Amen Brother!

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Watch this, like right now. Don’t wait, do it now.

15 Responses to Amen Brother!

  1. allen says:

    At may feel good and be fun to watch but Ms. Hogan is really a creature of the legislation that empowers her.

    Yeah, there are ideologues who gravitate towards positions in her agency and yeah, they’ll push the power they’ve been granted as hard as they can but that doesn’t change the fact that if representatives like Rand Paul won’t pull her chain then it’s a bit hypocritical, not to mention kind of pointless, to belabor her in front of cameras.

    I’d much rather Senator Paul propose legislation that cuts the power of the agency then a couple of minutes of video gratification.

  2. This is so ridiculous I can’t believe you find this applicable on a blog that pretends to be “scholarly”.

    “Try to convince me…”

    Unbelievable…Lakoff is right. No thought only frames.

    “Why not do it in a voluntary way…”

    Americans don’t believe in “convincing via force of law”??? Are you kidding me?

    This man is NOT arguing a truth; he is arguing a frame. And that’s dignified program to, by the way.

    • Matthew Ladner says:

      Allen-I’m not sure why you assume that Paul hasn’t filed such legislation.

      Doug-Have fun with your low-flow toilets that don’t work. Luckily technological advances are likely to save us from mercury poisoning when a lightbulb breaks, no thanks to the nanny state.

      • George Mitchell says:

        I have about a two-year supply of old Cascade dishwasher soap. By 2014 or 2015 I will need to live in a different state than Wis or get used to dirty dishes.

      • allen says:

        I guess because those that do don’t have need of staged spectacles to divert from the fact that they don’t.

        Paul certainly has the perfectly legitimate excuse that the reason he hasn’t – gotten the federal government out of the business of regulating toilet tank volume and related sillinesses – is that he doesn’t have the political support. But the scene I watched put me in mind of nothing so much as the descriptions I’ve read of bear- and bull-baiting. Powerful, dangerous creatures extracted from their element, rendered powerless to commit injury and then subject to torment to entertain onlookers.

        Certainly what I watched on that video won’t move us one step closer to repealing or defanging the legislation that empowers Ms. Hogan which is really the problem.

  3. You and I will not be able to have a dialogue on this. Paul grandstanded to appease a constituency and apparently because he enjoys it. Kathleen Hogan was trying to do her job.

    Paul begins by conflating the issues and he blows the whistle of abortion in an Energy Regulations meeting. That is crass and insulting and inappropriate. And he makes no pretense of actually doing his job.

    Rather, I should say, he is performing what he deems his actual role in government: encouraging failure of services by making useless and pointless comments. He is not someone to be proud of.

    You of course make no point either but think that simply saying “nanny state” is an argument.

    • matthewladner says:

      Paul’s job is to represent the people of Kentucky in the Senate. I’d be willing to bet that there many times more people in Kentucky who agree with Senator Paul that mandating toilets you have to flush multiple times and lightbulbs that carry the risk of mercury poisoning is absurd.

      If he is wrong, the people of Kentucky will have the opportunity to vote him out of office in a few years. I wish we had the same opportunity with Hogan. While Paul may have chosen to put himself in the crosshairs of the powerful low-flow toilet and mercury lightbulb constituencies, he seems willing to risk their wrath.

      • Why do you suppose you defend Paul’s speech? Are you from Kentucky? Were you deeply offended to have a regulatory body managing resources like water (which is becoming very scarce in case you hadn’t heard)? Did you like his “choice” to start “off-topic” and rant instead of asking her real questions designed to show how bad the regulations are for his constituency?

      • Alsadius says:

        Douglas – I like Paul’s speech for the same reason as I like speeches from plenty of other politicians I’ll never have a chance to vote for or be represented by. He has a principle I agree with, and expresses it well.

  4. George Mitchell says:

    I thought the low point for Paul was when the EPA lady offered to help him find a toilet.

  5. matthewladner says:

    I hadn’t heard anything about Kentucky going arid, and even if it had, does it make sense to mandate the use of toilets that require more flushing and thus use more water?

    On lighting, once the technology advances past the point of turning your home into a superfund site when a lightbulb breaks, which it already has in a number of cases, I expect that the market will embrace new technology lightbulbs so long as they produce a net benefit to the consumer. If some consumers prefer for some reason to keep using the old lightbulbs despite the fact that they frequently need replacing and cost more to use, why is it any of your or Hogan’s business?

    I have no concern whatsoever over what kind of toilet you buy, nor what sort of lightbulb you use. If you want to flush over and over again, knock yourself out.

    I have no such desire. Leave me the hell alone.

  6. MOMwithAbrain says:

    This is why I would like to call Rand Paul…MR. PRESIDENT one day!

  7. The first thing he did was ask about abortion. “I was wondering if you’re pro-choice.” This is a script on offer from Frank Luntz…just blow whistle “X” and whatever else you say won’t matter. Imagine coming to a governmental panel expecting to really discuss your work and having a self-righteous person as you if you’re “pro-choice”.

    Then he simply starts accusing her of “positions” in order to make his speech that does not address any actual issues; In other words he is not “working” at the job of trying to make government work for its people–he’s trying to make it not work.

    “most members of your administration probably would be frank But you are a liar and a liberal who plays with words and would be up front to characterize themselves as being pro-choice for abortion.”

    Here begins a conflation and a FRAME that aligns abortion with ENERGY regulations.

    “But you’re really anti-choice on every other consumer item.”

    Do we consider abortion a consumer item?

    “that you’ve listed here. Including light bulbs, refrigerators, toilets, you name it, you can’t go around your house without being told what to buy. You restrict my choices, you don’t care about my choices. You don’t care about the consumer, frankly.”

    This is exactly NOT what is happening. Rather “industry” practices are regulated and people are protected from bad practices; so that your choices are SAFE and tested PRIOR to the right amount of people needing to die before a product is regulated.

    • Alsadius says:

      People other than Frank Luntz have come up with witty lines before, just like people other than Saul Alinsky have played politics mean before. And his accusations are literal truth(though I have to say, he left himself way, way too open to “full of shit” jokes with his toilet complaints).

  8. George Mitchell says:

    For Ron Paul’s next committee hearing:

    Crime Rises in Oakland, and Dim Lights Get Blame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: