taxes and homage to Queen Elizabeth II. Think we're kidding? We're not. In a chat on the Post's website yesterday, Carlson inveighed against District voting rights and sided with taxation without representation. From the transcript:
Katy, Tex.: Non Palin question. Considering that the Washington, D.C., crowd continues to elect Marion Barry to publicly paid posts, why does anyone think it is a good idea to let them elect a full-fledged representative to the House?
Tucker Carlson: Of course not. It's insane, not to mention unconstitutional. As a resident of the city, I'm happy to have taxation without representation.
Carlson then argued that District residents simply aren't ready for voting rights or statehood, since they keep electing Barry to public office. He said, "The Barry story is also a tale of co-dependence between a politician and his supporters. I love Washington. My wife and all four of my children were born in Northwest. I hope I never leave. But let's be honest: The city's not ready for democracy, much less statehood."
Sigh. It's almost impossible to argue with someone who is this blissfully ignorant of his own country's history and so purposely dismissive of the residents of the city he claims to never want to leave. Democracy isn't something that people have to earn, Tucker. If we're to believe anything that the founding fathers fought for, it's one among a number of inalienable rights granted by God, not government. And if this city isn't "ready" for democracy, we ask you to march on down to Board of Elections and Ethics this afternoon and surrender your voting registration.
As for Barry, well, we're the last ones to be proud of his erratic behavior, but according to your argument, recent events would then dictate that residents of Nevada and South Carolina should also have to give up their voting rights. Carlson was born in San Francisco, so we also expect that he'd side with yanking their voting rights because of the mess that state finds itself in.
I always promise myself not to get worked up when someone says something this objectively dumb. But it's hard.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Let's take a vote:
All those in favor of paying no federal taxes and having Eleanor not have a vote in Congress, press 1.
All those in favor of paying federal taxes and Eleanor not having a vote, press 2.
1.
"it's one among a number of inalienable rights granted by God, not government."
Just like the 2nd amendment. God want's all people to have the right to keep and bear arms.
Well, D.C. residents are now taxed, unrepresented and armed. Hmmm...what happened the last time those three things were mixed?
Wait, am I to imply that you now want the guns?!
Of course, everyone has the right to hang a pair of bear arms (http://www.thereheis.com/images/family%20guy%20bear%20arms.jpg) on their wall; what could be vague about that?
Given the froth the political Right worked themselves up into this Spring, when Michelle Obama was impertinent enough to lay hands on Her Royal Majesty, and Barack gave her insufficient tribute (An iPod!!! Uh Wur!), this doesn't surprise me in the least.
Note the forehead-smacking realization that the question in question came from Katy, TX.
Well, idiot, it is a good idea to give DC full-fledged representation in Congress because 600,000 AMERICANS LIVE HERE!!!!!!! Last I checked, that was more than three states (probably about that when next year's census results come back) that have full representation.
Personally, I vote for taking away everyone's representation, and dissolving the Senate. The regional governors will then be in control of their territories. Fear will keep the local states in line. Fear of this battle station.
AND ANOTHER THING!
Along with what Martin said earlier, maybe Tucker would be in favor of taking away my beloved California's representation as well, since they recalled Gray Davis, then elected (and re-elected) the effing Terminator. Doesn't sound like they're really in their right minds either, Tucker. How about it? Got the balls to say that Cali's current crisis is the voters' fault for electing him? I double-dog dare you to suggest that we pull their representation in Congress...only about 30 million more Americans disenfranchised, who cares, right?
Tucker has some very good points, although our beloved Mayor-for-Life is not unique to Washington, DC. There are plenty of politicians who behave badly. Yet that's not a good reason to ban their constituents from representation. Having said that, I don't give a rats behind what if any "representation" the District residents receive.
Policymakers listen to the all mighty dollar (can you spell RE-ELECTION CAMPAIGN?) more than they do the people who elect them into office. Why do you think members on the Ways and Means Committee, for example, get more money from special interest groups and people who don't even live in their state?? Because it's all about building their coffers and getting re-elected over and over again. Oh, and if they do get appropriations to build a freeway in your district then consider yourselves lucky. Unless of course it ends up in your backyard.
What exactly are his good points? He's claiming that liberty is not, in fact, an unalienable Right. What is good about that?
A "right" is something you have when you are bigger and stronger than someone who wants to take it away from you.
Murphy - Did you read the transcript? Here are a few of his soundbites:
(1) The Barry story is also a tale of codependence between a politician and his supporters.
(2) When you wake up for the fifth time without your pants in a public place and no memory of how you got there, it doesn't help to pretend that lots of other normal people do the same thing. You're a drunk. Face it.
(3) When did Michael Jackson get to be a civil rights hero?
(1) The Barry story is also a tale of codependence between a politician and his supporters.
All politics is a tale of codependence between a politician and his supporters. They need us to vote for them, we vote for people we think will look out for us.
(2) When you wake up for the fifth time without your pants in a public place and no memory of how you got there, it doesn't help to pretend that lots of other normal people do the same thing. You're a drunk. Face it.
What does this even mean? I think the people of Ward 8 have made a mistake voting for the guy. So what? I am not the arbiter of your right to vote. You're free to vote for whomever you please, no matter how jaw-droppingly stupid I may think it is.
(3) When did Michael Jackson get to be a civil rights hero?
No argument here, but I can't see what this has to do with the discussion at hand.
What about no federal taxes, no vote for Eleanor, and we march Congress into the Anacostia at gunpoint? Nobody does armed insurrections anymore. That, and tarring and feathering. WTF man? Nobody ever heard of the Whiskey Rebellion?
And has Chicago ever had a mayor who wasn't a corrupt tool? Yet these people are allowed to vote?
See, this is why I stopped listening to dildos in bowties after George Will lost his mind.
True, true. I mean, Katy, TX? Come on. No one is crying to take away their representation even though they continue to elect Sen. Cornyn. Well, except maybe Rick Perry.
If there is or ever was a god, he would have washed his hands of us a long time ago.
Soory Martin, I totally disagree with your "Democracy isn't something that people have to earn..." statement.
You earn it every day and men and women have given their lives so you may enjoy it
Not sure that defending a right the same as earning it.
True, brave people have given and continue to give their lives to protect democracy. But democracy is not something that you eventually get. If we believe what the founding fathers believed, it is something that is ours to begin with.
If we beleived what the founding fathers believed, we'd all have guns and beleive in divine creation. Your comment is along the line of Tucker Toolbag, which you are decrying.
I call ca-ca. The founding fathers didn't believe in divine creation. They were all Freemasons and deists and you can't get much more Satanic than that. Then there was that whole slavery thing. On the positive side, they all ran their own private distilleries and smoked hemp so you gotta take the good with the bad.
I would say the words used by the founding fathers were more "marketing" than speaking specifically about a god granting them a country and form of government.
Democracy is an outcome of trial and error and remembering mistakes.It's shocking to me that you would say this.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That's marketing? It's the fundamental principal on which this country was founded. Men fought and died for this idea, and you reduce it to "marketing".
The founding fathers were flawed men who didn't do a great job implementing the principal, but the principal itself is the bedrock of democracy.
I didn't reduce it to marketing I categorized as such.
As Monkey said above, religion didn't play a large part in the hearts and minds of the founding fathers. A document that calls rights unalienable because they were granted by (their) creator is using "fighting words".
Martin is correct-sort of. Although there is no Constitutional right to vote (for anyone), the concept of self-determination was considered by the Founding Fathers to be a naturally bestowed right and was at the core of the Revolution. While I am on it, I HATE when people say, "What was the big deal about the US revolution, countries do it all the time." (I heard that this weekend). The big deal was that it was the first attempt at actual implementation of new thinking about man's relationship with the Govt. developed during the Renaissance.
Oh, an the Bill of Rights does not "grant" rights. It affirms rights that people hold naturally.
"If we believe what the founding fathers believed, it is something that is ours to begin with."
True, only if you were white, male and a land owner.
So should those who live in the Minnesota 6th Congressional District also lose their representation in the House because they voted Michelle Bachmann into office?
Walter Washington
Marion Barry
Sharon Pratt/Kelly/Dixon
Marion Barry Redux
Lets face it. The long-time residents of DC simply lack the education, logic, and political sophistication to elect their own leaders. Heck, they can't even raise their kids, why should we think they can run a city? It wasn't until:
a) Congress bailed out DC with the control board which gave us Anthony Williams; and
b) Large numbers of young professionals moved into the city displacing the older residents who ran the city into the ground,
that DC began its turnaround.
If you like living here today, thank Congress and gentrification.
Giving DC a vote in the House won't change a thing. DC will only move forward as more and more longtime residents are forced out into PG County and Southern Maryland.
That ridiculous rebuttal speech of Gov. Jindal's.
Palin's random resignation from governing Alaska.
President Bush's daddy complex.
President Clinton's facination with the neither regions of ladies with bad hair.
Michele Bachman!
Gov. Sandford's inablity to NOT talk about how much he loves a woman other than his wife, but doesn't want his wife to leave him.
We could go on like this all day. If quality of representation were a requirement of representation, no one would have any you paternalistic nincompoop! It's a completely invalid argument. The reason why we hear about it? Because the invalid ones are the only ones the voting rights opposition has.
"The long-time residents of DC simply lack the education, logic, and political sophistication to elect their own leaders."
I hope this is a joke. I truly do. Because if it's not, you may as well force all potential voters in the U.S. take the SAT to prove they have the "education, logic, and political sophistication" to enjoy democracy.
They used to force voters to take tests before voting in the South under the Jim Crow laws. It was designed to disenfranchise the same people hillvada is trying to push into PG County. I wonder if he/she will allow them to vote there? I guess as long as the can be balanced out by better qualified voters in Garret County it won't be a problem.
I'd be in favor of that...the whole place went to hell when we converted the franchise from a privilege to an entitlement. Its sort of like (and connected to) the decline in justice related to elites being too busy/important/etc to serve on juries.
Lowest common denominator participation produces results acceptable to only the bottom of the food chain, be it Sarah Palin or Marion Barry.
And by that, I mean SAT scores not Jim Crow laws...
Why don't you expand that list back a little before Washington? Oh, that's right. You can't. There was a century of non-self rule. What sort of a healthy political class does that produce?
How do you deny people democracy for generations, then give them a meager form of self rule, and then decide that since they made choices you think are stupid that they don't deserve representation?
You're a racist idiot.
truly a racist idiot.
Thank you, Reid.
Why would anyone be surprised when someone who is treated as a child to behaves like one? Certainly a principled conservative wouldn't.
I like how he drops 'Northwest' into the conversation.... Instant street cred. Tenleytown represent!
Tenleytown? That might as well be Anacostia to Carlson. He lives in a $3.8 million house in Kent/Palisades.
The list of people voting dip-shits into office is very very long. If they all lost their right to representation...wow.
Let's start with the recent goings-on in Illinois. Then how about the foot-tapper in the toilet stall. Then...
rdhd
Oh come on guys, this is newsworthy? Carlson is a right wing pundit. He regurgitated the talking point - this is unconstitutional - and then proceeded to bash the electorate. That was the focus of his rant - I live in a wonderful town of idiots. Why even give this the page space?
Why even give this the page space?
Because this is Martin's personal DC voting rights blog, and any offhand comment on the subject by any irrelevant dipshit is front-page news?
Oh wait.
gbert,
Voting rights is an issue that is extremely personal to the District, and as such it's newsworthy -- even when dip-shits like Tucker make some foolish comments about it.
In fact, I think it's moments like these that allow us to use national figures to make the point that some opponents of D.C. voting rights are either morons or fundamentally don't understand their own country's history.
Sure, people can look at D.C. and laugh at us because of Marion Barry, but no one intelligent can logically believe that voting rights should be doled out base on how intelligent a people are or what their elected representatives do or don't do. The more guys like Tucker open their mouths and say these things the more the stupidity of their opposition to voting rights is made clear to everyone else.
I think the point, Martin, is that this Carlson didn't raise an even remotely logical argument for or even against voting rights. D.C. electorate = idiots = no votes. That just can't be taken seriously, and I don't think anybody does. If he said something logical/serious, then I agree, go ahead and counter it, but if his words are only designed to whip up attention, don't give him the time of day. Remember, we're about discourse, not about yelling (or typing) at each other.
Yeah, I get all that; I'm making a broader gripe about DCist's coverage on this issue, which to me as a reader seems driven more by your personal passion as an advocate on the issue than by any kind of editorial vision for this blog.
And as a result, the coverage is disproportionately heavy and represents one individual writer's viewpoint far more than one might expect from a semi-pro/group, general interest blog.
That's just my $.02 as a reader since this site launched.
Yeah, the coverage is certainly driven by my personal passion. It was never intended that way -- that's just how it developed.
That's one of the particularities of a group blog like this. We do our best to represent as much of "D.C." as we can, but sometimes certain people on certain beats develop or have opinions that color their coverage. That's not a bad thing, in my opinion. I don't think that you come to DCist to get the usual "one side says, the other side says" that you find in traditional journalism. A certain point of view or opinion is somewhat expected.
And yes, I am one of the more overtly opinionated writers on the site. And sure, I do harp on this issue. But I do so because I think it's an issue that very much defines the D.C. experience. I'm not always right and not everyone is going to agree with me. But for the most part, that's what the comments are for, right? You and I may not see eye to eye on the issue but we can talk it out.
Additionally, if you read my writings on this issue over the last four years, you'll see that I've been torn on it many times. Sure, I have strong opinions, but I also have strong doubts that I'm not afraid to share.
Who knows. Maybe the next DCist writer that wants to cover the ever-satisfying (sarcasm alert!) beat of D.C. voting rights with have a totally different opinion that you like better. Maybe not.
gmg, I don't need the coverage to be "unbiased." Saying "go read the Post" is a cop-out, especially nowadays when the bar for blogs is a lot higher than it used to be.
And Martin, my problem is not with your opinion itself. I actually want this blog to have an overall voice in support of voting rights.
I also want individual contributors to add a bit of individual personality to their posts.
But, there's a fine line - DCist uses a number of contributors to cover a range of topics of local interest, but should have a cohesive style and not be just a platform for whatever those writers want to write about in whatever style they want to write in.
On this particular issue, it long ago stopped reading like DCist and now reads like Martin's blog. It's not an issue with your opinion or your writing - it's an issue of whether it's the best approach for this venue.
Dude, this is part of what blogging as a journalistic form is about. Bloggers report AND they advocate. The line between the two has been blurred, both for better and for worse. If you want an "unbiased" take on DC voting rights, read the Post.
I try to be open to others' opinions (at least when I am not anonymously commenting), but I admit that I just can't understand how anyone who claims they have "roots" in DC would be against representation. I am sick of these transient D-bags who can't even name the Mayor saying DC doesn't deserve representation.
There should be a law that unless you have voted in at least 2 local elections, name 3 Councilmen, or take the Metro from Woodley Park to Branch Ave. without looking at a map, you should STFU about representation.
One more thing, there are a few points that people always make on this issue that really have nothing to do with reality.
PRO: "They wouldn't do that in their own district" Um, yeah, because they can't. Congress has a constitutional mandate to manage DC. That is a fact. That argument does not mean anything.
CON: "If you want to vote (or own a gun), move to Virginia." That is like telling anti-war protesters that if they don't like America they should move somewhere else. Equally lame.
The difference is that people have reasonable disagreements over the meaning of the second amendment. Representation is lot less cloudy. The only reason we don't have it is an historical accident. People arguing against representation would never argue that way if it weren't already the status quo, they'd be laughed out the door. Since it's so difficult to overcome the status quo, people who benefit for our lack of representation don't need to make the case. They can just throw up enough disingenuous comments about Marion Barry and say patently un-American things like Carlson and get away with it.
I've heard of reasonable disagreements. I thought they went out of style back in the Nixon administration.
Reid-
Sorry you're wrong
Article 1 Sec 8 says Congress decided what laws you might have---and currently they say no vote for you...
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And"
Whereas, the 2nd Amendment says (and SCOTUS backs me up), that I can indeed have a gun with "reasonable" regulation. The current DC government does not provide such regulation, and Congress (under the powers listed above) just might.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
One-star,
Who defines "reasonable"? The Supreme Court expressly stayed the heck away from that because they realized that what's "reasonable" in El Paso, Texas might be "insane" here. Ultimately, our local courts will have to hash out exactly what "reasonable" means.
For the time being, you can still purchase a handgun and get it registered in the District. Sure, you have to register it and take training courses, among other things, but those hoops may not rise to the level of being unreasonable. The courts will have to decide.
Cool. We are going to guns? Martin, please answer my previous question about registering guns of different lengths. If you cannot, then you must admit DC's laws are unreasonable.
Remember, you can restrict a right in the interest of public interest. You cannot restrict a right just to discourage people from exercising that right (see voting in the south).
...and before you say "let the courts decide" remember that DC's idiocy on this issue has been a major stumbling block to representation.
Let me put it this way, so you are okay with DC's incompetence in handling the gun laws blocking our move for voting representation?
My point was that it is not reasonable to argue that District residents shouldn't have representation. I wasn't arguing that it's unreasonable to conclude that the Constitution bars it. I'm just saying that it's unreasonable not to conclude that the Constitution is wrong on this point.
Reid-
If the Constituion is wrong (which I can see) there are only two avenues....
One-(as Martin is so good at advocating in terms of guns) is to sue and have the courts decide that the due process clause of the 14th amendment over-rides the Article 1 Sec. 8 Federal District and allows DC voting representation or
Two-Amend the Constitution.
Everything else is a waste of time. And all the DC vote people know this, but they arent going to work themselves out of a job pointing this out, instead they will go on about how Obama wont put the "taxation" plates on his ride, or other side issues.
Also, what Free State is there to defend? It's the District of Columbia.
Let's be honest DC is an amalgamated revolving door of political transplants, impoverished minorities, and MD/VA wannabes. Any form of "representation" would be a farce.
Yes, I am an MD/VA wannabe, as I 'wannabe' living around people who always say "I wish I could live in DC, it's just too expensive."
Wait, wait, wait...
DC doesn't deserve democracy because Marion Barry was elected to the City Council??
Last time I checked, I don't live in Ward 8 and didn't vote for Mr. Barry. I guess since he lives in NW, Tucker didn't either...
...but then again it's not Tucker's style to point out that little fact...
I do think this post is off base and you have lost any objectivity on Voting Rights for the District.
Molly!
Bubbles!
The Walt Disney World Monorail killed an employee.
Well if DC doesn't get the vote because Mayor Barry then Texas gets given back to Mexico because they elected Bush Governor.
You are pathetic.
I bet you still blame the Jews for killing Jesus. Bush is old news, you got your boy BHO in office - be happy.
Ah I see Bushie boy's intellectual offspring have reared their stupid heads.
Typical liberal response, call somebody stupid - very original.
Go save a whale you dolt.
First of all douche bag I am not a Liberal. I am a Conservative, unlike that dumb shit Bush who wouldn't know conservatism if he got gang banged in the ass by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, so shove your assumptions up you ass.
And if you can actually defend Bush you have just proved you are stupid , no need for me to point it out but it is fun.
Suckers... falling for Martin's bait.
Most of my thoughts have been alreadly been enumerated (we do not have a system for fostering and keeping political talent, I don't think today in a city-wide election that Marion Barry would be elected, why do we have to prove we are "smart enough" to be entrusted with a vote?), but I would particularly like to throw out for consideration Michele Bachman, Tom Tancredo and Katherine Harris and several states' entire legislatures. Crazies are elected all over the place. It's one House member, pretty sure whoever is voted into office will not ruin the whole institution.
It might be fun to do a little digging and confirm where (if anywhere) Mr. Carlson himself is registered to vote ...
Oh wow. Just checked the D.C. BOEE database. He's registered in D.C. As a Democrat.
Shoot. Scandalous enough, I suppose, but I was hoping for "has been voting absentee in Connecticut since he was in college" or somethin like that ...
Obviously he recognizes that, not only is D the only way to go in DC, but that the only votes which matter happen in the primaries.
Y'know, for a "a propagandistic phallus with speaking capabilities" he's right on the money when it comes to marriage equality:
"I'm just for marriage generally. I'm for people making a lifelong commitment. Do you know what I mean? I'm not against gay marriage, actually, and I'm the most right-wing person I know." Carlson later went on to say, "I think, marriage has been a great thing for me, and I think it's a really civilizing force, and I think it would be a civilizing force for gay people too."
Too bad he's on the wrong side on DC voting rights.
Nine years ago the Supreme Court let a couple hundred residents of Florida decide an entire presidential election, and Tucker appeared to be fine with that. But NOW we're gonna start applying the Stupid Test?
Wow - was going to go on a rant about how much I h8 Carlson, but the caption under his photo will do.
Bite me, Tucker.
i pay homage to Queen Elizabeth II despite what anyone thinks. i know how unfair i have been treated. How unjust the system has been. i am disgusted with mob rule, low values and with low minded people. Washington D.C. should be classified as a neutral area, a district not a state. You can throw your hobo masks on anyone and beat up on Tucker Carlson all you want; but you are not fooling me. Washington D.C. is a corrupt battleground. Everyone better be packin heat because the criminals will make a vic of you as easily as a wolf will devour a sheep. Oh! Keep giving sports scholarships and worshiping your elite sports stars while you send young fine people to war. I prefer British Monarch rule opposite to rule by corrupt politicians who are brought selfish fiends;who demolish America. Next D.C. to be declared a country. D.C. should remain neutral. How would you like to be witness to The Great State of Hawaii succeeds from The United States? 400,000 jobs could be made out of green energy projects. That is real stimulus. P. Rico would make a great state. Alaska is loaded with gold and natural gas. We are not poor. We were never broke. It was a myth.
what a royal assbag. someone should gag him with his bow tie. so over it.
It arguable whether the Constitution bars giving DC representation. You might think it does, but there are enough people that know way more about Constitutional law than you or I who think it doesn't.
But that's not the point.
The point is that Carlson said that the constitutionality of the issue is beside the point. He believes as a substantive matter that we do not deserve representation. That is an unacceptable and un-American position. Anyone who believes that tripe should be ashamed of themselves.
However, it probably is at the heart of many people's procedural arguments against granting DC residents representation. And it's why a constitutional amendment will never pass. Most Americans are willing to send other people's children off to war to defend democracy abroad, but they're unwilling to dilute their Representative's vote by 1/435th to do the same here.
There is one solution—One final, awful, dreadfully necessary solution to all our Carlsonian problems:
ban bow ties.
Nip that Tuck-dog!
Someone dynamite that guy's driveway, he must be contained.